Microsoft is trying to monopolize an industry? Stop the presses!

I wish Microsoft never entered the video game industry in the first place. They made it worse for everyone for their own profit.

One of my favorite aspects of Ruby is that everything is an object with methods. Adding global operators/functions like this would only complicate the language.

> But we also -- perhaps more often? -- ask questions like "Is this item part of this group?" We are asking a question about the item.

Here we are actually asking the group a question about itself. An item would not know a group's contents.

If we're talking about the natural language question, "Is Bob part of the Physics Department," then sometimes we conceptualize "groups" as more like tags. Like, Bob has a tag that says, "->physics-dept." And so we ask Bob if he has that tag. He doesn't need to know the entire list of people who also have that tag in order to answer that question authoritatively.

> One of my favorite aspects of Ruby is that everything is an object with methods. Adding global operators/functions like this would only complicate the language.

But people love operators, that's why Ruby already includes loads of them instead of giving them identifier names and requiring you to call them with a dot. You have x+y instead of x.plus y, x==y instead of x.equals? y, x<y instead of x.less_than? y, most people write x..y instead of Range.new(x,y), etc. I don't think most Ruby programmers or the language designers agree with you about not wanting operators.

Totally agree with you. I do think it is more natural to ask a collection if it has an element. On the other hand, it would be possible for Object to have an in? method that would receive a collection.

Tools don't necessarily become less useful with time.

The best guide to Ruby that I've seen is "Programming Ruby: The Pragmatic Programmer's Guide". http://ruby-doc.com/docs/ProgrammingRuby/

Ruby is duck-typed, so it is advantageous to write code and tests that are not tied to classes at all.

http://www.poodr.com/ goes in-depth about this.

Well, the same kind of contracts approach could be used to enforce a duck-typed set of behaviors:

  [:quacks], [:barks] => Maybe[:flies]

Some Rubyists get pedantic about duck typing. It's just a tool to design good systems, not an article of faith.

Yeah the contract here is a form of nominative type checking, it could just as well be structural.

SEEKING WORK - remote

High-quality custom web apps. Effective interface design, good code w/ Ruby on Rails, emphasis on agility, long-term provision of maintenance.

http://bytesofmight.com

You can achieve this effect in any common language with a Makefile.

Early on I took a close look at Pixi.js, though it turned out to not be the right fit for the project. However, it is planned for Yeah to have an interchangeable WebGL renderer at some point, similar to Pixi.js and Three.js.

If you're looking at WebGL, check out StackGL. It's pretty much intended as a low level WebGL wrapper with a modular codebase, and lots of high level modules built on top of it.

You might want to also look at Phaser.io, which is built on pixi.js and is a full game library.

Also, it's open source and free and quite nice to work with.

Thank you for the kind words!

Great suggestion, I will add all those to the README soon; in the meantime here it is:

IRC channel: Freenode #yeahrb

Email: skoofoo@gmail.com

Issues: https://github.com/yeahrb/yeah/issues

Thanks, I did not catch that before. I hope that the confusion will subside after Yeah becomes more well known.

You should add an exclamation point to the end. It'll make it sound more exciting, and less confusing.

or don't do that