>From the peanut gallery: the lack of VS integration has definitely held me >back from trying to push IronRuby in any capacity at work - I've been happy >using Ruby without an IDE, but I am fairly certain that my colleagues would >politely and firmly decline any suggestion of switching to text editor and the >CLI. You could take that as a complement to the work of the VS team :)
On 25 May 2010, at 12:15, Mark Rendle wrote: > In terms of MRI compatibility, I'd suggest that 1.9.2 would be a good target. > 1.9.1 has various issues and has been largely ignored in favour of 1.8.7, but > I'm seeing a lot of people recommending 1.9.2 even in its current pre state. > > Beyond compatibility, I think VS integration would be sweet, and would help > drive adoption among my vi-illiterate colleagues. > > If my sum workload ever drops below critical mass, I'll start to contribute: > honest! > > Mark > > On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 4:24 AM, 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/ >> >> >> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 9:20 PM, David Escobar <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> 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 >> [mailto:ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of David Escobar >> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 5:48 PM >> >> >> To: 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> 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 >> [mailto:ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Martin Smith >> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 11:14 AM >> To: 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 >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 --- Stuart Ellis stu...@stuartellis.eu _______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
