In article <20050818193338.C0A2533D5F@beryllium.ruby-lang.org>,
Who needs specs when you can just have exegenesis/apocalypse style
A spec would be good from a "business" sense. I know of a few large
companies that are worried about "betting on one Japanese fellow".
I don't get it, what's the issue? Ruby as it exists in it's
form is usable - How would a language spec make them feel any
better? I could
I think a language needs a formal specification.
If you have mission critical applications it's a little bit hard to
take this "C is the specification" argument.
I posted into the past that i really don't like it that matz break
compatibility in minor release changes. Suddenly returning a ""
instead of "nil" might be a small change but it can cost millions of
dollars if it happens in a critical environment.
If we had a specification for this it might restrict matz to make
changes like this, just because it feels better. This works for a hacker
language but i know that many companies got afraid when hearing about
Hm... Unless there is a company that is running about 10,000,000 (yes 10
million) lines of ruby, then I doubt that it could spend millions on a
language change like returning  instead of nil. Um.. Unless they're
updating language version majors without any testing. BTW: Microsoft
releases language version majors with every new Visual Studio. Guess
what? They've "broken" code compatibility all over the place, up and
down the library stack. You can't even convert a project from one
version of VS to another without major pain.
So, I don't think this makes Ruby a "hacker" language. Any hacker can
use ANSI C or C# or PHP or Python or Perl or Ruby and make a mockery of
the language and version updates. A professional programmer and
vendor<< will know that producing a valuable product for his/her
client requires responsibility, building stability into their product,
and following a protective process in upgrading.
I have worked at many companies, each who have been spending anywhere
from $100's to $100,000's on software development, and I'll tell you, to
any one of them, updating a production system without testing more than
once or on purpose would have been immediate dismissal, even from the
most forgiving of them. Backups are a rescue here, but that's no
So, all of you making money on Ruby and maybe Rails, you are NOT using a
hacker language (BTW: at its inception, languages like C++ and VB were
"hacker" languages). I don't hear in the group any of you asking how to
dance around the question of Ruby's respect in the development
What do you think?
Peter J. Fitzgibbons
Lakewood Homes - "The American Dream Builder"(r)