From: David Alan Black Date: 2001-10-08T05:03:46+09:00 Subject: [ruby-talk:22210] Re: Let's work on Windows support Hello -- On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, Avdi B. Grimm wrote: > On Sun, 2001-10-07 at 09:01, Albert Wagner wrote: > > Furio, Ruby is licensed in a way that allows YOU to modify it anyway you see > > fit. If you want to modify it to run on .NET then have at it. Just please > > stop trying to convince others to do it for you. And please don't call the > > end result "Ruby". > > If it will execute any program that will execute on Matz's interpreter, > why on earth should it /not/ be called Ruby? Should JRuby be changed to > "Amethyst" because it's not Matz's One True interpreter? How does > porting the interpreter to a new platform cause it to be a new language? Porting the interpreter is different from writing new implementations :-) See ruby-talk 21468 for related comments from Matz. Personally, my concern is not with there being multiple implementations of Ruby (though I'm stil intrigued by/not clear on exactly what that would mean), but rather with the possibility of .NET versions of languages becoming de facto standards, in a situation where those .NET versions are *not* drop-in replacements for the real versions of the languages. Your scenario, in which there's no difference, would be fine, but I can't imagine that's why Micros**t is throwing its .NET over the world of non-MS programming languages. David -- David Alan Black home: dblack@candle.superlink.net work: blackdav@shu.edu Web: http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav