I personally would very much like Ruby development to be sped up. We have been hearing about Ruby2 for a long time now but there's not a sign of it coming anytime soon. Does matz want Ruby development to be faster or is he generally satisfied with the current pace? (I admit things like good design or "inspirations" often cannot be forced.)
Does matz like the idea of setting up a fund for core Ruby developers? I remember matz saying that one of the things that occupies him is work. Does matz like the idea of working full time on Ruby?
Admittedly, I am not financially abundant myself (working and living in third world country). But I am sure will donate every month -- I can always buy less CD's/books. I am also confident that the Ruby community can support at least 1 full-time developer (like the Perl/Perl6 community does with Damian Conway). Perhaps we can also sell mugs, T-shirts, etc.
As for contributing in development, unfortunately, my C skills are inadequate (plus the fact that I hate C and would like to *use* Ruby instead of develop Ruby). But I do like to help speed up the development one way or another.
···
--
dave
"David Garamond" <lists@zara.6.isreserved.com> wrote in message
Does matz like the idea of setting up a fund for core Ruby developers? I
remember matz saying that one of the things that occupies him is work.
Does matz like the idea of working full time on Ruby?
As far as I know, Matz does work on Ruby full time ... he is paid by his
organization to work on Ruby. Unless, of course, that has changed in
recent past.
Nevertheless, setting up a fund for one (or more) full time developer is not
a bad idea...
-- shanko
Hi,
Does matz want Ruby development to be faster
or is he generally satisfied with the current pace? (I admit things like
good design or "inspirations" often cannot be forced.)
I'm not satisfied with the current pace. The spirit indeed is
willing, but the flesh is weak.
Does matz like the idea of setting up a fund for core Ruby developers? I
remember matz saying that one of the things that occupies him is work.
Does matz like the idea of working full time on Ruby?
I'm working full time for myself. I'm paid for my opensource work.
But many other developers, "Nobu the great" for example, are not paid.
Funding them can be a good idea.
Should we set up a paypal account or such?
matz.
···
In message "speeding ruby development" on 04/07/08, David Garamond <lists@zara.6.isreserved.com> writes:
well, rubycentral should be deputed to this kind of things..
I'd love to have the choice to use it as a "bounty hunter's base".
People could put there tasks like, say, "solve threading problems on
windows", "write a library for ATOM parsing" and so on, and other
people could add money to the project or propose themselves as the
hunter for it.
This way we get: funding for devs, useful stuff, people get what they
want end feel the need for.
···
il Thu, 8 Jul 2004 20:33:54 +0900, David Garamond <lists@zara.6.isreserved.com> ha scritto::
David Garamond <lists@zara.6.isreserved.com> writes:
I personally would very much like Ruby development to be sped up. We
have been hearing about Ruby2 for a long time now but there's not a sign
of it coming anytime soon. Does matz want Ruby development to be faster
or is he generally satisfied with the current pace? (I admit things like
good design or "inspirations" often cannot be forced.)
Why do you need a Ruby 2?
What are you missing?
What is supposed to be added to Ruby 2.0
What makes Ruby 1.8 inadequate?
Friedrich
···
--
Please remove just-for-news- to reply via e-mail.
i for one will stick in as much as i
can easily afford everyonce in a while...
Alex
···
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 11:38:10PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Should we set up a paypal account or such?
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Should we set up a paypal account or such?
+1. (But please allow other methods since PayPal doesn't support all countries).
In the long run, we should probably set up a proper foundation organization, either based in the US or Japan (or both). Perhaps we could ask for pointers from Mozilla, Firebird, Perl, Python...
···
--
dave
Is it just going slow, or is it worse than that? Is lack of funding the main
trouble? I didn't expect to see you suggest Paypal donations.
Sean O'Dell
···
On Thursday 08 July 2004 07:38, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
I'm not satisfied with the current pace. The spirit indeed is
willing, but the flesh is weak.
I'm working full time for myself. I'm paid for my opensource work.
But many other developers, "Nobu the great" for example, are not paid.
Funding them can be a good idea.
Should we set up a paypal account or such?
If you're going to do the work to support something (paying people to
develop)...
<start questions that might be answered in some other working group,
but should be answered for Ruby and the working group that would be
Shouldn't you first make sure that you're going to get enough to be
worth the while?
When people say that they will contribute monetarily - how much is that?
$5 a month from one person won't even pay for the setup.
Now $1,000 a month would start to get things going.
100 people paying $10 a month? Is that possible?
50 people paying $20 a month? Is that possible?
Where's the realistic limit?
Would "Nobu the great" (and I use that is all seriousness) work for us
full-time (or even part-time) for _only_ $12,000 a year?
What happens when a third of those who had commited to pay dropped out
and the 'paid-developers' 'salary' was cut from $12,000 to $9,000?
Does everybody get a refund if the paid-developer drops out?
How many people out there would refuse payment if it didn't go to the
developer they wanted?
How many developers would 'quit' their 'real' job to work based on a
source of funds that is completely volatile?
-Rich
David Garamond <lists@zara.6.isreserved.com> writes:
I personally would very much like Ruby development to be sped up. We
have been hearing about Ruby2 for a long time now but there's not a sign
of it coming anytime soon. Does matz want Ruby development to be faster
or is he generally satisfied with the current pace? (I admit things like
good design or "inspirations" often cannot be forced.)
Why do you need a Ruby 2?
What are you missing?
What is supposed to be added to Ruby 2.0
See http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?Rite
and http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?LocalVariablesAndBlocks
Straightening out Variable Scope / Block Locals will make my work easier.
···
On Jul 8, 2004, at 10:57 PM, Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
What makes Ruby 1.8 inadequate?
