I don’t know much about Rite, therefore I ask.
I would like to fill in some more info on this page:
http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?Rite
What is long term goals for Rite ?
Will it be backward-compatible with Ruby-1.9 ?
Will there be real threading support ?
How about unicode ?
Can people contribute to create Rite (matz helpers/slaves) ?
Tell me what you know about Rite 
–
Simon Strandgaard
Hi,
What is long term goals for Rite ?
Will it be backward-compatible with Ruby-1.9 ?
Will there be real threading support ?
How about unicode ?
Can people contribute to create Rite (matz helpers/slaves) ?
Its goal is faster, smaller, more portable.
It will
We don’t have any code yet to work on. I cannot spare time for Rite
now, so that Rite will be complete vaporware for a while. Perhaps
until 1.8.0 is out.
matz.
In message “matz thoughts on Rite ?” on 03/07/21, “Simon Strandgaard” 0bz63fz3m1qt3001@sneakemail.com writes:
Some more Rite questions if its OK 
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:09:21 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
In message “matz thoughts on Rite ?” > on 03/07/21, “Simon Strandgaard” 0bz63fz3m1qt3001@sneakemail.com writes:
What is long term goals for Rite ?
Will it be backward-compatible with Ruby-1.9 ?
Will there be real threading support ?
How about unicode ?
Can people contribute to create Rite (matz helpers/slaves) ?Its goal is faster, smaller, more portable.
It will
- have native thread support.
- unicode aware (along with other encoding schemes)
We don’t have any code yet to work on. I cannot spare time for Rite
now, so that Rite will be complete vaporware for a while. Perhaps
until 1.8.0 is out.matz.
–
Simon Strandgaard
And that would be when approximately ?
(sorry to bother you with that, but the Python folks will ship a 2.3
release sooner than expected just to be able to integrate it with the
next release of MacOSX. I would personnally love to see a Ruby 1.8 in
Panther in place of the current 1.6.8… )
Yukihiro Matsumoto matz@ruby-lang.org wrote:
Perhaps until 1.8.0 is out.
–
Luc Heinrich - lucsky@mac.com
Just curious - is using C++ for the source instead of C an option?
/me ducks rotten vegetables being hurled at him by the crowd.
No, seriously. Once upon a time Chip Salzenburg, one of the core Perl
developers, was working on a complete rewrite of the Perl internals
using C++. He had nicknamed the project “Topaz” and even presented the
topic at TPC 3 (I believe). At one point thise was going to be Perl6 if
it had come to fruition. Here’s a link to the story.
http://www.perl.com/pub/a/1999/09/topaz.html
Chip makes some interesting arguments, discussing why you might choose
C++ over C (macros), Ada, Eiffel and Objective C. Might at least be
worth contacting him to see what his “final thoughts” on the project
were.
Any thoughts?
Regards,
Dan
Hi,
In message “Re: matz thoughts on Rite ?” on 03/07/22, Luc Heinrich lucsky@mac.com writes:
Perhaps until 1.8.0 is out.
And that would be when approximately ?
By the end of July. We also want Ruby to be integrated in Panther.
matz.
* will Rite use Mark&Sweep GC or something else ?
I hope that it will use Boehm GC for garbage collection instead of its
own solution that must be tested and developed separate.
I'm using Boehm GC in my eiffel programs and it is much better then
the proprietary (but clever) GC implementation that SmartEiffel is
using. And the new versions use all capabilities of multi processor
machines. Something import in the future.
I'm willing to volunteer with the GC integration if it will ever leave
the vapourware phase. But remember that the GC decision must be done
very early.
Hi,
Some more Rite questions if its OK
For this time only. 
- will Rite be developed publicly… Or will you keep it souce secret ?
have running code before the ball rolling to success. I think I need
to work alone until the first running version.
- still use Ruby license scheme ?
It will be open source software for sure. License terms may be
changed.
- do you need help? Say what we should do and we will do it
This is very important. Listen carefully.
From the reason I stated above, I feel like I will work alone.
But if someone shows his talent, and comes up with his own good
implementation of new Ruby earlier than me, and if he is willing to
contribute his code, and if he allows me to hack and chop his code to
make it “Rite”, I will name it “Rite”. And he will be honored for
ever.
- will it be like Ruby… Or will there be minor/major differences ?
There will be some incompatibility. This is a big chance to fix what
I’ve done wrong. For example, block parameters will be local to the
block. But these changes will be implemented in 1.9 first for
migration purpose.
- will Rite use Mark&Sweep GC or something else ?
It will use generational mark and sweep.
matz.
In message “Re: matz thoughts on Rite ?” on 03/07/22, “Simon Strandgaard” 0bz63fz3m1qt3001@sneakemail.com writes:
From my experience and observation, an open source software needs to
His final thoughts were “C++ was a mistake” It might be worth
grabbing him and getting the details, as I’ll only be able to pass
them on secondhand.
At 3:37 AM +0900 7/22/03, Daniel Berger wrote:
Chip makes some interesting arguments, discussing why you might choose
C++ over C (macros), Ada, Eiffel and Objective C. Might at least be
worth contacting him to see what his “final thoughts” on the project
were.Any thoughts?
