[Ironruby-core] What's next?

Martin Smith martin.smith.jr at gmail.com
Thu Jun 3 16:49:55 EDT 2010


Hey Stuart,

Try out rubymine. We use that and it works pretty well even with IronRuby...

Martin

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Stuart Ellis <stuart at stuartellis.eu> wrote:
> >From the peanut gallery: the lack of VS integration has definitely held me back from trying to push IronRuby in any capacity at work - I've been happy using Ruby without an IDE, but I am fairly certain that my colleagues would politely and firmly decline any suggestion of switching to text editor and the CLI. You could take that as a complement to the work of the VS team :)
>
> On 25 May 2010, at 12:15, Mark Rendle wrote:
>
>> In terms of MRI compatibility, I'd suggest that 1.9.2 would be a good target. 1.9.1 has various issues and has been largely ignored in favour of 1.8.7, but I'm seeing a lot of people recommending 1.9.2 even in its current pre state.
>>
>> Beyond compatibility, I think VS integration would be sweet, and would help drive adoption among my vi-illiterate colleagues.
>>
>> If my sum workload ever drops below critical mass, I'll start to contribute: honest!
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 4:24 AM, Jimmy Schementi <Jimmy.Schementi at microsoft.com> wrote:
>> Will, what you are describing is the preferred way of packaging Ruby code as an exe. Someone should write a sample that shows how to do this; I believe there already is one but I don't have the URL handy.
>>
>> David, the first part of your email sounded reasonable, but the 2nd part (about scope) came from left field. Please indicate why the recipe Tomas and Will explained make IronRuby any less than first-class (whatever that means =P). IronPython is also planning on doing this too, so we think it's the best "self-contained deployment" option, but I'd like to hear why it won't work for you.
>>
>> As far as the other discussed features go, let me draw a line in the sand for the next major release (let's call it vNext for argument's sake):
>>
>> 1.) It is a goal of IronRuby vNext to improve interop with .NETs type system, so we will most likely implement something like IronPython's "clrtype" feature, and provide a library which lets you emit real static types from Ruby code. You could even imagine taking the emitted IL and writing it to a DLL, which could be called directly from a static language, but that's lower priority.
>>
>> 2.) It is not a goal of IronRuby vNext to implement a static compiler for Ruby; as in we will not emit both similar types and method bodies as C#. IronRuby is a dynamic language, and any static compiler features should be part of a .NET backend for Duby (currently only a JVM backend exists). Pre-compilation is different; it involves emitting IL to a DLL that we would have emit at runtime, given every method were called. This would only help startup marginally, as we already have fast startup with the interpreter and NGEN-ing IronRuby's binaries, and most of the time spent is actually running code, not emitting it. Also, pre-compilation doesn't help us CLR type system interop, as it would not produce a CLI-compliant assembly; assemblies generated by pyc cannot be referenced by a C# app.
>>
>> As far as non-.NET related features, we'll be targeting Ruby 1.9 support, and running Rails 3 and other libs will focus us on what features to implement first (so 1.8.7 compat might happen despite us wanting to move directly to 1.9). FFI is another possible feature, but only if there are crucial libs that use it, or if someone contributes it.
>>
>> Any other features people are curious about? Now is definitely the time to voice your opinions :)
>>
>> ~Jimmy
>>
>> On May 11, 2010, at 7:15 PM, "Will Green" <will at hotgazpacho.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Why not create an executable assembly that embeds all the Ruby files as resources in the assembly? Extract them at runtime (you could probably just keep them in a memory stream), fire up a Ruby runtime host & engine, feed it the Ruby file, and away you go.
>>>
>>> Or am I missing something that would make this infeasible?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Will Green
>>> http://hotgazpacho.org/
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 9:20 PM, David Escobar <davidescobar at ieee.org> wrote:
>>> Ok, that's certainly an option to look into. I guess what people want is the ability to distribute applications and libraries in .exe and .dll form, the same way we do with C# or VB. But perhaps it's a question of scope - maybe IronRuby is not intended to be a 1st class .NET language in the same way that C# or VB are, or it's only intended to be a language for embedding in a static language or for unit testing purposes?
>>>
>>> The other reason is that it provides some (small) level of code obfuscation. I realize of course that the assemblies can be reverse engineered, but most users won't bother to do that - they'll just be interested in running the .exe.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Tomas Matousek <Tomas.Matousek at microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> Well, there is a pretty simple way how to package up .rb files into an .exe file w/o precompiling anything. One option is to build a self-extracting zip file or something like that. That would solve the deployment issue. Improving startup time via pre-compilation is much more work.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tomas
>>>
>>>
>>> From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of David Escobar
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 5:48 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] What's next?
>>>
>>>
>>> Pre-compiling code would allow us to distribute our programs in .exe and .dll form, rather than .rb files. IronPython allows this with its pyc.py script. And if that means faster startup times and using Ruby code statically from C#, then all the better.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Tomas Matousek <Tomas.Matousek at microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> What would you like to achieve by pre-compiling code? Faster startup time? Packaging your code in a dll instead of a bunch of .rb files? Using Ruby code statically from C#?
>>>
>>> Tomas
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Martin Smith
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 11:14 AM
>>> To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
>>> Subject: [Ironruby-core] What's next?
>>>
>>> Hey Guys,
>>>
>>> Now that IronRuby 1.0 has shipped (congrats!!), what's next on the docket? :) I'm not trying to pressure you guys! Just excited about the future.
>>> The feature i'd love to see most would be pre-compilation...
>>>
>>> Thanks for such a great product,
>>> Martin
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ironruby-core mailing list
>>> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ironruby-core mailing list
>>> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ironruby-core mailing list
>>> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ironruby-core mailing list
>>> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
>>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ironruby-core mailing list
>> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ironruby-core mailing list
>> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>
> ---
> Stuart Ellis
> stuart at stuartellis.eu
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>


More information about the Ironruby-core mailing list