Check the archives of Ruby-Talk.
The guy in charge of IronRuby is a nice guy who originally started doing it on his own. He seems to be quite sincere about making something right. I wouldn't want to be him for the number of times he has to pre-defend IronRuby before it's even finished, but he must have expected some paranoia... it is MS, and they've got a reputation.
It's coming. That's for sure. So let's just wait and see.
Let's hope for the best. Do anticipate Windows-specific API calls to be made available. Anticipate explaining to newbies who start with IronRuby, that those Windows-specific API calls won't work on other platforms.
I would be curious to see what would happen if they tried to create IronRails.... DHH would not be pleased I suspect...
Check the archives of Ruby-Talk.
The guy in charge of IronRuby is a nice guy who originally started
doing it on his own. He seems to be quite sincere about making
something right. I wouldn't want to be him for the number of times he
has to pre-defend IronRuby before it's even finished, but he must
have expected some paranoia... it is MS, and they've got a reputation.
I thought MS had an instant death policy for anyone caught even
thinking about Free Software.
James Britt [mailto:dangerwillrobinsondanger@gmail.com]:
I would be curious to see what would happen if they tried to create
IronRails.... DHH would not be pleased I suspect...
It is absolutely our intention to enable Rails running on IronRuby. If Rails doesn't run, how could our implementation be considered a compatible implementation?
BTW, our goals (in priority order) are:
1. Create a 1.8.x compatible implementation modulo continuations
2. Enable great two-way .NET interop
3. Have good performance characteristics
Except that they hired John in part because of his work on a .NET
bridge for Ruby.
-austin
···
On 10/22/07, Phlip <phlip2005@gmail.com> wrote:
James Britt wrote:
> Check the archives of Ruby-Talk.
> The guy in charge of IronRuby is a nice guy who originally started
> doing it on his own. He seems to be quite sincere about making
> something right. I wouldn't want to be him for the number of times he
> has to pre-defend IronRuby before it's even finished, but he must
> have expected some paranoia... it is MS, and they've got a reputation.
I thought MS had an instant death policy for anyone caught even
thinking about Free Software.
What is essentially the Haskell compiler is free, open-source software
and ... made by Microsoft now, effectively.
···
On Tue, 2007-23-10 at 00:29 +0900, Phlip wrote:
> The guy in charge of IronRuby is a nice guy who originally started
> doing it on his own. He seems to be quite sincere about making
> something right. I wouldn't want to be him for the number of times he
> has to pre-defend IronRuby before it's even finished, but he must
> have expected some paranoia... it is MS, and they've got a reputation.
I thought MS had an instant death policy for anyone caught even
thinking about Free Software.
--
Michael T. Richter <ttmrichter@gmail.com> (GoogleTalk:
ttmrichter@gmail.com)
Theory is knowledge that doesn't work. Practice is when everything works
and you don't know why. (Hermann Hesse)
Why not contribute to the existing Ruby project instead? That's how
_real_ open source development is done. Making a M$ version of Ruby
doesn't help Ruby much at all.
I don't understand your apparent need to reinvent every wheel you see.
···
On 10/23/07, John Lam (DLR) <jflam@microsoft.com> wrote:
It is absolutely our intention to enable Rails running on IronRuby. If Rails doesn't
run, how could our implementation be considered a compatible implementation?
I believe that M$ intentions are always to benefit M$ (but the same holds
for Sun, IBM and sorry for those I forgot).
That even holds for myself :(.
That simply means to watch out, but that should not lead us to deny the
facts that open source can (temporarily) benefit
from being aligned with the strategy of such economic monsters.
Strange however that many - and count me in by all means - feel more
threatened by Billy's company than by others!
Is (was) M$ more aggressive? Probably. Do the others a better job in
concealing that they might do exactly the same under the same circumstances?
Surely.
Well I am talking too much, what I really want to say is that although it
might be rightful to fear, we should respect the great work of the people,
like Charles, Ola, John and all the others and not mix that up with
corporate politics.
Right now I honestly believe that there is no indication at all that the
mean for anything else than to make Ruby better and richer, hopefully I and
them are not wrong...
Cheers
Robert
I rather disagree. Competing language implementations help clarify
ambiguous specifications and behavior. It also may be the case that
implementations targetting the CLR or the JVM have benefits over the
existing interpreter for some customers.
- donald
···
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Donald [mailto:gdonald@gmail.com]
On 10/23/07, John Lam (DLR) <jflam@microsoft.com> wrote:
> It is absolutely our intention to enable Rails running on
IronRuby. If
> Rails doesn't run, how could our implementation be
considered a compatible implementation?
Why not contribute to the existing Ruby project instead?
That's how _real_ open source development is done. Making a
M$ version of Ruby doesn't help Ruby much at all.
I want a .NET native Ruby so that I can script .NET applications with
Ruby. That's what IronRuby is.
-austin
···
On 10/23/07, Greg Donald <gdonald@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/23/07, John Lam (DLR) <jflam@microsoft.com> wrote:
> It is absolutely our intention to enable Rails running on IronRuby. If Rails doesn't
> run, how could our implementation be considered a compatible implementation?
Why not contribute to the existing Ruby project instead? That's how
_real_ open source development is done. Making a M$ version of Ruby
doesn't help Ruby much at all.
I don't understand your apparent need to reinvent every wheel you see.
It is absolutely our intention to enable Rails running on IronRuby. If Rails doesn't
run, how could our implementation be considered a compatible implementation?
Why not contribute to the existing Ruby project instead? That's how
_real_ open source development is done. Making a M$ version of Ruby
doesn't help Ruby much at all.
I don't understand your apparent need to reinvent every wheel you see.
