# Compiling Ruby code **URL:** \ **Category:** ruby-talk\ **Created:** [20 July 2004 09:50 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/compiling-ruby-code/12668 "2004-07-20T09:50:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![James\_Roshan\_Cogniza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/45deac/32.png) [@James\_Roshan\_Cogniza](https://rubytalk.org/u/James_Roshan_Cogniza)\ **Post date:** [20 July 2004 09:50 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/compiling-ruby-code/12668/1 "2004-07-20T09:50:43Z")
If it is a meaningful additions to this list, I'd like to say that thse projects exist - Groovy [http://groovy.codehaus.org/](http://groovy.codehaus.org/) Jruby [http://jruby.sourceforge.net/](http://jruby.sourceforge.net/) Groovy might be of interst because it is a ruby like language that is compiled ot the JVM. The understand being that if it can be compiled to the JVM, it can be compiled to native code. It is a powerful flexible language like ruby with proper iterator and closure support. However, as far as I understand, eval style dynamic compilation is not yet supported. I really agree with your sentiment about wanting to compile ruby programs for the purpose of redistribution. That's the problem with all the ruby code out there - there is no way I can redistribute it without asking people download the ruby interpreter. And they they go "whats that ?... " and the whole story telling process starts. Taking ruby to a popular VM/runtime or native code, IMHO would be a big big addition to the acceptibility of the language. I understand that that it is a mind boggling amount of work to do this, in any acceptible way. Regards Roshan James [InterScan\_Disclaimer.txt](https://rubytalk.org/uploads/short-url/2C3THNKxQ9jIXqULnY0IIaOsX5q.txt) (520 Bytes) ---
**Author:** ![Ruben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/59ef9b/32.png) [@Ruben](https://rubytalk.org/u/Ruben)\ **Post date:** [20 July 2004 10:25 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/compiling-ruby-code/12668/2 "2004-07-20T10:25:50Z")
> I really agree with your sentiment about wanting to compile ruby > programs for the purpose of redistribution. That's the problem with all > the ruby code out there - there is no way I can redistribute it without > asking people download the ruby interpreter. > And they they go "whats that ?... " and the whole story telling process > starts. As has been said before, there \_is\_ a way to redistribute your application without asking people to download the interpreter... Actually, there are 2 ways, the first one is called Exerb and the second one is called RubyScript2Exe. I made a very small test application in ruby, turned it into one executable with RubyScript2Exe, then i used HM NIS Edit to make an initial script for NSIS (Nullsoft Scriptable Install System), which gave me a simple "Setup.exe". I have to admit it was a very, very simple thing, but still it surprised me that it went so easy to make a good looking installer for it. The only thing the user has to do, is to run the "setup.exe", no need to even talk about ruby. RubyScript2Exe [http://www.erikveen.dds.nl/rubyscript2exe/index.html](http://www.erikveen.dds.nl/rubyscript2exe/index.html) NSIS [http://nsis.sourceforge.net/](http://nsis.sourceforge.net/) HM NIS Edit [http://hmne.sourceforge.net/](http://hmne.sourceforge.net/) > Taking ruby to a popular VM/runtime or native code, IMHO would be a big > big addition to the acceptibility of the language. I understand that > that it is a mind boggling amount of work to do this, in any acceptible > way. I don't really understand why you think it would be a problem to ask the user to install the ruby interpreter (the one-click installer), since you seem to think it would not be a problem to ask the user to first install for example a JVM to run a Java program... ? That being said, I would love to see a compiler (to bytecode or to native code) for ruby too, but then who doesn't ? Ruben > **···** > > At Tue, 20 Jul 2004 18:50:43 +0900, James, Roshan (Cognizant) wrote: ---
**Author:** ![Curt\_Hibbs3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/2acd7d/32.png) [@Curt\_Hibbs3](https://rubytalk.org/u/Curt_Hibbs3)\ **Post date:** [20 July 2004 12:36 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/compiling-ruby-code/12668/3 "2004-07-20T12:36:25Z")
Ruben wrote: > \> > \> I really agree with your sentiment about wanting to compile ruby > \> programs for the purpose of redistribution. That's the problem with all > \> the ruby code out there - there is no way I can redistribute it without > \> asking people download the ruby interpreter. > \> And they they go "whats that ?... " and the whole story telling process > \> starts. > > As has been said before, there \_is\_ a way to redistribute your > application