Why Ruby?

[so]

> I find this issue interesting. I think the "the right tool for the job"
> is justification for the existence of multiple languages, but on the  
> other hand, I'd agree with him that it's overused.
>
> If you consider all problem domains, and then ask: what is the minimum  
> number of languages required to be "the best tool" or "close enough to  
> the best tool" for all those jobs? For sure the minimum number is > 1.
> But I suspect the minimum isn't very high, essentially because most real  
> world tasks involve a combination of several problem domains.
> I think the minimum might be as small as five, and I seriously doubt  
> it's more than a dozen.

The usage of "the right tool for the job" is sometimes just BS.
For example scripting C/C++/D.

You use another language there mostly because you have to. Not because  
they are the right tool.
Providing that feature probably not that hard for a language. If it is so  
hard/impossible i want to know reasons, please enlighten me!
If you don't provide one, the lesser beings(programmers) fall back to  
another languages, create a culture that make other lesser beings believe  
that is the way it should be.

Not to hijack this one but on the other thread i asked why this is needed.
I am not here asking for syntax or commanding phobos team to implement  
something, I just want to know about technical limitations and license  
issues, but got no answer to these.
Why? Either i am labeled here as a troll (maybe something worse since my  
usage of English is not the best) or people here lack the vision (Oh  
vision here actually bad usage since this bad practice have been here  
forever, lack of eyesight would be the better definition)
One another thing might be that the community finds this issue is not an  
important, (which makes me ask myself what you guys actually developing).

Thanks!

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/