From: Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>
Date: 2002-03-23T06:25:27+09:00
Subject: Re: Windows version of Ruby (proposals)

On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:11:55 GMT, Dave Thomas <Dave@PragmaticProgrammer.com> wrote:

>I have a vision for the libraries in 2.0 which I'm sure will never see
>the light of day.
>
>I'm thinking that there's stuff that is purely Ruby, and there's stuff
>that is environment-sensitive. For example, class Hash is class Hash
>no matter where it's running. It should be universally available in
>all Ruby implementations.

<and so on in excellent detail>

I think Ruby is great, and I think that like it or not, Windows has
the bulk of the market, and will have for some time, and I'd like to
see Ruby succeed grandly. I'd like to see it replace Perl and Python
as the language of choice for scripting, and for "real" programming,
whatever that is.

For the next N years, if that's to happen Ruby has to be really good
on Windows.

There are some great things in Unix, and if what matz means in his
references to Unix is that those ideas should form the core for the
portable part of Ruby, I'm all for it.

Right now, because of the ability and interests of the community, Ruby
on Windows is out of date, substantially slower, and supported less
than enthusiastically. I can't change that: my interests and abilities
are elsewhere. But I'd like to see it change.

Dave's suggestion is, in my opinion, a very good one. I don't see that
it is incompatible with what matz is saying. But there needs to be a
push of the community's opinion behind the idea. I hope that will come
to be.

Regards,

Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
Bang, bang, Jeffries' silver hammer came down upon their heads ...