Is IronRuby avoided in .Net 3.5 SP1... No Mention at all

Ruby IronRuby
1

Hi,

I was keen to read the great support for Dynamic languages in the New
and Most discussed .Net 3.5 SP1.

It was strange to see that there was no discussion at all about Dynamic
Languages.
It was avoided in such a manner that IronRuby does not exist at all.

When everything was discussed about… MVC Preview 3, Dynamic
Scaffolding, Routing etc… it was strange to see that How come IronRuby
is not considered or discussed at all when all this Inspirations have
started with Ruby and Rails and

Just my views.

2

Web R.:

I was keen to read the great support for Dynamic languages in the New
and Most discussed .Net 3.5 SP1.

It was strange to see that there was no discussion at all about Dynamic
Languages.
It was avoided in such a manner that IronRuby does not exist at all.

IronRuby will be part of the next major release of Visual Studio. It
won’t be part of the Service Pack.

-John

3

John L. (IRONRUBY) wrote:

IronRuby will be part of the next major release of Visual Studio. It
won’t be part of the Service Pack.

-John

Hi,

Visual Studio is updated every three years as per my knowledge.
for example…
(1) Visual Studio .net ---- (2001)
(2) Visual Studio 2005 -----(2005)
(3) Visual Studio 2008------(2008)

You mean to say that IronRuby support with VS shall come now in 2011…?

4

What’s happened to ModuleOps::extended in revision 103?
(it appears to have been removed)

Kernel::extend calls “extended”, so modules need a default
implementation.

Cheers, Wayne.

5

I have no idea why … maybe I screwed something up in a merge. In any
event, I’ve put it back in the next release.

Thanks,
-John

6

We don’t comment on future release dates. IronRuby 1.0 will ship before
the next version of VS, but an updated version will ship in the next
version of VS.

Thanks,
-John

7

This is really something that the specs should pick up, no?

8

Today we use the specs as a regression test mechanism. We generate a
baseline ‘clean’ (all specs pass), and we use that to detect
regressions. I suspect that we didn’t enable the specs for #extend when
they were checked in, so it didn’t get picked up our baseline clean test
pass.

Thanks,
-John

9

On Mon, 12 May 2008 23:23:32 -0600, Web R. [email protected]
wrote:

(1) Visual Studio .net ---- (2001)
+= Visual Studio 2003 (the original was Visual Studio 2002, if not
mistaken)
(2) Visual Studio 2005 -----(2005)
Released in November of 2005, so really should have been called Visual
Studio 2006
(3) Visual Studio 2008------(2008)
Released in November of 2007, so was accurately called Visual Studio
2008, though the release came two years after Visual Studio 2005, not
three, so from what I can tell the .NET series of Visual Studio is on a
two year release cycle. Of course, no one at MSFT will comment on such
things, but history seems to back it up.

–
/M:D

M. David P.
Co-Founder & Chief Architect, 3rd&Urban, LLC
Email: [email protected] | [email protected] | Mobile: (206) 418-9027
Web: http://amp.fm/ | M. David Peterson