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.
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.
Except that they hired John in part because of his work on a .NET
bridge for Ruby.
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.
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, Michael T. Richter [email protected] wrote:
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
On 10/23/07, Michael T. Richter [email protected] wrote:
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.
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.
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.
My post wasn’t aimed at you, but at the thread. I’m still an infant
when it comes to proper group discussion.
I have been told off list that I do not understand what a ML is at
all!!!
But I guess I am too old for that now, still enjoying being here
R.
Don’t worry Robert, I suspect there are some people who are not used
to the Ruby-Talk way of unmoderated tangents. They’re often used to
very strict MLs. The mailing lists for Apple (Cocoa ML is notoriously
strict)
It makes sense, that busy MLs will be strict.
Back to topic. I agree that the CLR is the scarriest part of
IronRuby. There is much potential for people to learn Ruby only to
write Windows-only Ruby. In itself this is not a bad thing. (there is
RubyCocoa, though it is a bridge and not strictly a runtime)
The bad potential is that MS or 3rd party books may teach Ruby using
IronRuby but may fail to teach what things are only used in the MS
CLR. Thus far, Ruby has been blessed with many Gems that try to be
abstract interfaces to cross-platform actions, I hope it stays that way.
My post wasn’t aimed at you, but at the thread. I’m still an infant
when it comes to proper group discussion.
I have been told off list that I do not understand what a ML is at
all!!!
But I guess I am too old for that now, still enjoying being here
R.
I think the biggest risk to IronRuby is the CLR, not the IronRuby
implementation itself. As noted, that’s in a reasonably open license.
I’m interested in why you think that the CLR is a risk? We’ve
standardized CLR via the CLI and there is an open-source implementation
of the CLR in Mono. DLR / IronRuby should just run on Mono in binary
form.
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:
Create a 1.8.x compatible implementation modulo continuations
On Oct 23, 2007, at 11:48 AM, John L. (DLR) wrote:
-John
I think it is about the tendency for things to get a focus on calls
that only work on windows.
The thinking that Visual C++/CLI is C++ for example…
In the end I think it will be that. It may well make programming
Windows that much easier and better by doing it in Ruby, or a Ruby at
least.
I’m looking forward to simply seeing what can/will be done with it
regardless.
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.
That’s how real open source development is done. Making a
M$ version of Ruby doesn’t help Ruby much at all.
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.
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.
I want a .NET native Ruby so that I can script .NET applications with
Ruby. That’s what IronRuby is.
