Asp Forum - Native gem roundup!

Charles Oliver Nutter

2/2/2009 3:15:00 PM

I'm curious what native gems/extensions people are typically using. In
general it seems like most native extensions fall into two categories:

* They are wrappers around a C API/library, as in zlib, rmagick, nokogiri
* They are written for performance reasons, to implement a particular
algorithm in a native language or call a library for the same reasons

And there's a lot of grey area, with some extensions falling in both
categories.

Wrappers can now largely be handled by FFI, and I hope more and more of
them will use FFI as needed to access those libraries. But I'm concerned
about extensions written for performance, since Ruby 1.9 and JRuby do
almost as much to speed Ruby up.

Ultimately, my quest is to eliminate Ruby's dependence on extensions for
things FFI or "faster Ruby" could do, since it will improve the future
for both the standard and alternative implementations.

So, what native gems or extensions do you use? Why do you use them or
why do they exist?

- Charlie

38 Answers

Roger Pack

2/2/2009 3:43:00 PM

> So, what native gems or extensions do you use? Why do you use them or
> why do they exist?

I use mysql, mysqlplus, eventmachine, ruby debug, hitimes, win32-api,
ruby prof, mongrel, and ferret. Most wrappers to C libs [which is for
speed].
Cheers!
-=r
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

Coey Minear

2/2/2009 3:45:00 PM

Charles Oliver Nutter writes:
> I'm curious what native gems/extensions people are typically using. In
> general it seems like most native extensions fall into two categories:
>
> * They are wrappers around a C API/library, as in zlib, rmagick, nokogiri
> * They are written for performance reasons, to implement a particular
> algorithm in a native language or call a library for the same reasons
>
> And there's a lot of grey area, with some extensions falling in both
> categories.
>
> Wrappers can now largely be handled by FFI, and I hope more and more of
> them will use FFI as needed to access those libraries. But I'm concerned
> about extensions written for performance, since Ruby 1.9 and JRuby do
> almost as much to speed Ruby up.
>
> Ultimately, my quest is to eliminate Ruby's dependence on extensions for
> things FFI or "faster Ruby" could do, since it will improve the future
> for both the standard and alternative implementations.
>
> So, what native gems or extensions do you use? Why do you use them or
> why do they exist?
>
> - Charlie
>

For me, they would be FastCGI and ruby-postgres, two more examples of
wrapping a C library. (Technically, I currently run FastCGI as
installed --- in 'site_ruby' --- rather than a gem; there was always a
hiccup if I tried to install it as a gem, so I went with the quickest
way to get it working.)

As you may guess, this is a Rails application. FastCGI is used for
Apache deployment; ruby-postgres is for accessing the PostgreSQL
database. I know there are other options for Apache/web deployment
(e.g. Mongrel), but this install is stable and other priorities take
precedence over investigating alternative deployment configurations.
For PostgreSQL, even if I moved to ruby-pg, that is still a C library
wrapper.

Anyways, just trying to answer your query.

--
Coey Minear

Brian Candler

2/2/2009 4:40:00 PM

Jakub Pavlík jn.

2/2/2009 5:03:00 PM

> I'm curious what native gems/extensions people are typically using. In
> general it seems like most native extensions fall into two categories:
>
> * They are wrappers around a C API/library, as in zlib, rmagick, nokogiri
> * They are written for performance reasons, to implement a particular
> algorithm in a native language or call a library for the same reasons
>
> And there's a lot of grey area, with some extensions falling in both
> categories.
>
> Wrappers can now largely be handled by FFI, and I hope more and more of
> them will use FFI as needed to access those libraries. But I'm concerned
> about extensions written for performance, since Ruby 1.9 and JRuby do
> almost as much to speed Ruby up.
>
> Ultimately, my quest is to eliminate Ruby's dependence on extensions for
> things FFI or "faster Ruby" could do, since it will improve the future
> for both the standard and alternative implementations.
>
> So, what native gems or extensions do you use? Why do you use them or
> why do they exist?
>
> - Charlie

I use RUDL or Rubygame (SDL wrappers) to make games;
ruby-prof for profiling of these games, because pure Ruby profiler from the standard library slows programs too much down.

Jakub

--
"Configure complete, now type 'make' and PRAY."

(configure script of zsnes - www.zsnes.com)

Ryan Davis

2/2/2009 8:03:00 PM

On Feb 2, 2009, at 07:15 , Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

> * They are wrappers around a C API/library, as in zlib, rmagick,
> nokogiri
> * They are written for performance reasons, to implement a
> particular algorithm in a native language or call a library for the
> same reasons

or they're written to get into ruby internals... I don't quite
consider that a wrapper around C API and it looks like you don't either.

