From: "NARUSE, Yui" Date: 2011-09-09T04:19:08+09:00 Subject: [ruby-core:39374] Re: RubySpec vs CRuby's test/... (2011/09/09 1:29), Michael Klishin wrote: > Yukihiro Matsumoto: > >> test/* is no way to test Ruby, it's test suites for MRI. You know the >> difference. > > Matz, > > We all know the difference. The question is, as Ruby the language evolves, why would CRuby developers not use RubySpec to specify *language* behavior (which is what a lot of test/* tests currently do)? Right now there is a fair share of > duplication of effort going on and it is disappointing. What testing framework produces what output is a red herring: that can be easily changed in a week. Why you said test-all is duplicated though test-all exists before RubySpec? > I think not using RubySpec as the primary test suite for every Ruby implementation (including MRI) is damaging to the long term Ruby competitiveness/relevance. Fragmentation is a terrible thing for developers. This does not go hand in hand with the (stated) goal of Ruby to make developers happy. The spec we believe is not the implementation or tests or doc. It is abstract one and exists over them. On this point, our direction is different from other implementations. Anyway why you want us to blame RubySpec? I don't like RubySpec because of its idea, Windows Support, RSpec like syntax, and so on. Moreover why you want us to work? On beneficiary-pays principle, you should use your hands or you should show our benefit. Only to request is not good thing on OSS projects. -- NARUSE, Yui