On 8/18/05, Charles Steinman <acharlieblue / gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Brian Mitchell wrote:
> > What do you guys think? Should we embrace a spec driven system or just
> > continue to use ruby as the reference implementation? Should we
> > continue our current ways but have a spec as further documentation?
> 
> I don't think now is a very good time to write out a specification,
> because the specifics are in flux as we move on to Ruby 2. Maybe once
> the language is a little more stable again it would be a good idea.
> 
> In any case, I don't think we could ever have a purely spec-driven
> system. If the specs were out of sync with Matz's Ruby, I imagine it
> would be the specs that change, not Ruby. So it would mainly be a
> descriptive thing. That's what I think.
> 

This might be the exact reason to use specs. Forward looking
development would be part of a spec with an included set of RCRs. This
could then be matched by any implementation. It is a little more work
but it makes things easier to implement, follow, and understand IMO.

Wouldn't we want to make decisions on language merit rather than look
at current implementations for the easiest way to handle things?
Wouldn't Ruby 2 might be better as a spec first anyway? It can be
rather hard to follow all of the experimental features going in and
out of ruby. A spec would be an easy and evolving place to look.

Brian.