On 19/05/2013, at 8:04 PM, david kramf <dakr....@gmail.com> wrote: > Francis, > I know nothing about RubyMotion but if I understand correctly it uses a > compiler and not an interpreter. So I doubt if it can implement > Metaprogramming and Reflection. If it does not , then it is not a Ruby . It > might be an excellent language but not Ruby.
RubyMotion supports most metaprogramming and reflection constructs. The fact that it is compiled has nothing to do with it. > To the best of my understanding Ruby is a very well defined language > supported by a large community and works in what seems to me ( I know Ruby > for no more than a year) in a very orderly way. This is not the case. There is no specification for Ruby, a fact that is a concern for those trying to develop alternative implementations. Rubyspec is a defacto spec but it isn't official, or complete. There has also been a lot of discussion in the community recently about the haphazard way that Ruby seems to be developed. Personally I don't have a problem with Matz's leadership, but a lot of people do. Henry _______________________________________________ MacRuby-devel mailing list MacRuby-devel@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macruby-devel
