So no matter if I say yes or no, both ways are bad? I think is not a very fair way to argue.
Anyway, with the Ruby standard you can do either. The Ruby standard defines that there are strictly conforming Ruby processors, which implement the standard and conforming Ruby processors which may have any number of additional implementation defined extensions, alternate syntax and language features. After the standard was written, mruby was implemented to be a strictly conforming Ruby processor, which doesn't influence or hold back the development of the other Ruby implementations at all. And all other Ruby implementations can be considered confirming, which is worth millions of $$$ to Ruby developers. The organizations and governments I mentioned tend to have deep pockets, and the Ruby standard enables us to gain approval from said bureaucrats. So, we can now use Ruby for these well funded projects, since now it is an international standard. So actually, because the Ruby standard was carefully written to enable this, it has been win/win for Ruby developers. You can use a strictly conforming mruby if you like or need to, or use any other Ruby implementations as conforming ones and please the bureaucrats. I consider that we should do the same for Go. When done carefully it will also be a win/win. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
