From: doodpants@... (Karl von Laudermann)
Date: 2004-06-13T01:08:37+09:00
Subject: Re: Switch to .ruby extension?

Neil Stevens <neil @ hakubi.us> wrote in message news:<3Rlyc.22289$TR1.4566@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
> Karl von Laudermann wrote:
> 
> > ... we could start using .ruby in new projects.
> 
> What stops you from doing so now?

Well, at home I have a Mac, so I will probably use .ruby from now on,
since I can just start each file with the line "#!/usr/local/bin/ruby"
to tell it how to run. However, I'll have to specify the full filename
when I use the require or load methods. But at work, where I use
Windows, I'd have to manually map the .ruby extension to ruby.exe on
every machine that the scripts have to run on. I will have to remember
to do this each time a new machine needs to run my Ruby scripts, when
I first install Ruby on it. So I'll probably stick to .rb at work.

I'm just proposing the following:

1) Ruby should be modified so that you don't have to specify the file
extension when using require or load, if the file ends with .ruby,
just like is already true with files that end with .rb.

2) The Windows installer should associate .ruby with ruby.exe, just
like it already does with .rb

AFAIK, these are the only two things that would need to be done to
make .ruby as "supported" an extension as .rb is now.

But ideally, I'd also like to see a switch to .ruby as being the norm
in the Ruby community. That means that, for example, if a newbie is
reading a Ruby tutorial, the tutorial might say "Ruby scripts are
typically stored in files ending with .ruby", whereas right now such
existing tutorials would say .rb instead. Also, if said newbie is
downloading sample Ruby programs, he would see that the files
typically end in .ruby.

To the person who said that users will never see installed library
files, I must respectfully disagree. I know that I've poked through
the Ruby lib directory out of curiosity to see what's there. And when
I download a new library, I generally poke through the installer
directories before running the install. Heck, usually the library has
an install script called setup.rb at the top level of the installer
directory, so there's no way to avoid seeing that. So my point is, I
do often see files ending in .rb that I didn't write. The impression I
can't avoid getting is that .rb is the standard extension, and that
it's what I therefore should use myself.

To sum up, what I'm saying is, I'd like to see .ruby become supported
as a standard extension, just like .rb already is, by doing the 2
things mentioned above. In addition, I'd *ideally* like everyone to
agree with me and start treating .ruby as the standard extension, so
that newbies will get the impression that it's the standard extension
when they see everyone else's Ruby files. But I realize that different
people have different tastes, so I'm not holding my breath on the
latter. :-) Simply having both extensions be supported is fine.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go to the Perl newsgroup and
propose that they change the standard extension from .pl to something
more Perl-like, such as .$`_
:-)