> the problem with this statement is that less code != readable code
Never said that. When writing code I never go for the least possible number of symbols (if I did, I'd write traditional APL). Still, more concise code is often closer to what you want done than the details of how you'll get it done. While I find Ruby's syntax a bit confusing at times (and that's why I prefer Python) I cannot deny idiomatic Ruby is very close to intention than to implementation (to a fault).
Never said that. When writing code I never go for the least possible number of symbols (if I did, I'd write traditional APL). Still, more concise code is often closer to what you want done than the details of how you'll get it done. While I find Ruby's syntax a bit confusing at times (and that's why I prefer Python) I cannot deny idiomatic Ruby is very close to intention than to implementation (to a fault).