From: dblack@...
Date: 2002-10-05T03:35:21+09:00
Subject: Re: CRuby (Was: R)

Hi --

On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, MikkelFJ wrote:

>
> > Since at the moment there's no formal definition of Ruby abstracted
> > from the interpreter (ruby), I think having them share the name is the
> > clearest thing.  It's hard (for me) to know what it would mean, as of
> > now, to say, "I'm writing a program in Ruby," except that the program
> > would run under ruby.  (Not that that means it would *not* run under,
> > e.g., JRuby.)
>
> It's really simple: file names as in " require 'graph' " ... a typically in
> lowercase in Ruby, an so is the ruby interpreter.

I figured it was because unix programs are usually lowercase.
Whatever :-)

> Ruby as a concept is like a class of programs and is therefore named in
> uppercase like "Graph.new"
>
> Assuming JRuby covers the full Ruby language, both ruby and jruby would
> interpret Ruby programs.

Yes -- what I was getting at was the question of determining what
exactly "the full Ruby language" consists of :-) I think I'm in the
minority, in that I would actually advocate a formal definition.
Otherwise it's hard, for me at least, to think of ruby as just one of
arbitrarily many ways to gain access to Ruby.


David

-- 
David Alan Black                      | Register for RubyConf 2002!
home: dblack@candle.superlink.net     | November 1-3
work: blackdav@shu.edu                | Seattle, WA, USA
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav | http://www.rubyconf.com