Re: Ruby
On Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 05:39:54PM +, Leon Brocard wrote: Jonathan Peterson sent the following bits through the ether: The language Ruby looks really cool. Can anyone tell me: It's very Perlish, but over-the-top OO-ish at the same time. The interpreter just runs over the parse tree - none of these fancy bytecodes and stuff. I'm not convinced, but get the best of both worlds with Inline::Ruby ;-) IIRC, the author is working on making Ruby compile to bytecodes as we speak. I'm not sure when this'll be done though. Best I can find is a mailing list post that says that it'll be in the "Next Generation" of Ruby. That could mean a while. -- Mark Hulme-Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ruby
[EMAIL PROTECTED] sent the following bits through the ether: Slightly OT, but does anyone think it would be possible to run Perl/Ruby/Java bytecode directly on a Transmeta Crusoe chip? As I understand it, you would only need to implement a VLIW translation layer or whatever Yes, right. This layer wotsit may be tricky to write, though ;-) ISTR that Transmeta demoed Java bytecode running when they announced the Crusoe, and also that they explicitly said that they didn't want other people to mess around at that level. It only buys you speed, anyway, and I bet you a strongly untyped language like Perl[1] wouldn't run that much faster... Leon [1] which is why Java-JVM and Java-.NET CLR are hard and slow -- Leon Brocard.http://www.astray.com/ yapc::Europehttp://yapc.org/Europe/ ... A living example of Artificial Intelligence
Re: Ruby
Leon Brocard sent the following bits through the ether: [1] which is why Java-JVM and Java-.NET CLR are hard and slow ... A living example of Artificial Intelligence Hmmm, I obviously meant Perl instead of Java there. How bizarre. Leon -- Leon Brocard.http://www.astray.com/ yapc::Europehttp://yapc.org/Europe/ ... Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive
Re: Ruby
Jonathan Peterson sent the following bits through the ether: The language Ruby looks really cool. Can anyone tell me: It's very Perlish, but over-the-top OO-ish at the same time. The interpreter just runs over the parse tree - none of these fancy bytecodes and stuff. I'm not convinced, but get the best of both worlds with Inline::Ruby ;-) Leon -- Leon Brocard.http://www.astray.com/ yapc::Europehttp://yapc.org/Europe/ ... Always remember no matter where you go, there you are
Ruby
Hey,
The language Ruby looks really cool. Can anyone tell me:
1. Why on earth you'd use Python instead of Ruby.
2. If anyone here has used it for production code and knows more about it.
It looks cool.
Jonathan PetersonIdeas Hub Ltd
(t) +44 (0)20 7487 1310
www.ideashub.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robin Houston
Sent: 01 March 2001 13:27
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New London PM Shirt Designs
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 02:21:36PM +0100, Philip Newton wrote:
push @us, all(@base);
use Quantum::Superpositions;
@belong_to_us { all (@Your::base) } = 1;
?
.robin.
--
A man, a plan, a cat, a ham, a yak, a yam, a hat, a canal--Panama!
Re: Ruby
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 02:15:01PM -, Jonathan Peterson wrote: Hey, The language Ruby looks really cool. Can anyone tell me: 1. Why on earth you'd use Python instead of Ruby. Because Python is a lot cleaner and more elegant? And doesn't require all those daft nested "end"s? But I'm not going to do Python advocacy on a Perl list, I like my hairs unsinged. :-) The same question applies equally well to "Why would you use Ruby when you have Perl?". Except that people might feel that ruby has a little bit of an OO advantage (dunno, though. I both love and hate perl's OO). 2. If anyone here has used it for production code and knows more about it. Pass. You may like to look on the ruby website, instead though. It looks cool. No, it looks like Perl-envy. It has a few neat toys, but IMHO, doesn't differentiate itself enough from either Perl or Python. I do like the yield thingy though. Oh, and the Dr Dobbs 25th anniversary issue has a nice little introductory article in case anybody's interested: http://www.ddj.com/articles/2001/0101/0101b/0101b.htm -Dom
Re: Ruby
In message BF7C70E24CF5D311B52F00B0D0215D411B13FE@IH_SERVER, "Jonathan Peterson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hey, Dude. The language Ruby looks really cool. Can anyone tell me: It is really cool. 1. Why on earth you'd use Python instead of Ruby. I wouldn't any more. The only reasons I used Python were sensible OO and the XML parsing was less painful than XML::Parser at the time. Now I get my OO from Ruby, and my sensible XML parsing from XML::DOM or XML::XPath. 2. If anyone here has used it for production code and knows more about it. Yes, I use it, and I know a bit about it. It's fun. It looks cool. It is. :) -- rob partington % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://lynx.browser.org/
Re: Ruby
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 02:56:28PM +, Rob Partington wrote: In message BF7C70E24CF5D311B52F00B0D0215D411B13FE@IH_SERVER, "Jonathan Peterson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hey, Dude. The language Ruby looks really cool. Can anyone tell me: It is really cool. 1. Why on earth you'd use Python instead of Ruby. I wouldn't any more. The only reasons I used Python were sensible OO and the XML parsing was less painful than XML::Parser at the time. Now I get my OO from Ruby, and my sensible XML parsing from XML::DOM or XML::XPath. 2. If anyone here has used it for production code and knows more about it. Yes, I use it, and I know a bit about it. It's fun. Can you give us some more details, I'm interested too ;) What's the performance like, library availability, can you recommend any of the books on it etc etc? jp
