On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 06:44:51 +0900, Glenn <centrepins / gmail.com> wrote:

> Which got me thinking about Ruby, which is currently standing on a
> pedestal beside me, with the label "Glenn's absolute favourite
> language of all time ever".  The pedestal, while wobbly, is being held
> firm by a printed copy of Why?'s Poignant Guide and PickAxe2.

A quick aside: why's name doesn't need a question mark to prop it up.
He is a statement, not a question. ;)

> Do we think Ruby will ever "get there" like Python, Perl, even Java?

I don't worry about when, or if, Ruby will "get there" out of a sense
of wounded pride. That is, I don't mind that Ruby isn't yet, or might
never be, as popular or widely used as the languages that you
mentioned. The only reason I care about the issue at all is that if
Ruby were already "there", it would make it easier for me (or you) to
propose it for projects at work without having to go into a big song
and dance trying to sell it to management and co-workers. Evangelism
is not my strong suit.

> What's the situation with these and others?  Where can I read about
> current ruby-developments going on?  I keep seeing reference to Ruby
> 1.9, but the Windows Installer is only at 1.8-14.  Is Ruby 1.9 just
> "in development at this stage" and what's scheduled to be in it?

At the 2003 Ruby Conference, Matz spoke about some *possible* plans
for Ruby 2.0 (nicknamed "Rite"), and Ryan Davis summarized those words
here:

    http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?Rite

My understanding at the time was that Ruby 1.9 was sort-of an
experimental development branch in which ideas for Rite might be tried
out; but that focus may have changed. You might do well to hang out on
the ruby-core mailing list to see what's being discussed there.

> Now a controversial point.  The perl website (www.perl.com) catches my
> eye.  So does the Python one (www.python.org).  For whatever reason,
> both websites made me go "mmm, this language looks interesting, lets
> investigate further.
> 
> The Ruby one (www.ruby-lang.org) doesn't....
> 
> I did say it was a controversial point!

Not a controversial point; in fact, it's been discussed pretty
recently. It seems like why (there he is again) mocked-up a new Ruby
home page but I'm not sure where things stand with that. But I think
there was general consensus that the home page needs some help to
better direct people towards the most helpful resources.

> Another point.  I keep seeing mention of "Ruby 2" and "Rite" in the
> same sentence.  That Rite is perhaps the new name for Ruby 2?

Yes. Well, a code name anyways. 

>  If there is a plan to rename Ruby 2 as Rite, (and I'm new remember so I
> might have got my wires crossed) then I think this is a very bad idea.

I may have my wires crossed too, but I don't think the intent is to
change the "official" name of the language from Ruby to Rite. But I
was wrong once, before.