I think the point about expressiveness is exactly what makes ruby so divisive: It is great when you are deep within the ecosystem or do exactly what the ecosystem expects you to want to do, and an absolute pain if you want to do anything non-standard.
The supports_feature-method is probably defined somewhere 5 abstractions deep. If you are lucky that is, it might also be part of some library's weird meta-programming of supports-* that no LSP can point you towards. I've never worked in an ecosystem that celebrates implicitness as much as ruby does, and it is driving me nuts.
The fact that finished code looks great and reads well doesn't balance the scales in my book.
The supports_feature-method is probably defined somewhere 5 abstractions deep. If you are lucky that is, it might also be part of some library's weird meta-programming of supports-* that no LSP can point you towards. I've never worked in an ecosystem that celebrates implicitness as much as ruby does, and it is driving me nuts.
The fact that finished code looks great and reads well doesn't balance the scales in my book.