Issue #9438 has been updated by Marcus Stollsteimer.


I suppose all agree that

  1. this only relates to documentation (not to the binary name), and that
  2. as a general rule "Ruby" should be used whenever possible.

*But*: There are cases where a distinction between different implementations is necessary.
For instance, cause of this ticket was the text snippet *"MRI committers and authors of other Ruby implementations"*.

IMO "MRI" better identifies which implementation is meant; "CRuby" somehow implies this is the only (relevant) implementation written in C. I can also live with using both terms interchangeably, though.

----------------------------------------
misc #9438: Implementation naming
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9438#change-44511

* Author: Zachary Scott
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: Zachary Scott
* Category: doc
* Target version: current: 2.2.0
----------------------------------------
There seems to be an unclear decision on what to call this implementation.

We should make a decision between CRuby and MRI and update relating documentation to use one of them.

This discussion is based off a [ticket on ruby-lang.org](https://github.com/ruby/www.ruby-lang.org/commit/9c315c3#commitcomment-5120340), but also affects ruby-trunk source code as MRI is mentioned periodically.



-- 
http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/