Ruby on .NET?

ruby-talk
1

Hi all,

I'm about to start a .NET project, slated to be written mostly in ugly
C# (uggh!) Would it be possible to use Ruby behind the scenes instead?
I don't know much about CRL, assemblies, etc.

Have anyone tried Ruby on .NET? Is the port even planned?

Thanks very much in advance!

2

Well, a quick google turned up:

...or did you already try that?

ยทยทยท

On Aug 10, 2005, at 5:41 PM, neutralm@gmail.com wrote:

Hi all,

I'm about to start a .NET project, slated to be written mostly in ugly
C# (uggh!) Would it be possible to use Ruby behind the scenes instead?
I don't know much about CRL, assemblies, etc.

Have anyone tried Ruby on .NET? Is the port even planned?

Thanks very much in advance!

3

neutralm@gmail.com wrote:

I'm about to start a .NET project, slated to be written mostly in ugly
C# (uggh!) Would it be possible to use Ruby behind the scenes instead?
I don't know much about CRL, assemblies, etc.

Have anyone tried Ruby on .NET? Is the port even planned?

There's already various proxies that can let Ruby code talk to .NET one. I'd consider those to be quite stable already.

That aside there are / were various projects about making Ruby a native language of the .NET framework. I think currently there is a Japanese one (sorry, I don't have much information about it) and the one Jaen Saul and me are working on.

I really can't say much about our version of Ruby.NET right now -- I was initially assigned to work on JScript.NET's runtime until the compiler essentials were finished. Start on the Ruby.NET runtime was planned to start at the beginning of this month, but will probably only start on this weekend. That's probably also the time that I and the general public will start seeing code. We've also had a few people offering to help out, but I'm not sure if that offer is still current after the delaying.

Even though this all might sound a bit bad, I'm still optimistic that we will be able to execute some code before the end of this month, but please do not expect too much. Making all this faster than the regular Ruby implementation is pretty much out of the scope -- interoperability is an important goal, but that might not end up in an usable state, either...

If you are still interested in this you can have a look at the proposals:

* http://jaen.saul.ee/index.php/2005/07/01/rubynet-proposal/
* http://flgr.0x42.net/proposal.txt

If you are willing to help out or have further questions feel free to mail me.