@headius I'm paying attention, but at this point would just be +1ing. Thanks for staying on top of this.
-
-
Replying to @joshsusser
@joshsusser Yeah, that's fine…I'm just getting tired of folks fighting the feature but not debating it intelligently (or at all).3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @headius
@headius@joshsusser a chorus of 'please remove' is better than their silence, imho.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @steveklabnik
@steveklabnik@joshsusser Honestly, I don't think it is. It's obvious matz wants the feature, so we need evidence to get it removed.5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @headius
@headius@joshsusser you have more experience with this, so I'll defer to you, but I can't imagine that a bunch of complaints wouldn't help1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @steveklabnik
@steveklabnik@joshsusser Complaints with no substance are just noise.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @headius
@headius@joshsusser "I as a Rubyist are not happy with this change" has substance.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @steveklabnik
@steveklabnik@joshsusser Technical debate does not proceed from personal opinion. Give me facts, man! :)2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @headius
@headius@joshsusser who said it's a technical debate? This is a social problem. Matz wants to include a feature that many of us don't want.4 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @steveklabnik
@steveklabnik@headius I don't hate refinements, but I would -much- rather see concurrency and stdlib improvements.#priorities1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@kyledrake @steveklabnik @headius I wish they'd fix the GIL's C API to have granular locking/unlocking functions :(
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.