Why Ruby?

[Andrej Mitrovic]

imo, those @'s (or monkeys, as we like to call them) are a sore pain
in the eye. And what if you need to do some simple arithmetic with the
numbered arguments?

someFunc!(@1+1>@2)(x);

Might be a silly example, but code like this could exist and will be confusing.

On 12/19/10, Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/19/10, Walter Bright <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> Yes, because in practice "a>b" must end up being evaluated in the wrong
>>> scope. I've used std.algorithm very little so far, and yet I've still
>>> found
>>> that limitation to be a problem.
>>
>> ..and if you're going beyond that,
>> there's
>> the fuller, complete syntax.
>>
>
> Exactly. Inventing a whole new syntax or borrowing some kind of
> functional-language style syntax would only alienate those already
> familiar with C syntax.
>