Greg Donald wrote:
> On 10/23/07, Laurent Sansonetti <laurent.sansonetti / gmail.com> wrote:
>> But in that way, you would still have Mono+ForkedIronRuby as an
>> alternative. I hope MS wouldn't do such a thing though.
> 
> Anyone with genuinely good intentions would contribute to the existing
> Ruby and leave all this separate implementation non-sense alone.
> Their intent is clear.

Anyone really interested in the welfare of Ruby would recognize that 
having a wide range of implementations helps stabilize the API and 
language and accelerates adoption.

- Charlie