Peter Bacon Darwin wrote: > If the DLR is going to compile up the Ruby code into IL anyway then it > should not be a huge performance problem to write most libraries in Ruby and > then use IR .NET interop to access any underlying functionality that is not > normally available in Ruby. > > **** This would also have the benefit of removing the excuse of non-C# > developers from contributing to the IR libraries!! ****
One of the other problems the Rubinius guys face is performance. In other words, they're very slow for normal apps because in order for an all-Ruby set of core classes to perform well, the underlying enging needs to be *much* faster than a normal Ruby implementation. I don't doubt that IronRuby will be able to achieve really good performance, as IronPython has done...but I would be very surprised if it were able to achieve performance high enough to offset the cost of implementing core classes in Ruby. That said, implementing them in Ruby first saves you some implementation hassle, and helps the Ruby community in general by providing implementations that most current and new Ruby impls should be able to run. But I wouldn't bank on using those Ruby versions long term, unless you can afford to swallow the almost-certain performance hit. - Charlie _______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
