Why Ruby?

[retard]

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:01:37 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:

> Simen kjaeraas wrote:
>> The problem of D's lambda syntax is it is optimized for longer
>> functions. Usually, the delegates I write are one line long. I cannot
>> see that this syntax collides with anything at the moment, but feel
>> free to enlighten me:
>> 
>> { => 4; }
>> { a => 2*a; }
>> { a, b => a>b; }
>> { => @ + @; } // turns into { a, b => a + b; }
>> 
>> 
> If size and simplicity of typing are critical, are those really better
> than:
> 
>    "a>b"

In case you didn't see, two additional problems were also listed earlier 
in this thread:

 - template bloat (different strings generate new instances of the sort 
in the sorting example)
 - symbol visibility problems because of wrong scoping