#: Phil Tomson changed the world a bit at a time by saying on  8/18/2005 11:26 PM :#
> In article <20050818193338.C0A2533D5F / beryllium.ruby-lang.org>,
> Dion Almaer <dion / almaer.com> wrote:
>>
>>Who needs specs when you can just have exegenesis/apocalypse style fluffing
>>around? :)
>>
>>A spec would be good from a "business" sense. I know of a few large
>>companies that are worried about "betting on one Japanese fellow". 
> 
> 
> I don't get it, what's the issue?  Ruby as it exists in it's current form 
> is usable - How would a language spec make them feel any better?  

How can you convince/decide to invest/base your company when a change in the environment/language 
can break your products?

How can you decide that an alternative env will serve you better when you cannot decide right from 
the start that it offers at least the compatibility with the default Ruby?

Being around for some time I started to think that the most important asset of Ruby is Matz' head. 
Sharing his ideas on some documents will make some of us feel better.

:alex |.::the_mindstorm::.|

> I could 
> see it if Ruby wasn't open source - then Matz could disappear and the 
> source code with him.  But since the Ruby source is all over the place 
> even if Matz were to disappear (heaven forbid) Ruby would still be around 
> and usable.
> 
> 
> Phil
> 
>