From: Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
Date: 2001-07-13T06:26:32+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:17758] Re: Ruby on Slashdot


On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, David Alan Black wrote:
> > If you want to really push this idea forward, let's have:
> > 	1. two implementations of the whole interpreter+lib;
> > 	2. a test suite;
> > 	3. a contracts suite.
> I follow #2 and #3 more than #1 -- not as a general matter but just in
> this connection.  That is, I'm not sure why/whether the process of
> capturing a standard from a given version of Ruby would require a
> second implementation.

Because you have to take into account the programmers who will do it and
their motivations.

That is, unless we collect $50K to pay a programmer for a year
specifically to do that. 

> > IMHO unless some people here are really motivated to document+stdize Ruby,
> > this will begin to happen way before formal description happens.
> I agree, and I'm not sure how I feel about it.  If it isn't clear
> exactly what they're implementing (i.e., what exactly is "Ruby"), that
> probably won't solve the problem that some have mentioned of
> acceptance and credibility in the corporate world.

What I'm suggesting is that more documentation and testing is likely to
happen as a by-product of a second implementation.

(This is assuming this second impl is both open-source and developed
transparently with the help of the mailing-lists) 

matju