Why Ruby?

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Ary Borenszweig" <ary at esperanto.org.ar> wrote in message 
news:iegfii$jub$1 at digitalmars.com...
> This is very serious. Walter and the rest always complain that C++ is very 
> hard to
> understand, has a very long and verbose syntax and only "a few" can really 
> master
> it. And look at that code. It's impossible to understand. One has to jump 
> from one
> place to another, back and forth, wondering "Why that alias?" and so on. 
> The
> nested depth of curly braces go beyond four and five sometimes. Oh, wait. 
> But I
> can do "scope(exit) ..." and then I save myself one level.
>
> So imagine if it takes all that effort to understand what it is written, 
> how hard
> it should have been to write it. Probably it's the result of "this doesn't 
> work,
> let's try this as a hack" and everything ends up being a huge hack.
>
> Please, please, please, look back at what you've done and think hard if it 
> is
> really the right way to go. Everything seems overly complex by now.
>
> </just trying to help>

FWIW, I understood it fairly easily, only took a few minutes, and I wasn't 
already familiar with the code for those modules before. But any C++ with 
anything like templates or STL just leaves me completely lost, and I 
practically grew up on C/C++. Not saying there couldn't be improvements of 
course, but I think it's still a far cry from C++-level.