[npsimons]

> Every time this book is mentioned, I feel like a moron.

Admitting you don't know or understand is the first step to knowledge. And this may not be a shortcoming on your end - many Great Books of literature are well-known to be good enough that you get something out of them upon each reading, hence those lists of "ten books you'd take to a deserted island."

Perhaps there are technical works like that, and this is one of them? Not arguing for obfuscation, just that some concepts don't boil down easily into bite sized chunks, and very often those are the most valuable.

[ornornor]

Maybe. I just wish I could see what people see in this book, at least out of curiosity.

To me, it’s a very convoluted way to learn ruby with a ton of irrelevant comic strips and pop culture references I don’t get that just add to the sizable cognitive load of learning a new language.

[npsimons]

> To me, it’s a very convoluted way to learn ruby with a ton of irrelevant comic strips and pop culture references I don’t get that just add to the sizable cognitive load of learning a new language.

Fair, and to each their own. I do appreciate having cut and dry specs and whitepapers, but too often I feel that we as programmers take things too seriously and take for granted aesthetics. And while aesthetics may be subjective, for me at least, having multiple ways to approach something (like a new (to me) programming language) helps me really wrap my head around it and build a mental model.

[michaelcampbell]

FWIW, I'm in your boat. I never "got" it, though I had some years of Ruby experience under my belt by the time it came out. The whole thing felt rather cultish without ... substance, to me.

But, people I respect love it, so I guess it's just different strokes for different folks, and that's perfectly fine.

[benburton]

You're not alone!