MRI Developers Don't Use RubySpec and It's Hurting Ruby
1–10 of 118 posts
Re: MRI Developers Don't Use RubySpec and It's Hurting Ruby
#2I mistakenly cut off the full title of the post: "Matz's Ruby Developers Don't Use RubySpec and It's Hurting Ruby"
Re: MRI Developers Don't Use RubySpec and It's Hurting Ruby
#3Jeez, what a mess.
Re: MRI Developers Don't Use RubySpec and It's Hurting Ruby
#4Why should they have been using RubySpec?
Re: MRI Developers Don't Use RubySpec and It's Hurting Ruby
#5Why don't MRI developers use RubySpec?
Re: MRI Developers Don't Use RubySpec and It's Hurting Ruby
#6The 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.
Re: MRI Developers Don't Use RubySpec and It's Hurting Ruby
#7Why should they have been using RubySpec?
Did you read the article? It contains 10 reasons why the MRI tests aren't sufficient.
Re: MRI Developers Don't Use RubySpec and It's Hurting Ruby
#8Regardless of other warts with the language, I really love how the Java Language Specification lays down the law.
Re: MRI Developers Don't Use RubySpec and It's Hurting Ruby
#9Some of the discussions he links to in the article are disturbing. Many posts refusing to implement process because they don't want any process at all. Doesn't seem like a healthy approach.
Re: MRI Developers Don't Use RubySpec and It's Hurting Ruby
#10Has Matz stated the reasons they are not using RubySpec? Knowing him, I can't really believe he has chosen to ignore RubySpec without good reasons.