While this sounds interesting and a lot of the features are laudable, it seems to me that such a language will no longer be "Ruby". All non-trivial Ruby code (like any library or gem) will not work in Rubinius X.<p>So why base this on Ruby? Because the syntax is nice? Perhaps it would be better to start with something like elixir, which has a syntax based on Ruby, works with existing Erlang libraries and has good (perhaps excellent) support for concurrency and immutability.
While I do not disagree with any of the proposed features, I am not sure, what they would accomplish. Could someone point out, what kind of applications would benefit from those changes?<p>Is this just about making ruby more like node (substituting callbacks for promises)?<p>Also, do all of these features really need to be implemented on the interpreter level?
More activity in the other thread: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6553767" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6553767</a>
why break regex support just because it's not what one person wants to use; the philosophy of more than one way to do it goes back to the beginning of computer science. I like Rubinius for the fact that it has educational value to see ruby implemented in ruby but feel breaking unix system programming features sounds more like turing it into someones personal DSL than actually modernizing it.