Asp Forum - Mac OS/X SSH access for maintaining RubyScript2Exe? Somebody?

Erik Veenstra

1/14/2006 9:40:00 AM

The main part of both RubyScript2Exe and AllInOneRuby is EEE.
EEE is written in Pascal and can be compiled on Linux, Windows
and Darwin. Maybe more, but those are the platforms for which I
maintain EEE, RubyScript2Exe and AllInOneRuby.

I do have a Linux machine. I do have a Windows machine. But I
don't have a Darwin machine, yet. I depend on Sourceforges
compile farm for compiling EEE on Darwin. They have two OS/X
servers which have been down for, at least, a month.

I'm looking for a more reliable way to maintain my projects. Is
somebody able and willing to offer me SSH access to a Mac OS/X
(PowerPC) box? All I need to install (in my home directory) is
FreePascal (~ 50 MB).

Thanks.

gegroet,
Erik V. - http://www.erikve...

3 Answers

ptkwt

1/14/2006 7:45:00 PM

In article <pan.2006.01.14.09.39.36.626406@erikveen.dds.nl>,
Erik Veenstra <pan@erikveen.dds.nl> wrote:
>The main part of both RubyScript2Exe and AllInOneRuby is EEE.
>EEE is written in Pascal and can be compiled on Linux, Windows
>and Darwin. Maybe more, but those are the platforms for which I
>maintain EEE, RubyScript2Exe and AllInOneRuby.
>
>I do have a Linux machine. I do have a Windows machine. But I
>don't have a Darwin machine, yet. I depend on Sourceforges
>compile farm for compiling EEE on Darwin. They have two OS/X
>servers which have been down for, at least, a month.
>
>I'm looking for a more reliable way to maintain my projects. Is
>somebody able and willing to offer me SSH access to a Mac OS/X
>(PowerPC) box? All I need to install (in my home directory) is
>FreePascal (~ 50 MB).
>

In the longterm, would it be possible recreate the functionality of EEE in
Ruby? Or perhaps even C or C++ (languages which have readily available
compilers)?

What exactly is EEE doing?

Pascal, is, well, kind of a dead language at this point. And while I do hear
people say things like "I really need to learn [Lisp|Smalltalk] because they
were important languages and have interesting concepts" I don't hear anyone
saying "I really need to learn Pascal" these days.

Phil

Erik Veenstra

1/16/2006 5:04:00 PM

> > The main part of both RubyScript2Exe and AllInOneRuby is
> > EEE. EEE is written in Pascal and can be compiled on Linux,
> > Windows and Darwin. Maybe more, but those are the platforms
> > for which I maintain EEE, RubyScript2Exe and AllInOneRuby.
>
> In the longterm, would it be possible recreate the
> functionality of EEE in Ruby?

No. Unless you can compile Ruby into native byte code.

> Or perhaps even C or C++ (languages which have readily
> available compilers)?

Yes, it's possible. If anybody can do this for me/us: please,
do. I'll be glad to help. (I don't know C myself.)

> What exactly is EEE doing?

<quote src="http://www.erikve...eee/index.html... EEE is
a program that combines multiple files and actions into a
compressed Windows, Linux or Mac OS X (Darwin) executable. Do
you have to distribute DLL's or SO's along with your
application? The interpreter with you script? The runtime
environment with your program? EEE is what you're looking
for!</quote>

> Pascal, is, well, kind of a dead language at this point.

That's your statement. I think a lot of people (excluding me,
by the way) won't agree :-) FreePascal is even more actively
developed than Ruby.

I knew only three languages which could be compiled into native
byte code: Pascal, PL/I and Cobol. Of all three, Pascal might
be the one which is most alive and most portable (Windows,
Linux and Darwin).

> And while I do hear people say things like "I really need to
> learn [Lisp|Smalltalk] because they were important languages
> and have interesting concepts" I don't hear anyone saying "I
> really need to learn Pascal" these days.

What do you mean with this? Is it important, anyway? I don't
use a tool because it's popular or interesting; I use a tool
because it's suitable for the job. In this case, Pascal was
more suitable then Ruby.

By the way, my question was not about Pascal, but about SSH
access on a Darwin machine.

> > I'm looking for a more reliable way to maintain my
> > projects. Is somebody able and willing to offer me SSH
> > access to a Mac OS/X (PowerPC) box? All I need to install
> > (in my home directory) is FreePascal (~ 50 MB).

