HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
ruby
spec
Ruby2016–2024
ruby / spec

spec

The Ruby Spec Suite aka ruby/spec

8Distinct people
9Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
623GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

The Ruby Spec Suite aka ruby/spec

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 11:56:56 AM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year9 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2016-05-16 20:07:04 UTC to 2024-12-31 04:36:16 UTC.

0122016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments20162017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments20202021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2024

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202

What Hacker News says

9 sources
This is a similar situation to Ruby and Rubinius (an alternative implementation of Ruby). Because there was no Ruby specification other than the original MRI implementation, the Rubinius project (a new alternative implementation) created their own test suite to codify expected Ruby behavior. However, the MRI developers didn't use it, and the behavior diverged. The original creator gave up on the idea [0] but it was immediately taken over by others and is still maintained [1]. In case of conflict, though, Matz (lead developer on MRI), not the specification, is the source of truth [2]. [0] https://github.com/rubinius/rubinius-website-archive/blob/87... [1] https://github.com/ruby/spec [2] http://ruby.github.io/rubyspec.github.io/bugs_found/
In The Protobuf Language Specification
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 beh
Read the rest
avioural 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).
In Rewriting Libimagequant in Rust for Portability
Hi, I'm the author of Artichoke. Ruby has a great black box testing suite called ruby/spec [0] that is shared among multiple Ruby implementations. Artichoke has a custom runner [1] to track progress on implementation completeness. If Artichoke passes ruby/spec and is not compatible with MRI, that's a bug in the specs. re: adding Rust to MRI, I'm working on extracting the mruby backend from the core VM infra + core/stdlib impls [3] which would let us use MRI as the backing VM via rutie. When the Artichoke core and stdlib is complete, this would mean that the MRI runtime could be implemented entirely in Rust [2]. [0] https://github.com/ruby/spec [1] https://github.com/artichoke/artichoke/tree/master/spec-runn... [2] https://github.com/artichoke/artichoke/issues/92 [3] https://artichoke.github.io/artichoke/artichoke_core/
In Artichoke – A Ruby made with Rust

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.