MRI Developers Don't Use RubySpec and It's Hurting Ruby

Post by mbell » Thu, Jan 01, 2015, 6:12 AM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #87

mbell wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That attitude is exactly why I have no interest in working with Java.

Wait, you're saying you'd prefer undocumented bugs and a constant stream of breaking changes to the runtime that force you to constantly port and report existing, working code? I don't get it... the Java way seems pretty right to me. That said, I will allow that they might have been a little bit too rigid about not allowing breaking changes. At the very least this policy has resulted in Java evolving more slowly than…

Post by Retra » Thu, Jan 01, 2015, 7:44 AM UTC

sanderjd wrote: post #59

vinceguidry wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't call code a spec. Saying you're defining Ruby by coding it just means you don't have a spec.

In my experience, executable specs are much more useful than their non-executable brethren. They prove their own correctness, and can't gloss over important details.

Post by gear54rus » Thu, Jan 01, 2015, 10:01 AM UTC

mbell wrote: post #91

mindcrime wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, you're saying you'd prefer undocumented bugs and a constant stream of breaking changes to the runtime that force you to constantly port and report existing, working code? I don't get it... the Java way seems pretty right to me. That said, I will allow that they might have been a little bit too rigid about not allowing breaking changes. At the very least this policy has resulted in Java evolving more slowly than…

I prefer that bugs get fixed when found. In my experience the Java way is 'oh, a bug, well, that's a bug defined in the spec so we can't fix it now, we'll make a note for the next version'...5 years pass. The 'I don't want to touch working code' argument is another strange Javaism. If you expect your code to not rot your going to have to constantly maintain it anyway.

  x = null;
  typeof x; //object
  x.a = 1;  //TypeError: x is null

Post by rab_oof » Thu, Jan 01, 2015, 10:20 AM UTC

zem wrote: post #13

sams99 wrote: post #6

The thing I find depressing and frustrating about this kind of discussion is the fatalism and non-constructiveness. I really wish it was: "I set up a server that runs ruby spec on ruby-head daily and automatically reports spec failures to ruby-bugs" So many companies are making big bucks off Ruby, yet so little are willing to fork out a bit of money and time to make Ruby better.

it's unreasonable to expect the dev who has already put a ton of work into developing and maintaining rubyspec and making it work nicely with all the ruby implementations and versions he could to have to put in the additional work to do this as well. I don't blame him for getting discouraged at having to chase a moving target on top of all that - I agree with him that having the MRI devs contribute to rubyspec was a…

Post by vidarh » Thu, Jan 01, 2015, 10:58 AM UTC

jpgvm wrote: post #81

joevandyk wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now that the main maintainer quit, can those nontechnical reasons be resolved?

Hopefully. I would be willing to take a crack at it.