From: Tesla Date: 2005-08-20T05:03:44+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby Specifications Josh Charles wrote: >>So, I don't think this makes Ruby a "hacker" language. Any hacker can >>use ANSI C or C# or PHP or Python or Perl or Ruby and make a mockery of >>the language and version updates. A professional programmer and >> >>>>vendor<< will know that producing a valuable product for his/her >> >>client requires responsibility, building stability into their product, >>and following a protective process in upgrading. > > > in the case of .NET, however, the changes that are going to happen > have been documented ahead of time so that you can plan. The Specs > for C# 2.0 have been around for what, 2 years now? The change to > generics and other things is going to break alot of currently working > .NET code, but that change is still several months in the future, > giving everyone alot of time to prepare. > > I think that a well communicated roadmap would be alot better than > specs. Does such a roadmap exist for ruby? I don't know. I'm new > here. > > Yes a road map is a better way. Mostly because the specifications don't really solve the problem breaking compatiblility. Ruby is a scripting language. At least there is nothing I have found that says different. Scripting languages do not need specifications when they don't have a home. PHP,PERL and others do not have a spec because they are fluid enough to fit in where ever they are at the time. Javascript is an exception because to has to live in a client web browser. .NET languages are not scripting any longer, which is probably why I think ASP.NET sucks. They have also jumped on adding javascript as default language to the CLR because of its spec. Visual Basic 6 never really had a finished spec so they are dumping it and vbscript is gone with it. But there are two ways of handling a specification. The first is to take it and build on it and make sure you have backwards compatibility ie. c and c++. The second is to use it to create something completely different or "better" ie. C# 1.0 and C# 2.0 So if Ruby becomes a scripting language without a home but with a specifiction then I would hope that it is because someone wants to build on it not change it into something different every 2 years. -- Tesla - Alternating current, the first modern day opensource project?