Friedrich
--
Please remove just-for-news- to reply via e-mail.
Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
I personally would very much like Ruby development to be sped up. We have been hearing about Ruby2 for a long time now but there's not a sign of it coming anytime soon. Does matz want Ruby development to be faster or is he generally satisfied with the current pace? (I admit things like good design or "inspirations" often cannot be forced.)
Why do you need a Ruby 2?
What are you missing?
What is supposed to be added to Ruby 2.0
What makes Ruby 1.8 inadequate?
os threads, gc improvements, (and perhaps precompilation/bytecode too). if i have to choose one, then os threads.
all of the above are really useful for writing:
- [windows] desktop apps;
- servers/daemons;
- commercial apps;
i'd really like to be able to write linux & windows multithreaded, long-running programs in ruby that are stable and fast-performing.
the language itself is great, i don't think there's something i want changed/added badly. i have only minor rants with the language.
···
--
dave
Proper threading and a reentrant interpreter, for example.
···
Friedrich Dominicus <just-for-news-frido@q-software-solutions.de> wrote:
What are you missing?
--
Luc Heinrich - lucsky@mac.com
David Garamond wrote:
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Should we set up a paypal account or such?
+1. (But please allow other methods since PayPal doesn't support all countries).
In the long run, we should probably set up a proper foundation organization, either based in the US or Japan (or both). Perhaps we could ask for pointers from Mozilla, Firebird, Perl, Python...
It exists: rubycentral.org
···
richard lyman wrote:
If you're going to do the work to support something (paying people to
develop)...
<start questions that might be answered in some other working group,
but should be answered for Ruby and the working group that would be
Shouldn't you first make sure that you're going to get enough to be
worth the while?
When people say that they will contribute monetarily - how much is that?
$5 a month from one person won't even pay for the setup.
Now $1,000 a month would start to get things going.
100 people paying $10 a month? Is that possible?
50 people paying $20 a month? Is that possible?
Where's the realistic limit?
Would "Nobu the great" (and I use that is all seriousness) work for us
full-time (or even part-time) for _only_ $12,000 a year?
What happens when a third of those who had commited to pay dropped out
and the 'paid-developers' 'salary' was cut from $12,000 to $9,000?
Does everybody get a refund if the paid-developer drops out?
How many people out there would refuse payment if it didn't go to the
developer they wanted?
How many developers would 'quit' their 'real' job to work based on a
source of funds that is completely volatile?
-Rich
Wouldn't it be a good idea to make a webform where you can register if you're interested in paying, just to see how many that are willing to sacrifice some money to the ruby-gods?
Those who got jobs where they use ruby alot maybe can get the company to send little money each month too.
Hello richard,
If you're going to do the work to support something (paying people to
develop)...
I just waited for someone like you 
I doubt that it is possible to pay someone. We need a (maybe many) large
company behind us to do so. And for them ruby must be used in a way that
they get profit in another way (consulting, inhouse software development)
etc.
But i doubt that there is any of them. Maybe people in some companies
use ruby (testing is popular) but the situation is more that this is
allowed but not supported.
Without these companies nothing will happen. Look at this newsgroup,
how many people are frequently posting here 50 ? I'm doing this for
about 2 month now, and i know most of the people by name. Compare this
with python newsgroups and you see the difference.
So instead of spending money the people should spend time and help to
improve the libraries. There is much work to do, but yes - it's
work, sometimes really hard work. And thats why the situation is so worse,
people like to play with ruby in there freetime but they don't like to
work on projects resulting in hundrets of fucked up libraries that
never got beyond the proof of concept level.
···
--
Best regards, emailto: scholz at scriptolutions dot com
Lothar Scholz http://www.ruby-ide.com
CTO Scriptolutions Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's
Charles Mills wrote:
See Captcha
perhaps i should say i want rite (or cardinal, or any other improved implementation) pretty badly. i can live with the current language (ruby 1.8) for a long, long time. every language has its quirks anyway; i bet ruby2 will have its own.
···
--
dave
Hello David,
os threads, gc improvements, (and perhaps precompilation/bytecode too).
if i have to choose one, then os threads.
I second that. Having no real threads makes ruby very very unuseable for
todays state of the art application. And i don't talk about
performance, i talk about responsiveness of the application. The
former one will get important soon if Intel/AMD start shipping Dual
Core CPU's even for workstations as announced next year.
So i would vote for stopping all other things and start working
on threads in 1.9
···
--
Best regards, emailto: scholz at scriptolutions dot com
Lothar Scholz http://www.ruby-ide.com
CTO Scriptolutions Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's
Charles Mills <cmills@freeshell.org> writes:
What are you missing?
What is supposed to be added to Ruby 2.0
See Captcha
Well I'm very much suprised that most seem to appreciate Ruby 2. I
have a very ungut feeling about it all has the "features" of the
second system which Brooks describes in book the mythical man month.
Do I have to remind you of the big troubles from Perl 4.x to Perl 5.x
and then again from 5.x somewhat to 5.8? How long are they talking
about Parrot now? 3 years?
Oh it's doable of course, but it will contain tons of bugs from the
beginning and that will last at least up to version 2.2 to shake out
most of them. Is that really worth it?
What I especially dislike is breaking backwards compatiblity. Nothing
is more annoying then coming back to a software you have written and
change it over and over again just because a new version of the
Interpreter/Compiler was shipped.
Ah yes it is probably just a bit annoying to hobbyists, because of all
the new shiny features. But for those happy with what the've written
in Ruby 1.8....
Whoever will/does/have work(ed) on the VM should think at least twice
about what the Squeak people have done....
Regards
Friedich
···
--
Please remove just-for-news- to reply via e-mail.
(I can provide more details