I'm using RubyMine for rails and projects with more than 2-3 files. Otherwise I'm using SciTE.
By the way, RubyMine is not free. Shay. -------------------------------------------------------- Shay Friedman | Microsoft Visual C#/IronRuby MVP | Author of IronRuby Unleashed | Sela Technology Center Blog: http://IronShay.com | Twitter: http://twitter.com/ironshay On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Stuart Ellis <stu...@stuartellis.eu> wrote: > Interesting - I tried SharpDevelop and Netbeans, and wasn't happy with them > for different reasons, but not RubyMine. > > Thanks > > On 3 Jun 2010, at 21:49, Martin Smith wrote: > > > Hey Stuart, > > > > Try out rubymine. We use that and it works pretty well even with > IronRuby... > > > > Martin > > > > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Stuart Ellis <stu...@stuartellis.eu> > wrote: > >>> 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 > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
