This might be a minor nitpick, but it always bugs me when Ruby on Rails is listed as a language, particularly by people who should know better (developers). There's even a section for frameworks on the site. People searching for code snippets should be able to understand that Ruby is a language and Ruby on Rails is a framework.
Just because it modifies the standard library classes doesn't make it a separate language in its own right. If you used Java but with a different implementation for, say, linked lists than the standard one you'd still be using Java.
Absolutely! Rails is written in Ruby and is run by the Ruby interpreter. No doubt about it. But if you dig in you find that pretty much every Ruby class (including the low-level ones) has been modified for use in Rails. In addition, a lot of Rails code is written in a purpose-built DSL. Rails has built-in DSLs for web routing, email sending/receiving, database queries, &c. You can split hairs and say that these are APIs and not real DSLs, but I think the point about dynamic languages blurring the lines is totally fair. You could implement the core Java spec in Ruby by modifying the base classes, and at some point you aren't writing Ruby any more.
Their definition of "language" is pretty fuzzy. Node.js and Javascript are separate languages, and .NET is also included in the language section. The only actual programming languages under that tab right now are Javascript and PHP.
Thanks. Creating simple categories for the vast quantity of frameworks, languages, apis, etc out there is hard. We're hoping to get better at it as time progresses
