IronRuby is exciting because it brings Windows, Ruby and .NET together as
one. There are plenty of cases where deploying to Windows would either be
ideal, or in some cases, a must. Imagine developing a Ruby app that needs
to integrate with Sharepoint, or Great Plains; how would you go about doing
so? You could implement web services in C++, or perhaps C#... but then you
have several languages to deal with and multiple code bases to manage, as
opposed to a single Ruby app.
Enter IronRuby. Now you have the ability to harness the all of the Windows
oriented .NET libraries *from* Ruby. You could use DRb, or perhaps RESTful
services using Sinatra, and then consume those services from a Rails app.
So, while I agree that I'd rather deploy my main app to a linux box, it's
great to know that I can use IronRuby on Windows to seamlessly integrate
with Microsoft solutions. I would imagine that it's these sorts of
situations that Microsoft is banking on (as well as scripting scenarios and
such).
-Charles
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Nathan Stults <nathan_stu...@hsihealth.com
> wrote:
> Yeah, but who wants to **deploy** Ruby code on Windows? Develop, sure…but
> then performance doesn’t matter. If IronRuby is aiming only to be a windows
> centric technology, I can’t imagine what future it really has in store for
> it, that is, standing alone on its own two feet as a Ruby implementation.
> Integrated into .NET software is a different story irrelevant to the
> benchmarks being discussed, but I don’t think the benchmarks are misleading
> as far as the Ruby community at large is concerned, because for that group,
> I don’t imagine Windows is a viable deployment target ( why would it be?) so
> benchmarking on Linux is probably the most realistic kind of benchmarking
> you can do when comparing ruby interpreters for that particular audience. I
> suppose that is one of the things that makes the IronRuby project an enigma
> to me – in my mind Ruby is a finger pointing to Linux, so it seems an odd
> one for Microsoft to extend.
>
>
>
> *From:* ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org [mailto:
> ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] *On Behalf Of *Orion Edwards
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 28, 2010 8:59 PM
> *To:* ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ironruby-core] Will the performance catch up be next
> milestone?
>
>
>
> It's probably not intentional but his benchmark graphs are misleading.
>
>
>
> Because Mono is not nearly as fast or as mature as Microsoft's .NET, the
> performance of IronRuby on mono is much worse. Unfortunately all his graphs
> show Mono performance only, which makes IronRuby appear very slow.
>
>
>
> If you look at the numbers directly (there is a table further down
> comparing IronRuby on mono vs IronRuby on .net), IronRuby is much much
> faster. It appears to me that IronRuby on windows (.NET) is faster than MRI
> 1.9.2 ("regular" ruby) on windows!
>
>
>
> It's still not as fast as MRI 1.9.2 on linux, but it's not that far behind
> either.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Ray Linn <li...@ruby-forum.com> wrote:
>
> IBM Engineer completed a performance benchmark for rubys, seems ir does
> not well done in the performance.
>
>
> http://programmingzen.com/2010/07/19/the-great-ruby-shootout-july-2010/
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
