[ComputerGuru]

Hey, so I would've taken a few more seconds to be less blunt if I thought the author was reading this - sorry about that. Also, you say you're "not a fantastic writer" but I think you're being way too hard on yourself: the writing was just fine and I had no problems with it; it was the teasing of technical content without followup that led to my comment.

That said, for me the issue was that the introduction read like "this is going to explain the technical reasons why Ruby 3 rocks" and each section/bit thereafter was ostensibly "technical reason x/y/z why this is better" but then no section really followed up to the promise of actually providing any hard technical details (this is aside from the inaccuracies about other languages).

So, for me at least, it was about expectations not matching the content. I'm not a Ruby dev, but I am a programming language internals fanboy and I was excited to get a technical peek into what a hard-core Ruby user was saying had changed but found myself really stymied/disappointed that it seemed like the same bullet points were being repeated but with no technical content getting delivered.

TBH, it's really hard to write for nerds like us. I'm sure if I'd organically discovered your post, perhaps while Googling something you wrote about or if shared from a Ruby devs' group, I think I'd have come away with a different conclusion from the article. But seeing it featured here on HN played a role in making me think it would have juicy technical content which kept being referenced but then kept just out of arm's reach.

Thanks for trying, though! Sorry for being grumpy.