without asking people to download the > interpreter... Actually, there are 2 ways, the first one is called > Exerb and the second one is called RubyScript2Exe. These are excellent solutions. Unfortunately, they only work for Windows. I'm not aware of anything comparable for Mac or 'nix systems. > I made a very small test application in ruby, turned it into one > executable with RubyScript2Exe, then i used HM NIS Edit to make an > initial script for NSIS (Nullsoft Scriptable Install System), which > gave me a simple "Setup.exe". I have to admit it was a very, very > simple thing, but still it surprised me that it went so easy to make a > good looking installer for it. The only thing the user has to do, is > to run the "setup.exe", no need to even talk about ruby. > > RubyScript2Exe [http://www.erikveen.dds.nl/rubyscript2exe/index.html](http://www.erikveen.dds.nl/rubyscript2exe/index.html) > NSIS [http://nsis.sourceforge.net/](http://nsis.sourceforge.net/) > HM NIS Edit [http://hmne.sourceforge.net/](http://hmne.sourceforge.net/) > > \> Taking ruby to a popular VM/runtime or native code, IMHO would be a big > \> big addition to the acceptibility of the language. I understand that > \> that it is a mind boggling amount of work to do this, in any acceptible > \> way. > > I don't really understand why you think it would be a problem to ask > the user to install the ruby interpreter (the one-click installer), > since you seem to think it would not be a problem to ask the user to > first install for example a JVM to run a Java program... ? Again, this would be a Windows-only solution. Anyone who wants to take this approach can do it without the one-click installer -- you can just install a private version of Ruby used only to run your app. FreeRIDE does this for its Windows installation (and we have been considering doing this for other platforms). If you want to see how this works, install FreeRIDE on windows and take a look at the startup script "run.bat". > That being said, I would love to see a compiler (to bytecode or to > native code) for ruby too, but then who doesn't ? Me, too! Anyone who is really interested in this and has some available time should considering helping the Cardinal project get ruby working with the Parrot VM. Curt > **···** > > > At Tue, 20 Jul 2004 18:50:43 +0900, \> James, Roshan (Cognizant) wrote: ---
**Author:** ![Ruben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/59ef9b/32.png) [@Ruben](https://rubytalk.org/u/Ruben)\ **Post date:** [20 July 2004 13:56 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/compiling-ruby-code/12668/4 "2004-07-20T13:56:11Z")
> These are excellent solutions. Unfortunately, they only work for Windows. > I'm not aware of anything comparable for Mac or 'nix systems. Yep, you are right, it would be interesting to have tools similar as Exerb and RubyScript2Exe for Mac, Linux and BSD systems. And an installer on those platforms would also be nice (maybe Loki installer). > \> I don't really understand why you think it would be a problem to ask > \> the user to install the ruby interpreter (the one-click installer), > \> since you seem to think it would not be a problem to ask the user to > \> first install for example a JVM to run a Java program... ? > > Again, this would be a Windows-only solution. Wasn't it mentioned before on the list that work is planned/ongoing for making a one-click installer on other platforms ? > Anyone who wants to take this approach can do it without the one-click > installer -- you can just install a private version of Ruby used only to run > your app. FreeRIDE does this for its Windows installation (and we have been > considering doing this for other platforms). If you want to see how this > works, install FreeRIDE on windows and take a look at the startup script > "run.bat". If i would 'package' a ruby application for linux, then i would either do as you said (the ruby interpreter is not that big and then you're sure your application runs on the ruby version you tested/developed it on), or either i would make a package (ebuild for Gentoo, rpm for redhat/mandrake, deb for debian) that depends on the ruby-package (this has the advantage that you can easily upgrade the ruby interpreter for better performance, bugfixes,...). (Now that i think about it, most commercial java-applications do include a specific JVM in the installation, don't they ?) > \> That being said, I would love to see a compiler (to bytecode or to > \> native code) for ruby too, but then who doesn't ? > > Me, too! Anyone who is really interested in this and has some available time > should considering helping the Cardinal project get ruby working with the > Parrot VM. ".. has some available time..." i think that's the biggest problem for a lot of people... Even if you're knowledgeable enough about compilers, then it still takes some time to 'get into' the Cardinal project and see what they have and how things work, before you can really contribute to it. (at least, that's how i feel about it) Ruben > **···** > > At Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:36:25 +0900, Curt Hibbs wrote: ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Baldwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e95f7d/32.png) [@Dave\_Baldwin](https://rubytalk.org/u/Dave_Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [20 July 2004 16:14 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/compiling-ruby-code/12668/5 "2004-07-20T16:14:26Z")
