David Masover wrote in post #975191:
> On Saturday, January 15, 2011 04:42:58 am Joseph Lenton wrote:
>> > I actually feel are broken about Ruby as it is today.
>>
>> I'm sorry to take this slightly off topic, but I just can't let this
>> comment pass. I am currently building a language called Quby, which is a
>> very Ruby-like language, that runs 100% in the browser (about 4,000
>> lines of JS). There are differences (as it's Ruby-like not Ruby) with
>> the main one being that it's tied to a canvas. But AFAIK it's the
>> closest pure JS implementation of Ruby (although it's Quby, not Ruby).
>
> There are two major issues I have with that:
>
> First, why did you feel the need to fork Ruby syntax? I think I saw your
> post
> earlier, and I remember writing a long rant and then not sending it, but
> that's really my main problem with it. Why create a new programming
> language?
>

First lots of small things I don't such as nil, hash comments and Ruby's 
block comments. Secondly one of my main motivations was that I really 
don't like that so many trivial compile time bugs in the static 
languages become runtime errors in dynamic ones, such as calling a 
function or method that doesn't exist anywhere in your code. Last year I 
into a bar and got chatting to film student. When I mentioned I was web 
developer he had a huge rant at me about how annoying these type of bugs 
were in PHP. It also allows me to add extra things that I'd like to have 
in Ruby.

> Also, why tie it to a canvas?

The language was built specifically for that site where people can write 
games, and those games use a canvas for graphics. The language itself is 
built separately and could be deployed without a canvas, it's just no 
other site uses my language.

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.