> Ruby doesn't want a Spec
Both RubySpec and the ISO standardization effort suggest that this is less than true.
> because Matz said Ruby is an always evolving languages.
That's not a reason not to have a spec; that's a reason that the current bleeding-edge version might diverge intentionally from the spec and that the spec might trail.
(Or, as in the case of HTML/HTML5, its why you might have both an evolving target spec, like WHATWG has with the HTML living spec, for language implementers to develop toward, and a more conservative one, like the W3C HTML5 spec, that is more geared toward what language users should target.)
Without a spec -- preferably one that is or includes an executable test suite -- independent implementations are problematic, and multiple independent implementations that can experiment with different innovations is good for an "always evolving language".
