Dumb Comments about Readability:
I'm okay with people promoting Ruby to Java programmers, in the theory that Java isn't the be-all end-all of applications. However, I'm fairly not okay with amazingly stupid claims such as:
PHP and Perl haven't consistently produced readable code for larger applications.
What exactly does that even mean? Are PHP and Perl somehow preventing people from writing maintainable code? Does Ruby somehow enforce good design, good naming conventions, encapsulation, and consistent interfaces where PHP and Perl don't?
Okay, I've often pointed out that PHP has a lot of flaws that make it difficult to write and maintain applications beyond a few pages -- lack of namespaces, inconsistencies in the standard library, backwards incompatibilities, and weird syntax issues. However, the most important work is that of the programmer. Programming languages and libraries are just tools. If you're a deranged ape with no sense of design or style, of course you're not going to write maintainable code, whether PHP, Perl, Ruby, Java, Lisp, or even XSLT.
It's probably never going to happen, but a debate worth having is whether one language can be an order of magnitude more maintainable than another. Aside from the obvious non-contenders (Malbolge, BF, and Befunge, for example), are there any mainstream programming languages that really enforce any sort of meaningfully good style that actively prevents people from writing bad code? Frankly, Python's enforced indentation is a heck of a lot less useful than enforced meaningful identifiers.
Why are there so many unmaintainable applications written in PHP and Perl? Because PHP and Perl let undisciplined, inexperienced programmers write useful code. So does Ruby -- but give it the popularity and longevity of PHP and Perl (at least in English-speaking circles) and I bet you'll see plenty of bad code written in Ruby too.
This seems like a variant of the Hackers and Painters fallacy. (Paul Graham is rich. Paul Graham writes Lisp. Therefore everyone who writes Lisp will get rich.) "All of the good, smart programmers I know are using Ruby. They write good code. Therefore you can't write bad code in Ruby!"
It feels like there's another fallacy in there somewhere. I want to call it the Pre-Post-Java Blindspot, where Java was the beginning of Serious Programming Languages and only its successor will unseat it. (Like any good fallacy, you have to ignore history, such as the fact that Ruby's between 10 and 12 years old.)
(I mean, if you really just can't read regular expressions, why not admit it? You could start a twelve-step program or something.)