4 ms·
> If someone were to say “Ruby is defined by its' > implementation”, we could not argue... [ elided ] > This is why we need a language reference. Huh? I'm en
by tjic 14y ago
> If someone were to say “Ruby is defined by its'
> implementation”, we could not argue... [ elided ]
> This is why we need a language reference.
Huh?
I'm entirely open to the ideas proposed here, but I fail to see any ACTUAL benefits. The fact that a new process to define and manage the language prevents a rhetorical device from being used - that's a serious argument in favor of the change?
Am I missing something?
- Derbasti 14y agoA formal definition of the language could separate implementaion specific bugs from actual language features. It would thus help implementers of alternative implementations of Ruby.
- nathany 14y agoSorry. That's some poor organization of the writing on my part, which I've revised slightly. My article is still leaning heavily on Brian Ford's talk for the reasons why the current (lack of) process is an issue that needs consideration. I certainly could've done a better job of summarizing that before throwing in my 2 cents.
- screamers 14y agoThe benefit would be that Ruby could become another fossilized coprolite of a language, similar to COBOL, SNOBOL, FORTRAN, and RATFOR. It would still suck as much as it does today, but it would be carefully defined to suck, and implementors would create dozens of semi-compatible implementations to muddy the waters. As a bonus, I believe it would receive an all-caps name, preferrably ending in "BOL" like all the other shit-tastic programming languages of the past, and be ruled by a giant committee of malicious but ineffectual flunkies. Make sense?