I don't believe I agree. Ruby is straightforward; I don't have any trouble at all understanding it. I enjoy _why's cartoons. That doesn't mean that reading _why's cartoons is in any way a good way (for me) to learn Ruby, which is a counterexample to your "probably".
Ruby is hardly difficult.
(For the sake of anecdotes: I find Python to be stultifyingly simplistic, with a number of negative features, and generally poor libraries. I find Ruby to be the wrong balance between dynamism and performance. I find both of them to lack syntactic abstraction.)
I didn't mean to imply that Ruby was difficult (though I could see how you might read my reply that way). I merely meant that Ruby embodies a certain philosophy of programming and programming languages, and, while _why is an extreme example, he is still a very accurate embodiment of the Ruby philosophy.
Ruby is hardly difficult.
(For the sake of anecdotes: I find Python to be stultifyingly simplistic, with a number of negative features, and generally poor libraries. I find Ruby to be the wrong balance between dynamism and performance. I find both of them to lack syntactic abstraction.)