On Mar 8, 11:10 am, Chad Perrin <per... / apotheon.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 09:35:06PM +0900, Daniel Berger wrote:
> > On Mar 7, 11:14 pm, Chad Perrin <per... / apotheon.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 03:50:17AM +0900, 7stud 7stud wrote:
> > > > > Don't worry. They'll go away. The Wuby moto is break what works, rename
> > > > > what's commonly known and add gotchas for fun.
>
> > > > I've seen it mentioned a couple of times--what the heck is wuby?
>
> > > It's a sarcastic, trollish way of saying "Ruby" if you're trying to
> > > convey a sense that it is childish.
>
> > Damn, it's also the name of my top secret fork of Ruby for MS Windows.
> > Windows + Ruby = Wuby. :)
>
> > I'm dwivin' in my car...
>
> Hey . . . if you were really planning a "top secret fork of Ruby for MS
> Windows", I'd say Wuby would be an *excellent* name for the language.
> One wonders, however, why you'd need to fork it for Windows.

A Windows-only fork would have several advantages.

First, I could use the native Windows API functions for everything and
not worry about *nix compatability.

Second, I could modify the core classes as I see fit to take advantage
of the Windows API functions.

Third, I could alter the API of some of the Ruby core classes and/or
modules where it makes sense to do so on Windows (i.e. get rid of the
Unix-isms, add  Windows-isms).

Fourth, I could more easily handle Unicode issues (ties back to the
first reason).

Given the reasons above, I would scrap and completely rewrite the
following core classes:

Dir
File
File::Stat
IO
Process (and related modules)

And parts of:

Kernel
Regex
String

I would also make some pretty hefty changes to the standard library,
especially Socket.

Hypothetically speaking, of course. :)

Regards,

Dan