From: doodpants@... (Karl von Laudermann)
Date: 2004-06-12T02:03:44+09:00
Subject: Switch to .ruby extension?

The current convention for Ruby source file names is to end them with
a .rb extension. This strikes me as too minimalistic. Why not .ruby?

File extensions of more than three characters are very commonplace,
now that Windows supports them. HTML files generally have a .html
extension; you very rarely see .htm anymore. And Java source and
object files have .java and .class extensions, respectively. "ruby" is
only two more letters than "rb", but I think it's clearer and more
aesthetically pleasing.

So, I propose a change in the convention from .rb to .ruby. Now, I'm
not suggesting that everyone change all of their existing scripts and
libraries, or even the files in the Ruby distribution. That would be
excessive for such a small thing. But, for example, the Windows
installer could associate both .rb and .ruby files with ruby.exe, and
we could start using .ruby in new projects.

Yes it's a silly little thing. But ever since Y2K, I've been wary of
excessive abbreviation. :-) Besides, it's the attention to the little
things that makes Ruby so appealing.