Why Ruby?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 12/11/10 11:05 AM, so wrote:
>> 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.

Those are the same ways of saying the same thing. You use C to implement 
Ruby's garbage collector. Why? Because you have to. Why again? Because 
it's the right tool for the job. In particular, C can do that because it 
has pointer arithmetic - a freedom discriminated against by the speaker. 
Consistency FTW I guess :o).

Andrei