I doubt that Ruby is so feature poor to justify Perl having more than 50 tests for every 1 of Ruby's.
Perhaps Ruby isn't "feature poor". Perhaps Perl is "edge-case rich".
The language is rather complex. Browsing at random through the dreaded Camel Book, here are some things I find, in no particular order: a goto statement with three forms (page 105), typeglobs (pg 115), explicit syntax for references (pg 116), a text-formatting mechanism in core (pg 121), expressions that evaluate completely differently in "scalar context" vs "list context" (pg 45), taint mode (pg 357)...
A more fundamental question is: Where do these numbers come from? And an even more fundamental question is: Since when did counting tests prove anything? Isn't that just like counting lines of code, or counting the number of bugs that have had to be fixed? (Give me a day or two and I'll double the raw number of Ruby's tests! I'll just add more assertions!)
Perhaps Ruby isn't "feature poor". Perhaps Perl is "edge-case rich".
The language is rather complex. Browsing at random through the dreaded Camel Book, here are some things I find, in no particular order: a goto statement with three forms (page 105), typeglobs (pg 115), explicit syntax for references (pg 116), a text-formatting mechanism in core (pg 121), expressions that evaluate completely differently in "scalar context" vs "list context" (pg 45), taint mode (pg 357)...
A more fundamental question is: Where do these numbers come from? And an even more fundamental question is: Since when did counting tests prove anything? Isn't that just like counting lines of code, or counting the number of bugs that have had to be fixed? (Give me a day or two and I'll double the raw number of Ruby's tests! I'll just add more assertions!)