Under Mac OS X an application presents itself as an executable file, but is in fact a package (i.e. directory). Inside the package is the real executable and any resources (help files, images, sounds, icons, GUI configuration files (nib files), etc.) it needs. It would be easy to include the ruby interpreter and any libraries you need within the package together with your ruby files so I think exerb and friends are probably not needed. You may even be able to omit the interpreter as Ruby 1.6 is installed as standard (I may be wrong, but I don't think it is part of the developer tools). Dave. > **···** > > On 20 Jul 2004, at 14:56, Ruben wrote: > > > At Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:36:25 +0900, \> Curt Hibbs wrote: > > > > > These are excellent solutions. Unfortunately, they only work for Windows. > > > I'm not aware of anything comparable for Mac or 'nix systems. > > > > Yep, you are right, it would be interesting to have tools similar as > > Exerb and RubyScript2Exe for Mac, Linux and BSD systems. And an > > installer on those platforms would also be nice (maybe Loki > > installer). ---
**Author:** ![Curt\_Hibbs3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/2acd7d/32.png) [@Curt\_Hibbs3](https://rubytalk.org/u/Curt_Hibbs3)\ **Post date:** [20 July 2004 17:24 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/compiling-ruby-code/12668/6 "2004-07-20T17:24:10Z")
Ruben wrote: > Wasn't it mentioned before on the list that work is planned/ongoing > for making a one-click installer on other platforms ? There is no actual work going on. What you read was my desire to add more platforms to the Ruby Installer project and my call for help in doing so. So far there have been no volunteers. Curt ---
**Author:** ![Erik\_Veenstra3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Erik\_Veenstra3](https://rubytalk.org/u/Erik_Veenstra3)\ **Post date:** [20 July 2004 23:47 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/compiling-ruby-code/12668/7 "2004-07-20T23:47:55Z")
I think it's possible to make a RubyScript2Exe for Linux. Even cross-compiling (both ways) isn't impossible. Are you really interested? Would take only a couple of hours... I always assumed that every Linux distribution comes with Ruby. Maybe not pre-installed, but at least on CD. So I didn't spend any time on this issue. The problem with Linux is how to determine which dependencies are to be distributed in the binary. On my system (RH8), Ruby (the core and \*.so) needs at least the following files (both direct and indirect): /lib/ld-linux.so.2 /lib/libNoVersion.so.1 /lib/libc.so.6 /lib/libcrypt.so.1 /lib/libdl.so.2 /lib/libgcc\_s.so.1 /lib/libm.so.6 /lib/libnss\_files.so.2 /usr/lib/libgdbm.so.2 /usr/lib/libncurses.so.5 /usr/lib/libreadline.so.4 Can I assume that these are available on all modern distributions, so I only need to distribute /usr/bin/ruby and /usr/lib/libruby.so.1.6 (besides the "application-specific" stripped rubylib tree)? What about the versions? Is 1.8 more complex? How can I test on several distributions, cross-distribution? Anybody? gegroet, Erik V. > **···** > > On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 22:56:11 +0900, Ruben wrote: > > > At Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:36:25 +0900, Curt Hibbs wrote: > > > > \> These are excellent solutions. Unfortunately, they only > > \> work for Windows. I'm not aware of anything comparable for > > \> Mac or 'nix systems. > > > > Yep, you are right, it would be interesting to have tools > > similar as Exerb and RubyScript2Exe for Mac, Linux and BSD > > systems. And an installer on those platforms would also be > > nice (maybe Loki installer). ---
