Is an alternate solution to use Go as a source language, then translate to an allegedly "ISO" language?
Eric. On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 8:57:39 PM UTC-7, Beoran wrote: > > 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.
