I just joined the mailing list, having but read it through the web for
several weeks. I was prompted by reading the following:
Point is, because there’s only one implementation, there isn’t an
official(?) language standard yet. Ruby is not an academic ideal, it’s a
I’m hoping to implement a pure language version. No perlisms, no FileIO, no
SAFE, no threads, just classes, modules, arrays, strings…enough for the
language itself to be complete.
I think the language has more potential than just competing with
How do you “add” anything to the language by taking things away? And what
potential does any language have without File IO? This seems like a step
towards an academic ideal, which is therefore almost guaranteed to be not
a useful tool! (Although I saw something written about embedding…sounds
Also, I strongly believe Ruby needs its “Perl” features. I learned Ruby
because Perl was frustrating me. I didn’t learn it for the fun of it (cos I
didn’t know it would be fun) - I learned it because I knew I would be able
to do so and complete my task in one day. And that’s only because it’s so
easy to port Perl to Ruby. Now I’ll never use Perl again - even though I
I’m sure I’m not alone there.
Sorry for this unorthodox way of chiming in. It, er, won’t happen again.