Josh Charles wrote:
>>So, I don't think this makes Ruby a "hacker" language.  Any hacker can
>>use ANSI C or C# or PHP or Python or Perl or Ruby and make a mockery of
>>the language and version updates.  A professional programmer and
>>
>>>>vendor<< will know that producing a valuable product for his/her
>>
>>client requires responsibility, building stability into their product,
>>and following a protective process in upgrading.
> 
> 
> in the case of .NET, however, the changes that are going to happen
> have been documented ahead of time so that you can plan.  The Specs
> for C# 2.0 have been around for what, 2 years now?  The change to
> generics and other things is going to break alot of currently working
> .NET code, but that change is still several months in the future,
> giving everyone alot of time to prepare.
> 
> I think that a well communicated roadmap would be alot better than
> specs.  Does such a roadmap exist for ruby?  I don't know.  I'm new
> here.
> 
> 
Yes a road map is a better way. Mostly because the specifications don't 
really solve the problem breaking compatiblility. Ruby is a scripting 
language. At least there is nothing I have found that says different. 
Scripting languages do not need specifications when they don't have a 
home. PHP,PERL and others do not have a spec because they are fluid 
enough to fit in where ever they are at the time. Javascript is an 
exception because to has to live in a client web browser.

  .NET languages are not scripting any longer, which is probably why I 
think ASP.NET sucks. They have also jumped on adding javascript as 
default language to the CLR because of its spec. Visual Basic 6 never 
really had a finished spec so they are dumping it and vbscript is gone 
with it.

But there are two ways of handling a specification. The first is to take 
it and build on it and make sure you have backwards compatibility ie. c 
and c++. The second is to use it to create something completely 
different or "better" ie. C# 1.0 and C# 2.0

So if Ruby becomes a scripting language without a home but with a 
specifiction then I would hope that it is because someone wants to build 
on it not change it into something different every 2 years.

-- 


Tesla - Alternating current, the first modern day opensource project?