**Author:** ![David\_Ross2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ed8c4c/32.png) [@David\_Ross2](https://rubytalk.org/u/David_Ross2)\ **Post date:** [20 July 2004 19:48 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/compiling-ruby-code/12668/8 "2004-07-20T19:48:29Z")
> It would be easy > to include the ruby interpreter and any libraries > you need within the > package together with your ruby files so I think > exerb and friends are > probably not needed. That is not the point of having a native compiler. The point of it is to include it into projects which do not want the compiler. For example I wanted to include a ruby script in this OS, but they said they do not want interpreted languages in the base install. This also has to do with not wanting to install the ruby software. That is why I am making a decision. --David Ross > **···** > > \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ > Do you Yahoo!? > Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign! > [http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/](http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/) ---
**Author:** ![Lothar\_Scholz2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Lothar\_Scholz2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Lothar_Scholz2)\ **Post date:** [21 July 2004 05:09 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/compiling-ruby-code/12668/9 "2004-07-21T05:09:58Z")
Hello Erik, > The problem with Linux is how to determine which dependencies > are to be distributed in the binary. On my system (RH8), Ruby > (the core and \*.so) needs at least the following files (both > direct and indirect): > /lib/ld-linux.so.2 > /lib/libNoVersion.so.1 > /lib/libc.so.6 > /lib/libcrypt.so.1 > /lib/libdl.so.2 > /lib/libgcc\_s.so.1 > /lib/libm.so.6 > /lib/libnss\_files.so.2 > /usr/lib/libgdbm.so.2 > /usr/lib/libncurses.so.5 > /usr/lib/libreadline.so.4 > Can I assume that these are available on all modern > distributions, so I only need to distribute /usr/bin/ruby and > /usr/lib/libruby.so.1.6 (besides the "application-specific" > stripped rubylib tree)? What about the versions? Is 1.8 more > complex? How can I test on several distributions, > cross-distribution? Anybody? Read Chapter 3 from [http://www.linuxbase.org/modules.php?name=specrev&url=http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/booksets/LSB-Core/LSB-Core.html](http://www.linuxbase.org/modules.php?name=specrev&url=http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/booksets/LSB-Core/LSB-Core.html) > **···** > > -- > Best regards, emailto: scholz at scriptolutions dot com > Lothar Scholz [http://www.ruby-ide.com](http://www.ruby-ide.com) > CTO Scriptolutions Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's ---
**Author:** ![Rando\_Christensen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ed655f/32.png) [@Rando\_Christensen](https://rubytalk.org/u/Rando_Christensen)\ **Post date:** [21 July 2004 05:33 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/compiling-ruby-code/12668/10 "2004-07-21T05:33:16Z")
Dave Baldwin wrote: > You may even be able to omit the interpreter as Ruby 1.6 is installed as standard (I may be wrong, but I don't think it is part of the developer tools). This is correct. 1.6 ships with panther and up, 1.8 will be in tiger. > **···** > > -- > Rando Christensen > \ ---
**Author:** ![Lothar\_Scholz2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Lothar\_Scholz2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Lothar_Scholz2)\ **Post date:** [21 July 2004 05:14 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/compiling-ruby-code/12668/11 "2004-07-21T05:14:29Z")
Hello Lothar, > Hello Erik, > > The problem with Linux is how to determine which dependencies > > are to be distributed in the binary. On my system (RH8), Ruby > > (the core and \*.so) needs at least the following files (both > > direct and indirect): > > /lib/ld-linux.so.2 > > /lib/libNoVersion.so.1 > > /lib/libc.so.6 > > /lib/libcrypt.so.1 > > /lib/libdl.so.2 > > /lib/libgcc\_s.so.1 > > /lib/libm.so.6 > > /lib/libnss\_files.so.2 > > /usr/lib/libgdbm.so.2 > > /usr/lib/libncurses.so.5 > > /usr/lib/libreadline.so.4 > > Can I assume that these are available on all modern > > distributions, so I only need to distribute /usr/bin/ruby and > > /usr/lib/libruby.so.1.6 (besides the "application-specific" > > stripped rubylib tree)? What about the versions? Is 1.8 more > > complex? How can I test on several distributions, > > cross-distribution? Anybody? > Read Chapter 3 from > [http://www.linuxbase.org/modules.php?name=specrev&url=http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/booksets/LSB-Core/LSB-Core.html](http://www.linuxbase.org/modules.php?name=specrev&url=http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/booksets/LSB-Core/LSB-Core.html) Sorry hit the send button to quickly. /lib/ld-linux.so.2 is AFAIK always absolutely addressed for security reasons so you can't change it with your own LD\_LIBRARY\_PATH accessible lib. And never bundle libgdbm.so.2/libreadline.so.4 without an explicit request from the user. They are GPL not LGPL. > **···** > > -- > Best regards, emailto: scholz at scriptolutions dot com > Lothar Scholz [http://www.ruby-ide.com](http://www.ruby-ide.com) > CTO Scriptolutions Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's