> Of course in ruby, nobody is actually adding new syntax, although that's a common misconception.
This is the argument I usually use for anyone who has a problem with it yet if they've already decided they don't like it, it doesn't do much to pursued them. On the other hand, being able to rewrite operators in Ruby does take it a bit in that direction—While not strictly new syntax, changing the meaning of an operator can really throw people off. As an example in the standard library, there is `Dir[]`. `Dir[]` is a shortcut to `Dir.glob`. Sure, it's technically doing some kind of access, but everyone knows it as hash access and certainly aren't accustom to passing a pattern to it. Elixir libs do stuff like this.
And I'm sorry, I don't know if can actually add new syntax in Elixir, but you can certainly change the meaning of existing syntax (as in Ruby).
This is the argument I usually use for anyone who has a problem with it yet if they've already decided they don't like it, it doesn't do much to pursued them. On the other hand, being able to rewrite operators in Ruby does take it a bit in that direction—While not strictly new syntax, changing the meaning of an operator can really throw people off. As an example in the standard library, there is `Dir[]`. `Dir[]` is a shortcut to `Dir.glob`. Sure, it's technically doing some kind of access, but everyone knows it as hash access and certainly aren't accustom to passing a pattern to it. Elixir libs do stuff like this.
And I'm sorry, I don't know if can actually add new syntax in Elixir, but you can certainly change the meaning of existing syntax (as in Ruby).