Phil wrote:

# In article <9605s7$7qu$1 / newsreaderm1.core.theplanet.net>,
# Franz GEIGER <fgeiger / datec.at> wrote:
# >Tcl/Tk goes ActiveSTATE (see below). Shouldn't Ruby go ActiveSTATE too? 
Perl
# >and Python are already there. Wouldn't it be a real push for Ruby's
# >popularity? And think of Komodo! An IDE for Ruby, with a visual 
debugger!
# >Any plans about this?
# 
# So, how do we convince ActiveState to make ActiveState Ruby?

Why make the first step such a large and difficult one?

Instead, why not ask: What is the minimal but still seriously valuable
step that ActiveState could undertake with respect to Ruby?

Here's my thinking along these lines: What are the keys to the kingdom
(or at least to the outer door thereof)? Seems to me that the answer
is the Mozilla XPCOM bindings for Ruby. So how about asking
ActiveState to merely help some designated Ruby volunteer add the
Mozilla XPCOM bindings for Ruby (while and when they do this for Tcl)
under the auspice of ActiveState's existing role as a Mozilla
contributer? 

This would probably be a very low-cost and fairly low-risk thing for
ActiveState. Yet it would still open the door for people to Ruby-ize
the ActiveState Komodo IDE.

This in turn might help more rapidly propel Ruby into the sufficiently
wider realm of usage and popularity that would make ActiveState want
to make Ruby one of its fully and officially supported languages.

Conrad Schneiker
(This note is unofficial and subject to improvement without notice.)