7 ms·

Both Charles Nutter and Matz are smart guys. They are also both great people. I say this having spent time with both of them. This whole, my implementation

Both Charles Nutter and Matz are smart guys. They are also both great people. I say this having spent time with both of them. This whole, my implementation is better than theirs coming from Brian is crazy. Matz and Charles have helped to set the tone for the community. While I appreciate Brian's passion, it sounds like he needs to check his ego. No matter how smart we are, we can always learn things from other people. Without the collaboration of others neither JRuby or Ruby would be what they are today which is why they are successful.

vidarh 12y ago
He might need to check his ego, but the state of Ruby specification is deplorable, and despite being a big fan of Ruby, it's also a big road block to development. The small number of mature Ruby runtimes is a bad sign.
- whistlerbrk 12y ago
  See, iirc, Matz years ago specifically said "fork Ruby". He wants lots of different versions which I feel to some extent means diverging from a formal spec, and then occasionally maybe coming back to it.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    And that's even worse. I'm working on a Ruby compiler. While it is far from being at a stage where this is a real problem, currently there's no sane way of knowing whether or not I'm "close enough" to MRI other than extensive testing of every single piece of Ruby code I want to work. "Diverging from a formal spec" is one thing. As it is, many versions of MRI has diverged from how the core team thinks it works. If MRI is "the spec", then Ruby changes from revision to revision as the test coverage is nowhere good enough to prevent regressions or changes in behaviour. Basically: Nobody knows Ruby. Frankly, I very much hope that another Ruby implementations overtake MRI sufficiently in quality to out compete it enough to shift the initiative of definining the language to a more responsible team.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- tumbledoor 12y ago
  If MRI fails RubySpec specs, and the MRI developers didn't write those specs, is that a bug in RubySpec or MRI? It's egotistical because he's saying they should make their project conform to his third party specification.
  - masklinn 12y ago
    > If MRI fails RubySpec specs, and the MRI developers didn't write those specs, is that a bug in RubySpec or MRI? If the specs were written based on (and working in) a previous MRI version, how can it be anything but an MRI bug? Especially when previously working code segfaults? > It's egotistical because he's saying they should make their project conform to his third party specification. How could he do anything but a third-party specification when the first-party refuses to produce a specification?
  - stormbrew 12y ago
    A segfault from running interpreted code is definitely an MRI bug.
    - seivadmas 12y ago
      Unless there are third party C extensions involved.

vidarh 12y ago

He might need to check his ego, but the state of Ruby specification is deplorable, and despite being a big fan of Ruby, it's also a big road block to development. The small number of mature Ruby runtimes is a bad sign.

whistlerbrk 12y ago
See, iirc, Matz years ago specifically said "fork Ruby". He wants lots of different versions which I feel to some extent means diverging from a formal spec, and then occasionally maybe coming back to it.
- vidarh 12y ago
  And that's even worse. I'm working on a Ruby compiler. While it is far from being at a stage where this is a real problem, currently there's no sane way of knowing whether or not I'm "close enough" to MRI other than extensive testing of every single piece of Ruby code I want to work. "Diverging from a formal spec" is one thing. As it is, many versions of MRI has diverged from how the core team thinks it works. If MRI is "the spec", then Ruby changes from revision to revision as the test coverage is nowhere good enough to prevent regressions or changes in behaviour. Basically: Nobody knows Ruby. Frankly, I very much hope that another Ruby implementations overtake MRI sufficiently in quality to out compete it enough to shift the initiative of definining the language to a more responsible team.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

tumbledoor 12y ago
If MRI fails RubySpec specs, and the MRI developers didn't write those specs, is that a bug in RubySpec or MRI? It's egotistical because he's saying they should make their project conform to his third party specification.
- masklinn 12y ago
  > If MRI fails RubySpec specs, and the MRI developers didn't write those specs, is that a bug in RubySpec or MRI? If the specs were written based on (and working in) a previous MRI version, how can it be anything but an MRI bug? Especially when previously working code segfaults? > It's egotistical because he's saying they should make their project conform to his third party specification. How could he do anything but a third-party specification when the first-party refuses to produce a specification?
- stormbrew 12y ago
  A segfault from running interpreted code is definitely an MRI bug.
  - seivadmas 12y ago
    Unless there are third party C extensions involved.