Forum: Ruby Re: Ruby's role in future operating systems

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
3be45f6ce2674d66238e593dfa2edd15?d=identicon&s=25 DEBAUN, STEVE [Seminis/2400] (Guest)
on 2006-06-09 23:23
(Received via mailing list)
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
4b174722d1b1a4bbd9672e1ab50c30a9?d=identicon&s=25 Ryan Leavengood (Guest)
on 2006-06-09 23:52
(Received via mailing list)
On 6/9/06, DEBAUN, STEVE [Seminis/2400] <steve.debaun@seminis.com>
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
0c00d644de3b8bb2f655908c79af25a5?d=identicon&s=25 Matt Lawrence (Guest)
on 2006-06-10 05:49
(Received via mailing list)
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006, Ryan Leavengood 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.
3bb23e7770680ea44a2d79e6d10daaed?d=identicon&s=25 M. Edward (Ed) Borasky (Guest)
on 2006-06-11 03:21
(Received via mailing list)
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

http://linuxcapacityplanning.com
2e4c409c50b3854950fa624488265929?d=identicon&s=25 Andrew Thompson (vagabond)
on 2006-06-11 03:49
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/pkgmg... (still a
WIP). I just don't have time to actually do any implementation though :(

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

Andrew
F2d901ea9430646c6dd35a629bb3f119?d=identicon&s=25 Simen Edvardsen (Guest)
on 2006-06-11 22:09
(Received via mailing list)
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.
E34b5cae57e0dd170114dba444e37852?d=identicon&s=25 Logan Capaldo (Guest)
on 2006-06-11 22:34
(Received via mailing list)
On Jun 11, 2006, at 4:06 PM, Simen Edvardsen 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.
Ed4fbb4089f77d4f00b6ce8832c0db68?d=identicon&s=25 dave (Guest)
on 2006-06-12 17:26
(Received via mailing list)
| 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!
* Entra in www.radiosnj.com
 Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?midQ80&d-6
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.