Hi --

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, John Lam (CLR) wrote:

>>> I'm not sure what there is to be non-neutral about :-)
>
> Here's the problem: there are going to be multiple implementations
> of Ruby in the wild. And for those who run in other VMs, there will
> be compatibility problems. It's up to the spec to make
> determinations about what are 'important' incompatibilities vs.
> 'unimportant' incompatibilities. For example, which Ruby C libraries
> will be deemed to be 'unimportant' and not something that must be
> ported to a 3rd party VM in order for that language to be called
> 'Ruby'.
>
> So, it's in the best interests of the community to have a neutral
> 3rd party be the 'owner' of the spec, otherwise there may be the
> perception of, let's say, some large company trying to steer the
> specification to run Ruby better on its own VM. These are issues
> that I'd like to get out in the open and have a resolution that
> everyone is comfortable with, and as early as possible in the
> process.

If it's a matter of the applicability of the name Ruby, then Matz is
the first and last arbitrator.


David

-- 
Q. What is THE Ruby book for Rails developers?
A. RUBY FOR RAILS by David A. Black (http://www.manning.com/black)
    (See what readers are saying!  http://www.rubypal.com/r4rrevs.pdf)
Q. Where can I get Ruby/Rails on-site training, consulting, coaching?
A. Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypal.com)