[3cats-in-a-coat]

I'm not objecting to your article, but to this language and its (you called it!) "useless Ruby sugars". People sometimes use humor to mask suppressed pain, I've noticed.

A smart individual can adapt to any environment and its quirks and thrive. But some of their capacity always goes towards serving the "quirks adaptations". It's kind of like GPT. It's a smart bot, and if you ask it to answer a math puzzle by writing backwards in Romanian haikus - it will. But the effort to make haikus in backwards Romanian make its math puzzle answer that much more likely to be wrong.

I have no shadow of a doubt that people who are used to Ruby know every shade of gray in how to forward arguments through byzantine syntax. Much like PHP programmers have zero issues with every function in stdlib randomly switching needle/haystack parameter order, or remembering which identifiers are case sensitive and which aren't, and the mix of conditions where an identifier needs a $ in front or doesn't need it. Or which one of 10 different stdlib APIs doing kind of the same, but in different state of deprecation and introduction they should use. Or the fact PHP has a type system, but not for the most common data type (array), and there are two modes of validating parameters (strict and non-strict) which can be switched on and off per file and bomb on you unexpectedly when combining both, despite your code is logically correct in isolation. It's trivial stuff to them. They can juggle all this and more. But someone coming from outside would take one look and say "how about no". Because PHP for all its advancements is not a good language.

And Ruby is also not a good language. In fact, it's clearly getting worse over time.