Tom Cloyd

2/2/2009 9:23:00 PM

Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> I'm curious what native gems/extensions people are typically using. In
> general it seems like most native extensions fall into two categories:
>
> * They are wrappers around a C API/library, as in zlib, rmagick, nokogiri
> * They are written for performance reasons, to implement a particular
> algorithm in a native language or call a library for the same reasons
>
> And there's a lot of grey area, with some extensions falling in both
> categories.
>
> Wrappers can now largely be handled by FFI, and I hope more and more
> of them will use FFI as needed to access those libraries. But I'm
> concerned about extensions written for performance, since Ruby 1.9 and
> JRuby do almost as much to speed Ruby up.
>
> Ultimately, my quest is to eliminate Ruby's dependence on extensions
> for things FFI or "faster Ruby" could do, since it will improve the
> future for both the standard and alternative implementations.
>
> So, what native gems or extensions do you use? Why do you use them or
> why do they exist?
>
> - Charlie
>
>
Charlie,

As someone with a social survey research background, I want to advise
you that this is an extremely poor way to get your question answered. If
you're not serious about getting a good answer, your request is very
close to list-noise. If you are, then you need a decent sample OR all
the parametric data (i.e., don't sample it - get it all).

I wonder why you don't go after the latter? Is there someway to get
download counts for various gems? I realize there are hundreds, but THAT
would be useful data.

Alternatively, you could use the gems themselves as your population.
Draw a sample of them, as samples of serious Ruby code (and get at least
35, and preferably much more than that), then scrape from them the gems
THEY use, and get a frequency distribution from that sample.

In terms of bang for buck, I'd go with the latter alternative, 'cause
THAT data would actually be something from which you might reasonably
infer something.

What you're doing with this list-post nonsense is akin to putting a box
of surveys on the sidewalk, with a sign "please fill one out", then
taking your results and thinking they actually MEAN something. Believe
me, they do not.

Hope this helps the "cause".

t.

--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Cloyd, MS MA, LMHC - Private practice Psychotherapist
Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226
<< tc@tomcloyd.com >> (email)
<< TomCloyd.com >> (website)
<< sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental health weblog)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Justin Collins

2/2/2009 10:36:00 PM

Tom Cloyd wrote:
> Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
>> I'm curious what native gems/extensions people are typically using.
>> In general it seems like most native extensions fall into two
>> categories:
>>
>> * They are wrappers around a C API/library, as in zlib, rmagick,
>> nokogiri
>> * They are written for performance reasons, to implement a particular
>> algorithm in a native language or call a library for the same reasons
>>
>> And there's a lot of grey area, with some extensions falling in both
>> categories.
>>
>> Wrappers can now largely be handled by FFI, and I hope more and more
>> of them will use FFI as needed to access those libraries. But I'm
>> concerned about extensions written for performance, since Ruby 1.9
>> and JRuby do almost as much to speed Ruby up.
>>
>> Ultimately, my quest is to eliminate Ruby's dependence on extensions
>> for things FFI or "faster Ruby" could do, since it will improve the
>> future for both the standard and alternative implementations.
>>
>> So, what native gems or extensions do you use? Why do you use them or
>> why do they exist?
>>
>> - Charlie
>>
>>
> Charlie,
>
> As someone with a social survey research background, I want to advise
> you that this is an extremely poor way to get your question answered.
> If you're not serious about getting a good answer, your request is
> very close to list-noise. If you are, then you need a decent sample OR
> all the parametric data (i.e., don't sample it - get it all).
>
> I wonder why you don't go after the latter? Is there someway to get
> download counts for various gems? I realize there are hundreds, but
> THAT would be useful data.
>
> Alternatively, you could use the gems themselves as your population.
> Draw a sample of them, as samples of serious Ruby code (and get at
> least 35, and preferably much more than that), then scrape from them
> the gems THEY use, and get a frequency distribution from that sample.
>
> In terms of bang for buck, I'd go with the latter alternative, 'cause
> THAT data would actually be something from which you might reasonably
> infer something.
>
> What you're doing with this list-post nonsense is akin to putting a
> box of surveys on the sidewalk, with a sign "please fill one out",
> then taking your results and thinking they actually MEAN something.
> Believe me, they do not.
>
> Hope this helps the "cause".
>
> t.
>

There is always this:

http://gems.rubyforge.org/...