–
Dan
--------------------------------------“it’s like this”-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
dan@sidhe.org have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
Hi,
Just curious - is using C++ for the source instead of C an option?
No. Two object systems are source of confusion. I will not use
object-oriented language to implement my object-oriented language.
Chip makes some interesting arguments, discussing why you might choose
C++ over C (macros), Ada, Eiffel and Objective C. Might at least be
worth contacting him to see what his “final thoughts” on the project
were.
I’m still interesting in hearing from him.
matz.
In message “Re: matz thoughts on Rite ?” on 03/07/22, Daniel Berger djberge@qwest.com writes:
Hi,
In message “Re: matz thoughts on Rite ?” on 03/07/22, Lothar Scholz mailinglists@scriptolutions.com writes:
I hope that it will use Boehm GC for garbage collection instead of its
own solution that must be tested and developed separate.
Last time I tested, Boehm GC made terrible performance. And it
crashed often. But it was long time ago. I’m sure it has been
improved a lot since then. Let me check.
matz.
There’s been talk about a generational garbage collector customized for
Ruby in the past. Boehm is mostly a conservative mark&sweep, IIRC. In
any case, it should be possible to do better than Boehm, which largely
lives within the restraints imposed by supporting C and C++.
Chris
On Monday, July 21, 2003, at 11:06 AM, Lothar Scholz wrote:
- will Rite use Mark&Sweep GC or something else ?
I hope that it will use Boehm GC for garbage collection instead of its
own solution that must be tested and developed separate.I’m using Boehm GC in my eiffel programs and it is much better then
the proprietary (but clever) GC implementation that SmartEiffel is
using. And the new versions use all capabilities of multi processor
machines. Something import in the future.I’m willing to volunteer with the GC integration if it will ever leave
the vapourware phase. But remember that the GC decision must be done
very early.
His final thoughts were "C++ was a mistake"
But his most final thought was "Optimization to early was a mistake"
Is there any kind of suffix in Japanese to indicate “first implementer”? ;-))
Blah-sensei == professor Blah
Blah-XXX == “Implementor of Rite” Blah ???
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 03:20:03AM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
- do you need help? Say what we should do and we will do it
This is very important. Listen carefully.
From the reason I stated above, I feel like I will work alone.
But if someone shows his talent, and comes up with his own good
implementation of new Ruby earlier than me, and if he is willing to
contribute his code, and if he allows me to hack and chop his code to
make it “Rite”, I will name it “Rite”. And he will be honored for
ever.
–
_ _
__ __ | | ___ _ __ ___ __ _ _ __
'_ \ /| __/ __| '__ \ / ` | ’ \
) | (| | |__ \ | | | | | (| | | | |
.__/ _,|_|/| || ||_,|| |_|
Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com
Linux: the choice of a GNU generation
– ksh@cis.ufl.edu put this on Tshirts in '93
You rule.
Yukihiro Matsumoto matz@ruby-lang.org wrote:
By the end of July. We also want Ruby to be integrated in Panther.
–
Luc Heinrich - lucsky@mac.com
[snip Q&A]
A few more questions:
What is you thoughts about Ruby-to-bytecode, eg: jruby, netruby, parrot?
Is this the way to go for ruby ?
Making Rite faster than Ruby, how ? jit? gc? other?
Is ‘Rite’ just a codename… Or should the ‘Ruby’ name be abandoned?
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 04:20:03 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
For this time only.
–
Simon Strandgaard
That’s wise, I think.
I think, often, in my spare time about interfacing C++ with Objective-C
with Ruby with Java, and every time, I find differences in object model
make me want to make an ugly hack that won’t work. However, when I see
projects written in C, I see them used with all object models, because
the idea of a magic bridge is given up: instead, one wraps the C
functions and all is well.
Ari
On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 12:51, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
In message “Re: matz thoughts on Rite ?” > on 03/07/22, Daniel Berger djberge@qwest.com writes:
Just curious - is using C++ for the source instead of C an option?
No. Two object systems are source of confusion. I will not use
object-oriented language to implement my object-oriented language.
Hello matz,
Last time I tested, Boehm GC made terrible performance. And it
crashed often. But it was long time ago. I'm sure it has been
improved a lot since then. Let me check.
This must be really a long time ago. It's absolute stable now. I run
it for days on memory intensive applications without any crash.
It has one problem that a lot of GC algorithms have:
fragmentation. But with a language like ruby it should be possible to
write a separate memory compaction algorithm that uses some heuristics
on the "Memory Allocated / Memory Used" quotient and call the
compaction if absolute necessary, but this would make memory mangement
of C extensions really hard to write.
But this is independent of the used GC algorithm/library.
Have you thought about a user selectable (compile time) GC ?
The only problematic way with this is when using finalizeres.
Eiffel is going the Java way here, which is "never trust that a finalizer is
called". GC is only used for pure memory resources and nothing else
(file handles etc.)
His final thoughts were “C++ was a mistake”
But his most final thought was “Optimization to early was a mistake”
Wise words, not only from him in this context, but in general.
Not the last words I got, but I talked to him after that article was written.
At 9:16 PM +0200 7/21/03, Lothar Scholz wrote:
> His final thoughts were "C++ was a mistake"
But his most final thought was "Optimization to early was a mistake"
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
dan@sidhe.org have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk