jdeville at microsoft.com
Sun Aug 16 23:44:54 EDT 2009
This doesn't solve the problem in any way, but Console2 (on SourceForge gives you tabs and proper(-ish) cut and paste. I, too, long for the day when conhost.exe is a real console. If I ever get asked, I will pass this request on ;)
From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Meinrad Recheis
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 5:17 PM
To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Feedback
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Orion Edwards<orion.edwards at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've previously (with IronRuby versions 0.5,0.6 and earlier nightlies)
> tried to do various tasks using IronRuby, for 3 reasons:
> 1. Because ruby is a great language and I want to use it.
> 2. I believe IronRuby is especially valuable for fitting in with all
> the .NET 'business code' around, and I hope any feedback I can provide
> might be useful to you?
> 3. To promote IronRuby amongst my company and local community However,
> I'd always come up against unfixable blockers, and had to abandon the
> With 0.9 however, I've actually succeeded, and have built an
> automated-integration-testing setup (testing production code on
> machines) using IronRuby.
> I'd like to offer some feedback based on this:
> * First of all, congratulations on all the progress! Being able to
> actually use IronRuby on a real project has been really satisfying.
> You guys are awesome!
> * The main issue I now have with IronRuby at the moment is startup time.
> It takes around 4 seconds warm-starting iirb on my core2quad with 4
> gigs of RAM, and far far longer (some 30-odd seconds) cold starting on
> a lesser machine. I've ngen'ed all the IronRuby dll's on both machines.
> Anything you could do to reduce this time would make a huge impact
> (really, I'd be over the moon), and I'd gladly trade off a bit of
> runtime speed if it was needed.
> * It also feels like parsing files (require 'blah.rb', or requiring
> lots of
> files) is a slow operation. I don't have any objective data to back
> this up, but it seems to fit, given that warm-starting just ir.exe
> takes approx 0.5 seconds instead of 4
> * On the plus side, being able to just distribute the 5 core dll's
> and omit the ruby standard library if needed is really great. One of
> the best things about IronRuby thus far has been that all I need to do
> to deploy it is copy a few files and presto.
> * I'm primarily using it for scripting rather than any actual
> computation so I'm not compute-bound, but my impression has been that
> the current runtime-performance of IronRuby is great (the problem is
> "solved" as far as I'm concerned) As an aside: the win32 console is
> atrocious (which negatively impacts irb greatly). Please could someone
> at microsoft take a mac, run terminal.app, and go and beat the windows
> team over the head with it. You could substitute any linux distro for
> the mac if you don't have one. To be clear, I don't mean powershell vs
> cmd.exe, I mean the actual display/renderer, which looks like it
> hasn't changed since windows 3.1, and can't even copy/paste a
> multi-line block of text properly!
rofl. I think the windows team surely would have liked to make it better but I am sure they weren't given the time. someone should beat the responsible manager over the head with it ;)
> Thanks for all the hard work, keep it up!
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
Ironruby-core mailing list
Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
More information about the Ironruby-core