[Ironruby-core] Regarding IronRuby... How true it sounds from this blog

Peter Bacon Darwin bacondarwin at googlemail.com
Tue Apr 29 02:06:15 EDT 2008

My point wasn't that one needs to have access to the DLR code.  It was that
because IronRuby is so tightly coupled to DLR at the moment, it is not
possible to remove its tethers and let it free as a proper OSS.

-----Original Message-----
From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org
[mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Sanghyeon Seo
Sent: Tuesday,29 April 29, 2008 06:23
To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Regarding IronRuby... How true it sounds from
this blog

2008/4/29 Peter Bacon Darwin <bacondarwin at googlemail.com>:
> I believe one of the key problems is the DLR.  As I understand, it MS
> a distinction between "important" stuff (i.e. the DLR) and "peripheral"
> stuff (i.e. IronXxxx).  MS wants to have complete control over the DLR and
> is not interested in making it Open Source.  Rather the DLR code is just
> community viewable, much like the rest of the .NET framework code.  I can
> understand this since core .NET Framework code is central to the MS
> and they don't want things sneaking in the sides.

I disagree. I think DLR is a non-problem. Reality check: do you have
any change in your mind you would like to make to DLR?

For example, (sorry for using CPython as an example; I am not familiar
with Ruby world) many people contributes to CPython runtime without
touching CPython's custom memory allocator. Still many people
contributes to CPython standard library and C extensions without
touching CPython runtime.

Seo Sanghyeon
Ironruby-core mailing list
Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org

More information about the Ironruby-core mailing list