[Ironruby-core] Access from static languages

Shri Borde Shri.Borde at microsoft.com
Wed Feb 6 01:40:26 EST 2008


Yup, we still need to tackle attributes. Attributes are tricky to fit into a dynamic language. It can be done, but it definitely has issues.

Another approach is to have attribute-based features exposed via other mechanisms as well (for eg. an imperative API). Dynamic languages could then build libraries on top of those APIs that worked well with the paradigms of that particular dynamic language.

Given the existing set of attribute-based features, we will have to think about this more. In the meantime, there is a workaround of using a statically typed language just for the part which requires attributes.

From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Curt Hagenlocher
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 2:58 PM
To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Access from static languages

While this is really cool, it doesn't (for instance) let you expose a dynamic object to WCF without manually wrapping it in a static C# class -- or any other CLR feature based on method, property or class-level attributes.

Did I mention that this is really really cool? :)
On Feb 5, 2008 2:30 PM, Shri Borde <Shri.Borde at microsoft.com<mailto:Shri.Borde at microsoft.com>> wrote:
C# is looking into making it easy to talk with DLR objects. See http://blogs.msdn.com/charlie/archive/2008/01/25/future-focus.aspx

-----Original Message-----
From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org<mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org> [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org<mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org>] On Behalf Of Curt Hagenlocher
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 12:43 PM
To: gakins at insomnia-consulting.org<mailto:gakins at insomnia-consulting.org>; ironruby-core at rubyforge.org<mailto:ironruby-core at rubyforge.org>
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] The future of Ruby.NET

On Feb 5, 2008 12:31 PM, Greg Akins <angrygreg at gmail.com<mailto:angrygreg at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Meaning, that like Ruby.Net can we write .Net classes in Ruby rather
> than writing them as strings that are passed to the RubyEngine?

There's a kind of mismatch between the capabilities of statically
defined types (as in the CLR) and the dynamic classes that Ruby
offers.  What should happen to the corresponding CLR class if, for
instance, someone were to dynamically add methods to the Ruby class?
CLR classes don't support that kind of operation.

The best option in this regard is probably to allow a dynamic (Ruby or
other DLR) class to be delegated to by a statically-defined wrapper.
Conceptually, such a wrapper could be automatically generated from the
Ruby class definition, but once defined it would be unalterable.

--
Curt Hagenlocher
curt at hagenlocher.org<mailto:curt at hagenlocher.org>
_______________________________________________
Ironruby-core mailing list
Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org<mailto:Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org>
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
_______________________________________________
Ironruby-core mailing list
Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org<mailto:Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org>
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20080205/8d6a5255/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Ironruby-core mailing list