[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software

Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

[mildly OT] JVM Languages group

Charles Oliver Nutter

8/5/2007 9:20:00 PM

FYI, for the past couple months there's been ongoing discussions on the
JVM languages google group about how best to implement languages on the
JVM. We've also started to consider what we need to do to pool efforts
and build common frameworks that would raise all ships.

If you're interested in alternative languages for the JVM (which would
certainly include Ruby), you might be interested in this group. Or you
might know someone who would be interested in this group. Either way...

http://headius.blogspot.com/2007/08/widening-jvm-languages-group-we...

- Charlie

6 Answers

John Joyce

8/5/2007 10:16:00 PM

0


On Aug 5, 2007, at 4:20 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

> FYI, for the past couple months there's been ongoing discussions on
> the JVM languages google group about how best to implement
> languages on the JVM. We've also started to consider what we need
> to do to pool efforts and build common frameworks that would raise
> all ships.
>
> If you're interested in alternative languages for the JVM (which
> would certainly include Ruby), you might be interested in this
> group. Or you might know someone who would be interested in this
> group. Either way...
>
> http://headius.blogspot.com/2007/08/widening-jvm-languages...
> need.html
>
> - Charlie
>
interesting.
seems to be a common theme these days.
compiling to an intermediary language,
gcc
MS's CLR.
But a Java based solution certainly increases the distribution/
availability of any language (and software in it).
However, in Java tradition, perhaps it will just be "write once,
debug everywhere" again?
(just kidding, I really do think it's an excellent idea)

Charles Oliver Nutter

8/5/2007 10:22:00 PM

0

John Joyce wrote:
> interesting.
> seems to be a common theme these days.
> compiling to an intermediary language,
> gcc
> MS's CLR.
> But a Java based solution certainly increases the
> distribution/availability of any language (and software in it).
> However, in Java tradition, perhaps it will just be "write once, debug
> everywhere" again?

Let's hope not :) Seriously though, it seems like the time is ripe for
all the dozens of JVM language implementations (including two separate
Ruby implementations!) to work together on the platform as a whole. With
Java being open-sourced and polyglot programming becoming the hot new
thing, it's a no-brainer to start collaborating in this sort of group.

- Charlie

Matt Lawrence

8/5/2007 11:04:00 PM

0

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

8/5/2007 11:10:00 PM

0

Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> John Joyce wrote:
>> interesting.
>> seems to be a common theme these days.
>> compiling to an intermediary language,
>> gcc
>> MS's CLR.
>> But a Java based solution certainly increases the
>> distribution/availability of any language (and software in it).
>> However, in Java tradition, perhaps it will just be "write once, debug
>> everywhere" again?
>
> Let's hope not :) Seriously though, it seems like the time is ripe for
> all the dozens of JVM language implementations (including two separate
> Ruby implementations!) to work together on the platform as a whole. With
> Java being open-sourced and polyglot programming becoming the hot new
> thing, it's a no-brainer to start collaborating in this sort of group.
>
> - Charlie
>
>
Polyglot programming? Sure, I know a whole bunch of programming
languages, but I'm not at all sure that's a good thing, and I'm even
less sure that I want to learn Python, PHP or *any* dialect of C other
than C itself. There are as far as I'm concerned only two reasons to
learn a programming language:

1. Because I get paid to use it, or
2. It has some new concepts that will make me a better overall programmer.

Hence, I am learning Ruby and Erlang, and I learned FORTRAN,
Lisp/Scheme, C, Forth, Perl and R.

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

8/5/2007 11:11:00 PM

0

Matt Lawrence wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
>
>> If you're interested in alternative languages for the JVM (which would
>> certainly include Ruby), you might be interested in this group. Or you
>> might know someone who would be interested in this group. Either way...
>
> How about Forth?
>
> -- Matt
> It's not what I know that counts.
> It's what I can remember in time to use.
>
>
>
Join the group -- I beat you to it. :)

Charles Oliver Nutter

8/6/2007 1:23:00 AM

0

Matt Lawrence wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
>
>> If you're interested in alternative languages for the JVM (which would
>> certainly include Ruby), you might be interested in this group. Or you
>> might know someone who would be interested in this group. Either way...
>
> How about Forth?

Odd you should ask...a group member just expressed an interest in Forth.
I know no details about any current or future Forth implementations for
the JVM.

- Charlie