ruby-implementations VS spec

Fascinating, does the project aspire to become compatible with MRI Ruby? Also how many active Ruby implementations do we have so far?

Edit: Found this, https://github.com/codicoscepticos/ruby-implementations?tab=...

I see the point to make a parallel with HipHop, but here YJIT is directly integrated in CRuby, the main implementation of the language, and it’s just a matter of command line flag whether you enable or disable it — at least from what I remember that I red.

From what I remember, HipHop was distributed in a different toolchain than the vanilla PHP interpreter. Ruby also have other interpreters available by the way: https://github.com/codicoscepticos/ruby-implementations

There's a full blown test suite for Ruby which the various implementations use: https://github.com/ruby/spec

At one point there was an open source project to formally specify Ruby, but I don’t know if it’s still alive: https://github.com/ruby/spec

Hmm, it seems to be alive, but based more on behavior than syntax.

You may define that Ruby is "CRuby" (MRI), the full-fledged implementation of the Ruby programming language specification (https://github.com/ruby/spec/).

Testing: Interestingly, most of the work was figuring out how to test the library reliably. Grizzly-rb is proudly tested against the ruby/spec repository using Mspec and Rubocop. Special thank you to the person recommending Rubocop in a previous post.  The tests cover Enumerable, Array, Enumerator and Enumerator::Lazy classes.

Ruby interpreter is a complex program, so it naturally has bugs, and Ruby interpreter developers are taking various countermeasures against them. For example, we write tests and check them in CI environment (This is the result of daily maintenance of the test environment, such as RubyCI, chkbuild, ruby/spec: The Ruby Spec Suite aka ruby/spec and machines).

I can't find the link to the official announcement, but many years ago they published an official ISO for Ruby, however at the time the ISO was based off of 1.8.7 syntax/semantics. Other than that, you have the RubySpec project which is a series of tests that validate how Ruby should work.

Java could have been a good example, but Sun had a rather strict validation process for calling something Java.

Furthermore, there are big difference in philosophy with C:

1. IB and UB are not considered normal parts of specifications, meaning there's way less opportunity for originality in the interpretation of the specifications

2. there tends to be an ur-implementation, and notable divergences from that tends to be interpreted as either a bug in the other implementation(s) or a lack of specification to be resolved between all implementations

Rust only has UB in unsafe (AFAIK), which greatly limits implementation flexibility in terms of observable behaviour; and the reference implementation would very much be considered the reference implementation, so I expect e.g. rust-gcc will be sticking close to the reference implementation and behavioural divergence will either be fixed to match, or will lead to more precise specification and both implementations converging.

Probably eventually with, if not a Sun-style validation suite, a Ruby-style Spec Suite (https://github.com/ruby/spec).

Ruby: https://github.com/ruby/spec Yes, it is not a word document, but it is a spec nonetheless. It is an authoritative source. TypeScript has nothing like this; no, unit tests aren't the same.