With all due respect to Matz, I think Ruby is now much more than the
work of a single person. Without a doubt, the community continues to
benefit from his leadership and there is no reason to think that that
won't continue but let's not pass over all the other contributors.
Gary Wright
On Dec 6, 2005, at 11:19 AM, David A. Black wrote:
This is different. First of all, Ruby is a work by Matz, not any of us.
I do see your point. Keep the wordsmithing to the threads that are
*about* wordsmithing and use the "default" terminology in the day-to-day
threads. Does that sound about right? Eigenlivewithat 
Gary Wright
On Dec 6, 2005, at 11:19 AM, David A. Black wrote:
The big elephant in the room seems to be Matz comments that the
semantics of a meta/singleton/eigen class might be implemented via some
mechanism other than a class, which would certainly stir the pot a bit.No elephant, from my perspective. That's yet another reason (aside from
the general principle of respect for Matz's unique role) for not having
the terminology free-for-all.
Hi David,
I just wanted to chime in that I totally agree with your position
regarding "singleton class" vs. other names for this concept.
"Ruby for Rails", forthcoming from Manning Publications, April 2006!
The draft I read really rocks. I'm looking forward to the final book!
Wayne
---
Wayne Vucenic
No Bugs Software
"Ruby and C++ Agile Contract Programming in Silicon Valley"
Hi --
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 gwtmp01@mac.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 2005, at 11:19 AM, David A. Black wrote:
> This is different. First of all, Ruby is a work by Matz, not any
> of us.With all due respect to Matz, I think Ruby is now much more than the
work of a single person. Without a doubt, the community continues to
benefit from his leadership and there is no reason to think that that
won't continue but let's not pass over all the other contributors.
Let's not pass over the sentence right after the one you quoted either
David
__
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net
"Ruby for Rails", forthcoming from Manning Publications, April 2006!
This is different. First of all, Ruby is a work by Matz, not any
of us.With all due respect to Matz, I think Ruby is now much more than the
work of a single person. Without a doubt, the community continues to
benefit from his leadership and there is no reason to think that that
won't continue but let's not pass over all the other contributors.Let's not pass over the sentence right after the one you quoted either
For the record, that next sentence was:
But, granting that single authorship is not really the whole story here,
Yeah, I should have acknowledged that in my response, but I didn't catch it
until after responding. I still would have responded, but perhaps more
obliquely.
I think I missed 'part2' in first reading because of such a direct,
unambiguous statement just before it. I just don't know what to make of:
"Ruby is a work by Matz, not any of us" in the midst of a discussion of
language semantics. That sounded too much like "proof by authority" for
my liking nor is that what I see going on in the Ruby community.
Now we are getting off topic. Sorry for confusing your meaning.
On Dec 6, 2005, at 1:43 PM, David A. Black wrote:
On Dec 6, 2005, at 11:19 AM, David A. Black wrote:
Hi --
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 gwtmp01@mac.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 2005, at 1:43 PM, David A. Black wrote:
>> On Dec 6, 2005, at 11:19 AM, David A. Black wrote:
>>> This is different. First of all, Ruby is a work by Matz, not any
>>> of us.
>>
>> With all due respect to Matz, I think Ruby is now much more than the
>> work of a single person. Without a doubt, the community continues to
>> benefit from his leadership and there is no reason to think that that
>> won't continue but let's not pass over all the other contributors.
>
> Let's not pass over the sentence right after the one you quoted
> eitherFor the record, that next sentence was:
> But, granting that single authorship is not really the whole story
> here,Yeah, I should have acknowledged that in my response, but I didn't
catch it
until after responding. I still would have responded, but perhaps more
obliquely.I think I missed 'part2' in first reading because of such a direct,
unambiguous statement just before it. I just don't know what to make of:
"Ruby is a work by Matz, not any of us" in the midst of a discussion of
language semantics. That sounded too much like "proof by authority" for
my liking nor is that what I see going on in the Ruby community.
Matz is, by his account, a "benevolent dictator" It's a great
community, but in terms of the technical side of Ruby (as opposed to what
someone may want to do with a website design, or something) it's not a
democracy.
It works out very well, though.
David
__
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net
"Ruby for Rails", forthcoming from Manning Publications, April 2006!
I think I missed 'part2' in first reading because of such a direct,
unambiguous statement just before it. I just don't know what to make of:
"Ruby is a work by Matz, not any of us" in the midst of a discussion of
language semantics. That sounded too much like "proof by authority" for
my liking nor is that what I see going on in the Ruby community.
Just to clarify that sentence you didn't understand: it was in response to
your point about academic works and their authors coming up with new
terms. My point was that if there's an analogy there, it's between the
academic authors and Matz, not between an author and every single person
who uses Ruby. (And that's the point at which I tempered it by saying the
analogy isn't exact, etc....
David
__
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net
"Ruby for Rails", forthcoming from Manning Publications, April 2006!