Re: Collaborative Ruby Language Specification

John Lam (CLR) wrote:
>>> At RubyConf 2006, there was an implementers' summit, at which the
> YARV, Rubinius, jRuby and (I think) CLR people were all represented.
> There was not to my knowledge a Cardinal or Carbone representative.
> 
> I was at that summit (and will be at the MountainWest summit). However, I've been spending all of my time over the past couple of months moving my family to a new country and starting a new job at Microsoft - so this is a way for me to restart the conversations around this - at least from my end. I'm really happy that I finally have cycles to start devoting to Ruby again!
> 
> By the end of next week, I should have a reasonable core set of stuff in RSpec form, and I'll be looking for a place to put it.
> 
> One thing that I'm learning at Microsoft is the influence of the legal department on things that I can and cannot do. I'm still discovering what those things are, so please be patient as I figure it out.
> 
>>> I'd much rather see the concurrency primitives made as elegant, clean and efficient as is humanly possible in all of the implementations, for example.
> 
> Amen.
> 
> Strange question of the day: under what terms is BFTS licensed? I didn't see a description of it in Rubyforge.

Knowing Ryan it's probably a pretty liberal license. Also see the tests 
under RubyTests, which are not as complete for individual classes but 
which cover a much wider range of language and library features.

And of course JRuby's tests are quite large too, and complete enough 
that during massive redesign and refactoring changes all we generally 
need to do is get the test suite green again...and the apps are all back 
to working.

I've been trying to get implementers to all use RubyTests for their test 
repo, but everyone seems to want to have things locally. C'est la vie.

- Charlie