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


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Re: IronRuby

Greg Donald

9/12/2007 7:04:00 PM

15 Answers

Bill Kelly

9/12/2007 7:38:00 PM

0


From: "Greg Donald" <greg@cyberfusionconsulting.com>
>
> Why can't they just send patches in to Matz and the Ruby dev guys like
> other contributors? What's to be gained by making another version of
> the same thing?

I presumed it was a situation similar to JRuby?

That is, providing the ruby language tightly integrated with and
running on a different platform.

If I ever had to program on the Java platform again, I'd be
grateful for the existence of JRuby. Similarly, if I ever had
to program on .NET, I imagine I'd be grateful for the existence
of IronRuby.


> Their goals are very different
> from most open source project goals so why are they trying to feign
> active participation when anyone with a brain knows their intentions are
> not genuinely friendly.

So long as they are using a genuine open source license--which
it sounds like they are--I'm hard pressed to imagine any
catastrophic consequences from their efforts?


Regards,

Bill

Greg Donald

9/12/2007 9:30:00 PM

0

Charles Oliver Nutter

9/13/2007 7:58:00 AM

0

Bill Kelly wrote:
> So long as they are using a genuine open source license--which
> it sounds like they are--I'm hard pressed to imagine any
> catastrophic consequences from their efforts?

I'd love some clarification on that end of things. The core classes are
really public and you can contribute to them. The runtime (DLR plus some
IronRuby internals) seem to be public but you can't contribute to it.
And then of course Microsoft's CLR impl is not open source. I respect
what John's trying to do opening up this project, but I worry about an
OSS project built on progressively more closed foundations.

- Charlie

John Lam (CLR)

9/13/2007 4:36:00 PM

0

Answering these points since Slavo did a great job at quoting me about the other issue.

> From: Charles.O.Nutter@sun.com [mailto:Charles.O.Nutter@sun.com]
>
> And then of course Microsoft's CLR impl is not open source. I respect
> what John's trying to do opening up this project, but I worry about an
> OSS project built on progressively more closed foundations.

I'm not sure what progressively means in this context, but I think it's pretty clear to folks on this list that Windows is a closed source operating system. The CLR is a part of Windows and ships with Windows. I'm not sure how you can get any more 'closed' than Windows is already :)

> Could what's on RubyForge be forked and run on an arbitrary CLR?

Sure. The Mono folks have had DLR running for quite some time now. But they don't need to nor desire a fork. They can take the source code as-is and ship it because MsPL gives them that privilege. We do tend to break Mono with every major release of IronPython/DLR so they actually really like us because we do push the boundaries of their implementation. Generally it's less than 2 weeks before they our stuff building on top of Mono.

-John

Chad Perrin

9/13/2007 6:19:00 PM

0

On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 04:57:50PM +0900, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> Bill Kelly wrote:
> >So long as they are using a genuine open source license--which
> >it sounds like they are--I'm hard pressed to imagine any
> >catastrophic consequences from their efforts?
>
> I'd love some clarification on that end of things. The core classes are
> really public and you can contribute to them. The runtime (DLR plus some
> IronRuby internals) seem to be public but you can't contribute to it.
> And then of course Microsoft's CLR impl is not open source. I respect
> what John's trying to do opening up this project, but I worry about an
> OSS project built on progressively more closed foundations.

I don't know that "progressively more" really fits here -- but the
foundations are certainly closed (as John pointed out). That's what you
get when you develop for MS Windows. There are no two ways about that.
Unfortunately, people still need to develop for MS Windows from time to
time -- and doing so can actually provide some opportunity for people to
grow to appreciate things that are available other than on MS Windows,
particularly with cross-platform applications, so overall I think
IronRuby might serve to provide some impetus for some people to get out
of that rut.

On a similar note: The idea of open source software being built on closed
foundations sounds a lot like what has been going on with open source
development in Java for several years. Despite this, I don't really see
people complaining about the closed foundations represented by the Java
VM.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.ap... ]
Leon Festinger: "A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him
you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts and figures and he questions
your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."

MenTaLguY

9/13/2007 6:22:00 PM

0

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 03:18:34 +0900, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
> Despite this, I don't really see people complaining about the closed
> foundations represented by the Java VM.

Some people did complain quite a lot, until Java was finally opened[1].

-mental

---

[1] No causal relationship implied.

Lloyd Linklater

9/13/2007 8:56:00 PM

0

Slavo Furman wrote:

> John is without doubt best person to answer such questions, I just like
> to
> say that in his weblog post
> "http://www.iunknown.com/2007/07/a-first-look-at.... he says that:
>
> "once the DLR matures and reaches 1.0status with fully supported public
> interfaces, we will *fully open up all parts of the IronRuby project for
> external contributions*

The link given was a dead page for me. Will the source be fully open
eventually?
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

John Lam (CLR)

9/13/2007 9:08:00 PM

0

> Behalf Of Lloyd Linklater
>
> The link given was a dead page for me. Will the source be fully open
> eventually?

Yes - around the time that DLR hits 1.0, which will be sometime next year - likely in the summer.

-John

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

9/14/2007 1:27:00 AM

0

Chad Perrin wrote:
> On a similar note: The idea of open source software being built on closed
> foundations sounds a lot like what has been going on with open source
> development in Java for several years. Despite this, I don't really see
> people complaining about the closed foundations represented by the Java
> VM.
Yes, but after years of negotiations with literally hundreds of
stakeholders, Sun was able to open those foundations. Perhaps a similar
thing could happen with CLR.

Konrad Meyer

9/14/2007 1:37:00 AM

0

Quoth M. Edward (Ed) Borasky on Thursday 13 September 2007 06:26:43 pm:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> > On a similar note: The idea of open source software being built on closed
> > foundations sounds a lot like what has been going on with open source
> > development in Java for several years. Despite this, I don't really see
> > people complaining about the closed foundations represented by the Java
> > VM.
> Yes, but after years of negotiations with literally hundreds of
> stakeholders, Sun was able to open those foundations. Perhaps a similar
> thing could happen with CLR.

It's Microsoft. Unlikely.

--
Konrad Meyer <konrad@tylerc.org> http://konrad.sobertil...