Real open-source develoment does not require everyone contribute to the same codebase, especially when their design requirements or project goals differ. If that were the only way to do "real" open source development, we'd all be stuck using XFree86, vi (not vim), various under-powered shells, and TWM. Innovation and openness do not require boxing yourself into pre-existing implementations.
- Charlie
···
On 10/23/07, John Lam (DLR) <jflam@microsoft.com> wrote:
Everyone seems to say these guys are good people. That's all great
and fine, but we mustn't forget the emergent behavior of economic
monsters like MS. They truly take on a life of there own regardless
of the best of intentions. In any case, I agree to wait and see.
Todd
···
On 10/23/07, Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com> wrote:
Right now I honestly believe that there is no indication at all that the
mean for anything else than to make Ruby better and richer, hopefully I and
them are not wrong...
Cheers
Robert
I believe that M$ intentions are always to benefit M$ (but the same holds
for Sun, IBM and sorry for those I forgot).
Yes
That even holds for myself :(.
All of us I'd say, at least those with any intelligence.
That simply means to watch out, but that should not lead us to deny the
facts that open source can (temporarily) benefit
from being aligned with the strategy of such economic monsters.
Strange however that many - and count me in by all means - feel more
threatened by Billy's company than by others!
Is (was) M$ more aggressive? Probably. Do the others a better job in
concealing that they might do exactly the same under the same circumstances?
Surely.
Well I am talking too much, what I really want to say is that although it
might be rightful to fear, we should respect the great work of the people,
like Charles, Ola, John and all the others and not mix that up with
corporate politics.
Right now I honestly believe that there is no indication at all that the
mean for anything else than to make Ruby better and richer, hopefully I and
them are not wrong...
Looking back after a 30+ year career with IBM, much of which included
interactions with both technical and corporate folks from MS, Sun, and
others. I know full well that well-meaning technical folks don't have
full control over corporate strategies and tactics.
As a result, I've got a healthy skepticism over what the corporate
types at MS, Sun, and yes IBM are up to. All three are struggling
with the growing trend of customers looking to the open source
community for development languages and tools instead of proprietary
'solutions.'
Sometimes it's like watching one of those TV poker games, although you
don't usually have the camera that shows the hands.
···
On 10/23/07, Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/23/07, Michael T. Richter <ttmrichter@gmail.com> wrote:
I rather disagree. Competing language implementations help clarify
ambiguous specifications and behavior.
What ambiguous specifications and behaviour would those be exactly?
Ruby doesn't have a formal spec that I'm aware of. And don't point to
that PHP-based wiki thing either because most of the links there lead
to non-existent pages.
It also may be the case that
implementations targetting the CLR or the JVM have benefits over the
existing interpreter for some customers.
Customers? As far as I know Ruby is free so there are no customers.
···
On 10/23/07, Ball, Donald A Jr (Library) <donald.ball@nashville.gov> wrote:
But that is exactly what I wanted to say:
* These are nice guys (until proven the contrary, do we all agree to
this fundamental human right?)
* But M$, Sun etc are dangerous monsters (until proven the contrary)
* We all depend on such monsters
Sorry if I was not clear.
Robert
···
On 10/23/07, Todd Benson <caduceass@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/23/07, Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com> wrote:
> Right now I honestly believe that there is no indication at all that the
> mean for anything else than to make Ruby better and richer, hopefully I and
> them are not wrong...
> Cheers
> Robert
Everyone seems to say these guys are good people. That's all great
and fine, but we mustn't forget the emergent behavior of economic
monsters like MS. They truly take on a life of there own regardless
of the best of intentions. In any case, I agree to wait and see.
On 10/23/07, Todd Benson <caduceass@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/23/07, Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com> wrote:
> Right now I honestly believe that there is no indication at all that the
> mean for anything else than to make Ruby better and richer, hopefully I and
> them are not wrong...
> Cheers
> Robert
Everyone seems to say these guys are good people. That's all great
and fine, but we mustn't forget the emergent behavior of economic
monsters like MS. They truly take on a life of there own regardless
of the best of intentions. In any case, I agree to wait and see.
I think the biggest risk to IronRuby is the CLR, not the IronRuby
implementation itself. As noted, that's in a reasonably open license.
-austin
···
On 10/23/07, Todd Benson <caduceass@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/23/07, Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com> wrote:
> Right now I honestly believe that there is no indication at all that the
> mean for anything else than to make Ruby better and richer, hopefully I and
> them are not wrong...
> Cheers
> Robert
Everyone seems to say these guys are good people. That's all great
and fine, but we mustn't forget the emergent behavior of economic
monsters like MS. They truly take on a life of there own regardless
of the best of intentions. In any case, I agree to wait and see.
On 10/23/07, Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com> wrote:
Right now I honestly believe that there is no indication at all that the
mean for anything else than to make Ruby better and richer, hopefully I and
them are not wrong...
Cheers
Robert
Everyone seems to say these guys are good people. That's all great
and fine, but we mustn't forget the emergent behavior of economic
monsters like MS. They truly take on a life of there own regardless
of the best of intentions. In any case, I agree to wait and see.
It's hard to argue that case for Sun, where the JDK is now open-source, the expectation is that money will primarily be made off hardware rather than software (which is supposed to be open-source now across the board), and JRuby remains a fully open, community-driven project with its original licenses intact.
On 10/23/07, Ball, Donald A Jr (Library) <donald.ball@nashville.gov> wrote:
I rather disagree. Competing language implementations help clarify
ambiguous specifications and behavior.
What ambiguous specifications and behaviour would those be exactly?
Ruby doesn't have a formal spec that I'm aware of. And don't point to
that PHP-based wiki thing either because most of the links there lead
to non-existent pages.
There are some links that don't yet have articles; that's to encourage someone to pitch in and help. That's pretty common among wikis in general though...even wikipedia has "red" links.
Feel free to add content where you think you're able
