From: Austin Ziegler Date: 2005-10-18T23:21:18+09:00 Subject: Re: A couple of questions/statements from a Ruby neohacker On 10/17/05, Dave Bettin wrote: > 1) Consistency in naming/coding conventions. The standard library > module and class list is not the prettiest thing to look at. Is there > a standard for naming/coding conventions in Ruby? I believe it is very > important for Ruby to have consistency with its conventions. "That's the nice thing about standards. There's so many to choose from!" (Attributed to various people over the years.) There are definite *conventions* in Ruby: CamelCase for classes, CONSTANT_NAMES for constants, and snake_case for methods. The standard library is supposed to, I believe, be 2sp indentation, but not all modules are that way. Most are. > 2) A solid/sophisticated VM. Speed/scalability/virtualization is > crucial. And I am not sure that the CLR or JVM is the answer, I believe > it will cause much more pain then gain for Ruby. I know there is YARV > but is it really going to see the light of day? Yes. See the RubyConf 2005 presentation slides just posted. > 3) Finally, the unixisms in the library. Face it we live in a > heterogeneous world and these libraries must face this reality. I > understand the ancestry of Ruby is unix but will we see better system > abstractions for the libraries in the future? Maybe the answer to number > will this question too. Honestly, I think that most of these are good things. However, I have promised Matz that I will be doing some work in the Windows side of the filesystem support when M17N strings are added. Daniel Berger is also doing a lot of work with respect to that, and I suspect we will see very strong work in this area leading up to Ruby 2.0. -austin -- Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca