From: nico <n1k0@...>
Date: 2002-10-05T11:20:15+09:00
Subject: Re: CRuby (Was: R)

On Sat, 5 Oct 2002 08:08:53 +0900
"MikkelFJ" <mikkelfj-anti-spam@bigfoot.com> wrote:

> > But if there were such a specification, I'd hope it was a minimal as
> > possible: define a small core set of features, using which the rest could
> > be implemented.
> 
> Yes - it shouldn't become a Java giant spec. which subsequently needs to be
> stripped many times to supported embedded Java. That said, the original Java
> VM spec. is a fairly readable, but that doesn't the libraries.
> 
> Mikkel
> 

OTOH, a spec like ANSI C is so minimal that platform specific extensions are almost necessary... breaking the portability C is supposed to provide.

IMO, the spec should have 2 levels, one for the core features (the ansi c of ruby) and another one for the less basic features (the posix of ruby).

-- 
To call me "awesome" is an understatement.