I just joined the mailing list, having but read it through the web for
several weeks.  I was prompted by reading the following:

<quote author="Justin Johnson">
That is a very good question.  I think Matz's implementation is Ruby with
lots of practical and script-useful add-ons.  It's an incredibly pragmatic
tool.  A lot of this is owed to the language concepts.

Point is, because there's only one implementation, there isn't an
official(?) language standard yet.  Ruby is not an academic ideal, it's a
tangible tool.

I'm hoping to implement a pure language version. No perlisms, no FileIO, no
SAFE, no threads, just classes, modules, arrays, strings...enough for the
language itself to be complete.

I think the language has more potential than just competing with
Perl/Python.
</quote>


How do you "add" anything to the language by taking things away?  And what
potential does any language have without File IO?  This seems like a step
towards an academic ideal, which is therefore almost guaranteed to be *not*
a useful tool!  (Although I saw something written about embedding...sounds
interesting.)

Also, I strongly believe Ruby needs its "Perl" features.  I learned Ruby
because Perl was frustrating me.  I didn't learn it for the fun of it (cos I
didn't know it would be fun) - I learned it because I knew I would be able
to do so and complete my task in one day.  And that's only because it's so
easy to port Perl to Ruby.  Now I'll never use Perl again - even though I
love it.

I'm sure I'm not alone there.

Sorry for this unorthodox way of chiming in.  It, er, won't happen again.

Cheers,
Gavin