Anybody?

gegroet,
Erik V. - http://www.erikve...

ptkwt

1/20/2006 2:12:00 AM

In article <1137431044.315645.92260@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Erik Veenstra <google@erikveen.dds.nl> wrote:
>> > The main part of both RubyScript2Exe and AllInOneRuby is
>> > EEE. EEE is written in Pascal and can be compiled on Linux,
>> > Windows and Darwin. Maybe more, but those are the platforms
>> > for which I maintain EEE, RubyScript2Exe and AllInOneRuby.
>>
>> In the longterm, would it be possible recreate the
>> functionality of EEE in Ruby?
>
>No. Unless you can compile Ruby into native byte code.

OK, I guess I should read your blurb again (I did a long time back, but
figured that if I needed Pascal installed I would try something else).
Wouldn't it be possible to generate a C
program that embeds Ruby and then that requires all the dependencies? Any
shared libs could be linked in in the compile phase. It wouldn't take much C
code at all to do this and in fact it could just be some template C code (I'm
guessing it would be less than a page of C). Then the Ruby part of the script
takes care of invoking gcc (or I suppose it could invoke VC++ as an option on
Windows) to create the exe. Have Ruby do as much of the work as possible.

>
>> Or perhaps even C or C++ (languages which have readily
>> available compilers)?
>
>Yes, it's possible. If anybody can do this for me/us: please,
>do. I'll be glad to help. (I don't know C myself.)
>
>> What exactly is EEE doing?
>
><quote src="http://www.erikveen.dds.nl/eee/index.html... EEE is
>a program that combines multiple files and actions into a
>compressed Windows, Linux or Mac OS X (Darwin) executable. Do
>you have to distribute DLL's or SO's along with your
>application? The interpreter with you script? The runtime
>environment with your program? EEE is what you're looking
>for!</quote>
>
>> Pascal, is, well, kind of a dead language at this point.
>
>That's your statement. I think a lot of people (excluding me,
>by the way) won't agree :-) FreePascal is even more actively
>developed than Ruby.

Sorry, I really didn't mean to get into a language war here...
I remember learning Pascal back in college in the early 80's (If I had been
one term later it would have been C as they were transitioning the next
quarter). Batch system. Submit your program and come by the next day for a
printout to see if it worked or if you had a syntax error (if you had an
error you had to resubmit the job and come back the next day)- you can
understand that I don't have happy memories of Pascal, though I suppose it
wasn't all Pascal's fault. ;-)

>
>I knew only three languages which could be compiled into native
>byte code: Pascal, PL/I and Cobol. Of all three, Pascal might
>be the one which is most alive and most portable (Windows,
>Linux and Darwin).
>
>> And while I do hear people say things like "I really need to
>> learn [Lisp|Smalltalk] because they were important languages
>> and have interesting concepts" I don't hear anyone saying "I
>> really need to learn Pascal" these days.
>
>What do you mean with this? Is it important, anyway? I don't
>use a tool because it's popular or interesting; I use a tool
>because it's suitable for the job. In this case, Pascal was
>more suitable then Ruby.

Yes, apparently for you that was the case. My point was just that Pascal's
just not a language that a lot of people are learning these days (and I don't
see a lot of people eager to learn it if they don't already know it). Yes,
apparently Pascal has lost it's buzz (probably did around 1986; well, there
_is_ that Delphi thingy, I suppose ;-).

>
>By the way, my question was not about Pascal, but about SSH
>access on a Darwin machine.
>
>> > I'm looking for a more reliable way to maintain my
>> > projects. Is somebody able and willing to offer me SSH
>> > access to a Mac OS/X (PowerPC) box? All I need to install
>> > (in my home directory) is FreePascal (~ 50 MB).
>

....and my point wasn't to start a language war, but to suggest that if it
could be done entirely in Ruby (with just about a page of C, maybe only 1/2
page) it would be portable and probably run the same
way on OS X as it does on Linux (and maybe even Windows)... and the other
thing is that Pascal is not a dependency that most people would have
installed (at least most people using Ruby anyway) while gcc is everywhere.

Phil

comp.lang.ruby

Mac OS/X SSH access for maintaining RubyScript2Exe? Somebody?

Erik Veenstra

ptkwt

Erik Veenstra

ptkwt

x Login to ForumsZone