Simple question tho: how well is Rubymotion running RubySpecs?
On May 19, 2013 4:18 PM, "Colin Thomas Arnold Gray"
wrote:
> Just because RubyMotion is compiled doesn't mean it can't have
> metaprogramming and reflection abilities. These features are not orthogonal
> to each other. It is true that
Just because RubyMotion is compiled doesn't mean it can't have metaprogramming
and reflection abilities. These features are not orthogonal to each other. It
is true that most compiled languages DON'T have these features, but objective-c
definitely DOES.
For some light reading, check out (if you
@ben thanks, this is very clear
@david you can do reflection and metaprogramming in RubyMotion, but if you
porting code from regular ruby (like those use missing standard library like
singleton, delegate, or those missing API like eval string, method_define
string) , it might need some big cha
Hi Ben,
I am writing an OS X project that relies on Metaprogramming and Reflection.
Does not seem like RubMotion is an option for me.
All the best,
David
On May 16, 2013, at 10:05 PM, Carolyn Ann Grant wrote:
> Thanks, Mark!
>
> Yeah, I know the price is more than reasonable, Mark, it's just
Hey David,
Francis is right, MRI is leading the way, although there was an ISO standard
released last year.
The alternative implementations started the ruby specs, years before that so
they could get their rubies to work as drop in replacement for MRI.
There are other languages with variants th
Francis,
I know nothing about RubyMotion but if I understand correctly it uses a
compiler and not an interpreter. So I doubt if it can implement Metaprogramming
and Reflection. If it does not , then it is not a Ruby . It might be an
excellent language but not Ruby.
To the best of my understandin
