Jimmy, Will, The suggestions posted on here are all great - I'll definitely give them a try. For me, I've gotten used to generating .exe's and .dll's using either compilers or packaging systems like py2exe for CPython and OCRA for MRI, and it's been fairly straightforward on how to do it. With IronRuby, it wasn't immediately obvious (to me) and seems to require more steps. That's what made me wonder if maybe the scope and intention of IronRuby was limited to being an embedded language for C# and VB, rather than as a language that stands on its own - where I can write my entire application in IR and then compile or pack it up to an assembly without any dependencies on C# or VB. That's what I meant by "first class" - hopefully that clears things up a bit. Sorry for any confusion.
But anyway, thanks for all the suggestions. That answers my questions. On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Jimmy Schementi < jimmy.scheme...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Will, what you are describing is the preferred way of packaging Ruby code > as an exe. Someone should write a sample that shows how to do this; I > believe there already is one but I don't have the URL handy. > > David, the first part of your email sounded reasonable, but the 2nd part > (about scope) came from left field. Please indicate why the recipe Tomas and > Will explained make IronRuby any less than first-class (whatever that means > =P). IronPython is also planning on doing this too, so we think it's the > best "self-contained deployment" option, but I'd like to hear why it won't > work for you. > > As far as the other discussed features go, let me draw a line in the sand > for the next major release (let's call it vNext for argument's sake): > > 1.) It is a goal of IronRuby vNext to improve interop with .NETs type > system, so we will most likely implement something like IronPython's > "clrtype" feature, and provide a library which lets you emit real static > types from Ruby code. You could even imagine taking the emitted IL and > writing it to a DLL, which could be called directly from a static language, > but that's lower priority. > > 2.) It is not a goal of IronRuby vNext to implement a static compiler for > Ruby; as in we will not emit both similar types and method bodies as C#. > IronRuby is a dynamic language, and any static compiler features should be > part of a .NET backend for Duby (currently only a JVM backend exists). > Pre-compilation > is different; it involves emitting IL to a DLL that we would have emit at > runtime, given every method were called. This would only help startup > marginally, as we already have fast startup with the interpreter and > NGEN-ing IronRuby's binaries, and most of the time spent is actually running > code, not emitting it. Also, pre-compilation doesn't help us CLR type system > interop, as it would not produce a CLI-compliant assembly; assemblies > generated by pyc cannot be referenced by a C# app. > > As far as non-.NET related features, we'll be targeting Ruby 1.9 support, > and running Rails 3 and other libs will focus us on what features to > implement first (so 1.8.7 compat might happen despite us wanting to move > directly to 1.9). FFI is another possible feature, but only if there are > crucial libs that use it, or if someone contributes it. > > Any other features people are curious about? Now is definitely the time to > voice your opinions :) > > ~Jimmy > > On May 11, 2010, at 7:15 PM, "Will Green" <w...@hotgazpacho.org> wrote: > > Why not create an executable assembly that embeds all the Ruby files as > resources in the assembly? Extract them at runtime (you could probably just > keep them in a memory stream), fire up a Ruby runtime host & engine, feed it > the Ruby file, and away you go. > > Or am I missing something that would make this infeasible? > > -- > Will Green > <http://hotgazpacho.org/>http://hotgazpacho.org/ > > > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 9:20 PM, David Escobar < <davidesco...@ieee.org> > davidesco...@ieee.org> wrote: > >> Ok, that's certainly an option to look into. I guess what people want is >> the ability to distribute applications and libraries in .exe and .dll form, >> the same way we do with C# or VB. But perhaps it's a question of scope - >> maybe IronRuby is not intended to be a 1st class .NET language in the same >> way that C# or VB are, or it's only intended to be a language for embedding >> in a static language or for unit testing purposes? >> >> The other reason is that it provides some (small) level of code >> obfuscation. I realize of course that the assemblies can be reverse >> engineered, but most users won't bother to do that - they'll just be >> interested in running the .exe. >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Tomas Matousek >> <<tomas.matou...@microsoft.com> >> tomas.matou...@microsoft.com> wrote: >> >>> Well, there is a pretty simple way how to package up .rb files into an >>> .exe file w/o precompiling anything. One option is to build a >>> self-extracting zip file or something like that. That would solve the >>> deployment issue. Improving startup time via pre-compilation is much more >>> work. >>> >>> >>> >>> Tomas >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* <ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org> >>> ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org >>> [mailto:<ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org> >>> ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] *On Behalf Of *David Escobar >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 11, 2010 5:48 PM >>> >>> *To:* <ironruby-core@rubyforge.org>ironruby-core@rubyforge.org >>> *Subject:* Re: [Ironruby-core] What's next? >>> >>> >>> >>> Pre-compiling code would allow us to distribute our programs in .exe and >>> .dll form, rather than .rb files. IronPython allows this with its pyc.py >>> script. And if that means faster startup times and using Ruby code >>> statically from C#, then all the better. >>> >>> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Tomas Matousek >>> <<tomas.matou...@microsoft.com> >>> tomas.matou...@microsoft.com> wrote: >>> >>> What would you like to achieve by pre-compiling code? Faster startup >>> time? Packaging your code in a dll instead of a bunch of .rb files? Using >>> Ruby code statically from C#? >>> >>> Tomas >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: <ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org> >>> ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org >>> [mailto:<ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org> >>> ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Martin Smith >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 11:14 AM >>> To: <ironruby-core@rubyforge.org>ironruby-core@rubyforge.org >>> Subject: [Ironruby-core] What's next? >>> >>> Hey Guys, >>> >>> Now that IronRuby 1.0 has shipped (congrats!!), what's next on the >>> docket? :) I'm not trying to pressure you guys! Just excited about the >>> future. >>> The feature i'd love to see most would be pre-compilation... >>> >>> Thanks for such a great product, >>> Martin >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ironruby-core mailing list >>> <Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org>Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org >>> <http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core> >>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ironruby-core mailing list >>> <Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org>Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org >>> <http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core> >>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ironruby-core mailing list >> <Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org>Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org >> <http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core> >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > >
_______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