-Justin

Jos Backus

2/3/2009 2:43:00 AM

strongtyping, used by html-table. I sent the author a patch that makes it work
with 1.8.6 and 1.9.1 but haven't heard back.

--
Jos Backus
jos at catnook.com

Tom Cloyd

2/3/2009 8:54:00 AM

Justin Collins wrote:
> Tom Cloyd wrote:
>> Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
>>> I'm curious what native gems/extensions people are typically using.
>>> In general it seems like most native extensions fall into two
>>> categories:
>>>
>>> * They are wrappers around a C API/library, as in zlib, rmagick,
>>> nokogiri
>>> * They are written for performance reasons, to implement a
>>> particular algorithm in a native language or call a library for the
>>> same reasons
>>>
>>> And there's a lot of grey area, with some extensions falling in both
>>> categories.
>>>
>>> Wrappers can now largely be handled by FFI, and I hope more and more
>>> of them will use FFI as needed to access those libraries. But I'm
>>> concerned about extensions written for performance, since Ruby 1.9
>>> and JRuby do almost as much to speed Ruby up.
>>>
>>> Ultimately, my quest is to eliminate Ruby's dependence on extensions
>>> for things FFI or "faster Ruby" could do, since it will improve the
>>> future for both the standard and alternative implementations.
>>>
>>> So, what native gems or extensions do you use? Why do you use them
>>> or why do they exist?
>>>
>>> - Charlie
>>>
>>>
>> Charlie,
>>
>> As someone with a social survey research background, I want to advise
>> you that this is an extremely poor way to get your question answered.
>> If you're not serious about getting a good answer, your request is
>> very close to list-noise. If you are, then you need a decent sample
>> OR all the parametric data (i.e., don't sample it - get it all).
>>
>> I wonder why you don't go after the latter? Is there someway to get
>> download counts for various gems? I realize there are hundreds, but
>> THAT would be useful data.
>>
>> Alternatively, you could use the gems themselves as your population.
>> Draw a sample of them, as samples of serious Ruby code (and get at
>> least 35, and preferably much more than that), then scrape from them
>> the gems THEY use, and get a frequency distribution from that sample.
>>
>> In terms of bang for buck, I'd go with the latter alternative, 'cause
>> THAT data would actually be something from which you might reasonably
>> infer something.
>>
>> What you're doing with this list-post nonsense is akin to putting a
>> box of surveys on the sidewalk, with a sign "please fill one out",
>> then taking your results and thinking they actually MEAN something.
>> Believe me, they do not.
>>
>> Hope this helps the "cause".
>>
>> t.
>>
>
>
> There is always this:
>
> http://gems.rubyforge.org/...
>
> -Justin
>
>
Now, THAT's outright cheating. Worse yet, you probably Googled to find
this (or could have, if you didn't know about it). What is this world
coming too?

t.

--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Cloyd, MS MA, LMHC - Private practice Psychotherapist
Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226
<< tc@tomcloyd.com >> (email)
<< TomCloyd.com >> (website)
<< sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental health weblog)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Charles Oliver Nutter

2/3/2009 9:09:00 AM

Tom Cloyd wrote:
> As someone with a social survey research background, I want to advise
> you that this is an extremely poor way to get your question answered. If
> you're not serious about getting a good answer, your request is very
> close to list-noise. If you are, then you need a decent sample OR all
> the parametric data (i.e., don't sample it - get it all).

I disagree. I think the people most likely to respond to a mailing-list
request are the exact people I'm looking to reach. Did it occur to you
that perhaps I know there are download stats for all gems that I could
mine? I'm looking to gauge the importance of gems to vocal mailing-list
participants directly, by posting a general message here and seeing who
responds. And I've gotten a lot of great responses, both on-list and
off. If I wanted an accurate count of gem downloads (no doubt inflated
by older gems including dev-time libraries as runtime dependencies) I
certainly could get that. But people coming out and saying "I really
need X" is far more interesting.

So please, others, feel free to reply with what X you find important.

And Tom, thanks for your input. What native extensions do you find useful?

- Charlie

comp.lang.ruby

Native gem roundup!

Charles Oliver Nutter

Roger Pack

Coey Minear

Brian Candler

Jakub Pavlík jn.

Ryan Davis

Tom Cloyd

Justin Collins

Jos Backus

Tom Cloyd

Charles Oliver Nutter

x Login to ForumsZone