[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Groklaw says "Watch out, Ruby!"

Tim Hunter

7/30/2007 8:00:00 PM

PJ raises a warning cry about IronRuby: "Uh Oh. Another Smooth Move
from Microsoft: Watch out, Ruby. Watch out OSI." [http://
www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070730120109643]
40 Answers

Lyle Johnson

7/30/2007 8:26:00 PM

0


On Jul 30, 2007, at 3:05 PM, rmagick@gmail.com wrote:

> PJ raises a warning cry about IronRuby: "Uh Oh. Another Smooth Move
> from Microsoft: Watch out, Ruby. Watch out OSI." [http://
> www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070730120109643]

I'm not sure I understand what this has to do with Ruby. The
implication seems to be that because Microsoft's IronRuby is released
under a license that isn't approved by OSI, that the Ruby community
at large had better "watch out".

With all due to respect to John Lam and the other IronRuby
developers, is anyone taking IronRuby all that seriously?

Alex Young

7/30/2007 8:48:00 PM

0

Lyle Johnson wrote:
>
> On Jul 30, 2007, at 3:05 PM, rmagick@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> PJ raises a warning cry about IronRuby: "Uh Oh. Another Smooth Move
>> from Microsoft: Watch out, Ruby. Watch out OSI." [http://
>> www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070730120109643]
>
> I'm not sure I understand what this has to do with Ruby. The implication
> seems to be that because Microsoft's IronRuby is released under a
> license that isn't approved by OSI, that the Ruby community at large had
> better "watch out".
>
> With all due to respect to John Lam and the other IronRuby developers,
> is anyone taking IronRuby all that seriously?
>
Very, but not for the reason you'd think. If IronRuby pans out, and if
SilverLight 1.1 does what it says on the tin, getting Ruby installed on
a client's machine becomes a no-op.

--
Alex

SonOfLilit

7/30/2007 8:50:00 PM

0

> With all due to respect to John Lam and the other IronRuby
> developers, is anyone taking IronRuby all that seriously?

I am.

It'll probably be the first "ruby" compiler to reach 1.0 and it allows
one to replace ActionScript with Ruby. Or so I hope.

I'll HAVE to have a look just because of these two possibilities.


Aur

Ben Bleything

7/30/2007 8:58:00 PM

0

On Tue, Jul 31, 2007, SonOfLilit wrote:
> > With all due to respect to John Lam and the other IronRuby
> > developers, is anyone taking IronRuby all that seriously?
>
> It'll probably be the first "ruby" compiler to reach 1.0 and it allows
> one to replace ActionScript with Ruby. Or so I hope.

You must mean "after jruby":

http://docs.codehaus.org/display/JRUBY/2007/06/12/JRuby+1....

or is jruby something fundamentally different than IronRuby in your
mind?

Ben

Alex Young

7/30/2007 9:02:00 PM

0

Alex Young wrote:
> Lyle Johnson wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 30, 2007, at 3:05 PM, rmagick@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> PJ raises a warning cry about IronRuby: "Uh Oh. Another Smooth Move
>>> from Microsoft: Watch out, Ruby. Watch out OSI." [http://
>>> www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070730120109643]
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand what this has to do with Ruby. The
>> implication seems to be that because Microsoft's IronRuby is released
>> under a license that isn't approved by OSI, that the Ruby community at
>> large had better "watch out".
>>
>> With all due to respect to John Lam and the other IronRuby developers,
>> is anyone taking IronRuby all that seriously?
>>
> Very, but not for the reason you'd think. If IronRuby pans out, and if
> SilverLight 1.1 does what it says on the tin, getting Ruby installed on
> a client's machine becomes a no-op.
>
Another question: is there any reason that, say, Rubinius' standard
libraries couldn't be used with IronRuby? Has anyone looked? What's
their implementation status at the moment?

