# Names, Names, Names, and Distractions

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/names-names-names-and-distractions/97127>\
**Category:** Ruby\
**Created:** [July 5, 2006, 5:25am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/names-names-names-and-distractions/97127 "2006-07-05T05:25:00Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![casper\_the\_ghost](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/58956e/32.png) [@casper\_the\_ghost](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/casper_the_ghost)\
**Post date:** [July 5, 2006, 5:25am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/names-names-names-and-distractions/97127/1 "2006-07-05T05:25:00Z")

</div>

Dear Matz,

With all the discussion of (the mere?) naming of certain method  
invocations lately I began to wonder about how your time is best spent.  
I wonder if you would care to comment on the tradeoff between your time  
in discussing changes and implementing those changes, given a greater or  
lesser extent of influence of those with whom discussions are being had.  
In other words would we generally be better off buzzing off and letting  
you work?

As much as you are a fan of Perl, or Larry at least, we may have  
observed a certain stagnancy with Perl, and this may have a relation to  
there being more people being allowed (and wanting to have) input; and  
the O’Reilly book is known as the Camel book, perhaps for a reason?  
(Hint: horses and committees. Also, does anyone know as to whether the  
use of this etching was deliberate? BTW, this joke is most unfair on  
camels too I might add; as there is no such thing as poor design: only  
better and worse fitness for purpose, which is a human concept and  
anthropocentrically biased anyways. Please note that I am no great fan  
of camels as they can be cantankerous and spit.)

I realise that a response from you to this question which if it is  
essentially that the direction of the language is going to change to the  
extent of nil to very little as a consequence of everyone’s efforts  
might piss some people off; although I assume that this isn’t likely to  
be the response, since the level of interaction ‘should’ be indicative  
of your interest in receiving them. Yet I would still be interested in  
a comment from you and for such to potentially influence the process,  
even if it is little more than encouraging (some of) us (me?) to buzz  
off voluntarily.

I also realise that such comment or discussion may already have been  
had, in which case I’ll take silence to mean that this is sufficiently  
commonly known—such that this is not at issue and lest I waste any  
more of your time… (I’m aware of your comments surrounding  
completeness of suggestions, but that’s all.) I’m mostly curious, a tad  
deferential, and a little concerned that ‘we’ might be delaying 2.0!

Sincerely,

thoran

P.S. Note that as I have sufficiently little say on the subject of  
language design I have the self-imposed discipline to shut up!