Re: Ruby's role in future operating systems

Ruby
1

In an inspired moment the other night, I thought it would be soooo
cooool to
have a command shell with ruby syntax. The I started getting even
crazier,
and thought, what about a ruby interpreter as an o/s kernel…

It may have only sounded cool because I was drunk, though.

sd

2

On 6/9/06, DEBAUN, STEVE [Seminis/2400] [email protected]
wrote:

In an inspired moment the other night, I thought it would be soooo cooool to
have a command shell with ruby syntax.

FYI: http://rubyforge.org/projects/rush/

The I started getting even crazier,
and thought, what about a ruby interpreter as an o/s kernel…

That might be taking things too far, but I could certainly imagine
kernel extensions or system services written in Ruby, but it might
need to be some type of limited interpreter or kept in a sandbox, just
in case.

Ryan

3

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006, Ryan L. wrote:

That might be taking things too far, but I could certainly imagine
kernel extensions or system services written in Ruby, but it might
need to be some type of limited interpreter or kept in a sandbox, just
in case.

I worked with QNX a number of years ago. Amazing system, the kernel was
13K. Everything else ran externally and communicated via a very simple
message protocol. It really rocked! Ruby would plug into something
like
that extremely well.

– Matt
It’s not what I know that counts.
It’s what I can remember in time to use.

4

DEBAUN, STEVE [Seminis/2400] wrote:

In an inspired moment the other night, I thought it would be soooo cooool to
have a command shell with ruby syntax. The I started getting even crazier,
and thought, what about a ruby interpreter as an o/s kernel…

It may have only sounded cool because I was drunk, though.

sd

How is a command shell with Ruby syntax different from “irb”?

forked from Atheos) for now uses Ruby for at least a couple

  1. http://haiku-os.org

–
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

5

It’s not, unless I’ve misunderstood something. In fact, you’d only
need a ~/.irbrc with some shortcuts for commonly used shell stuff, and
bam! - a Ruby shell.

6

DEBAUN, STEVE [Seminis/2400] wrote:

In an inspired moment the other night, I thought it would be soooo
cooool to
have a command shell with ruby syntax.

I took a stab at such a think a while back, the plan was to be able to
inline shell commands in ruby so you could use ruby for the if’s and
loops but type shell commands pretty naturally. I kinda had some stuff
working, but without a proper ruby parser in ruby it’s pretty tricky…

Another idea I’ve been bouncing around in my skull is a
ports/pkgsrc/portage style package manager in ruby. I kinda even specced
out my ideas here:
http://www.cataclysm-software.net/vag/pkgman/pkgmgr-spec2.txt (still a
WIP). I just don’t have time to actually do any implementation though :frowning:

BTW - sorry for posting from ruby forum, too lazy to resubscribe to the
ML…

Andrew

7

| ls -l .rb
| should work without doing ls ‘-l’, '.rb’

| but once you start typing something like
|
| if cond
|
| then it should pick up on the fact you are writing a ruby script now

| and not calling the ‘if’ binary with an argument of cond.

Yes, i’m agree.

–
Upper reality >oftware.
Dave - Skp Core (skp-it.eu).

–
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Tutta la musica che vuoi a portata di click!

8

On Jun 11, 2006, at 4:06 PM, Simen E. wrote:

have a command shell with ruby syntax. The I started getting
even crazier,
and thought, what about a ruby interpreter as an o/s kernel…

It may have only sounded cool because I was drunk, though.

sd

How is a command shell with Ruby syntax different from “irb”?

Please don’t top post. Anyway, I think what people want is not a
command shell with ruby syntax, but a command shell with mixed-syntax
that would ‘do the right thing’.

i.e.

ls -l .rb
should work without doing ls ‘-l’, '.rb’ (or even ls ‘-l *.rb’)

but once you start typing something like

if cond

then it should pick up on the fact you are writing a ruby script now
and not calling the ‘if’ binary with an argument of cond.