--
Alex

Gregory Brown

7/30/2007 9:07:00 PM

0

On 7/30/07, Alex Young <alex@blackkettle.org> wrote:

> Another question: is there any reason that, say, Rubinius' standard
> libraries couldn't be used with IronRuby? Has anyone looked? What's
> their implementation status at the moment?

The MRI stdlibs are (mostly) Ruby and should be freely reusable. I'd
be sort of surprised if alternative implementers bother implementing
more than they have to with these, unless they need to tweak the
existing libs for their implementations.

Alex Young

7/30/2007 9:18:00 PM

0

Gregory Brown wrote:
> On 7/30/07, Alex Young <alex@blackkettle.org> wrote:
>
>> Another question: is there any reason that, say, Rubinius' standard
>> libraries couldn't be used with IronRuby? Has anyone looked? What's
>> their implementation status at the moment?
>
> The MRI stdlibs are (mostly) Ruby and should be freely reusable. I'd
> be sort of surprised if alternative implementers bother implementing
> more than they have to with these, unless they need to tweak the
> existing libs for their implementations.
>
I'm sure you're right, I can't see many technical reasons not to use the
standard implementation. However, John Lam is specifically asking for
contributions to the IronRuby stdlib. I don't know what assignments
you'd have to make to get them accepted, and I haven't seen it discussed
anywhere. John, are you reading? Can you give us a steer on this?

--
Alex

Gregory Brown

7/30/2007 9:23:00 PM

0

On 7/30/07, Alex Young <alex@blackkettle.org> wrote:
> Gregory Brown wrote:
> > On 7/30/07, Alex Young <alex@blackkettle.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Another question: is there any reason that, say, Rubinius' standard
> >> libraries couldn't be used with IronRuby? Has anyone looked? What's
> >> their implementation status at the moment?
> >
> > The MRI stdlibs are (mostly) Ruby and should be freely reusable. I'd
> > be sort of surprised if alternative implementers bother implementing
> > more than they have to with these, unless they need to tweak the
> > existing libs for their implementations.
> >
> I'm sure you're right, I can't see many technical reasons not to use the
> standard implementation. However, John Lam is specifically asking for
> contributions to the IronRuby stdlib. I don't know what assignments
> you'd have to make to get them accepted, and I haven't seen it discussed
> anywhere. John, are you reading? Can you give us a steer on this?

Oh, he can't use the implementations because I think the license is
incompatible :-/

Alex Young

7/30/2007 9:26:00 PM

0

Gregory Brown wrote:
> On 7/30/07, Alex Young <alex@blackkettle.org> wrote:
>> Gregory Brown wrote:
>>> On 7/30/07, Alex Young <alex@blackkettle.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Another question: is there any reason that, say, Rubinius' standard
>>>> libraries couldn't be used with IronRuby? Has anyone looked? What's
>>>> their implementation status at the moment?
>>> The MRI stdlibs are (mostly) Ruby and should be freely reusable. I'd
>>> be sort of surprised if alternative implementers bother implementing
>>> more than they have to with these, unless they need to tweak the
>>> existing libs for their implementations.
>>>
>> I'm sure you're right, I can't see many technical reasons not to use the
>> standard implementation. However, John Lam is specifically asking for
>> contributions to the IronRuby stdlib. I don't know what assignments
>> you'd have to make to get them accepted, and I haven't seen it discussed
>> anywhere. John, are you reading? Can you give us a steer on this?
>
> Oh, he can't use the implementations because I think the license is
> incompatible :-/
>
That's why I mentioned rubinius - it's BSD-licensed, isn't it?

--
Alex

SonOfLilit

7/30/2007 9:27:00 PM

0

On 7/30/07, Ben Bleything <ben@bleything.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2007, SonOfLilit wrote:
> > > With all due to respect to John Lam and the other IronRuby
> > > developers, is anyone taking IronRuby all that seriously?
> >
> > It'll probably be the first "ruby" compiler to reach 1.0 and it allows
> > one to replace ActionScript with Ruby. Or so I hope.
>
> You must mean "after jruby":

No, I don't. jruby is an interpreter.

Aur