Ruby for .NET? This is going to be interesting...

Edgardo Rossetto .NET » Blog Archive » Ruby para .NET

Edgardo Rossetto .NET » Blog Archive » Ruby para .NET — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:46:33 GMT

PingBack from http://edgardorossetto.net/2006/03/17/ruby-para-net/

re: Ruby for .NET? This is going to be interesting...

Bertrand Le Roy — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 18:33:14 GMT

My2Cents: you were not censored by me. Maybe you got filtered by the automatic filters the first time. I didn't see another comment from you.

I don't think I'm making a brouhaha, but it's more exciting and interesting from my point of view to see Ruby being adapted to .NET for two reasons. First, it hasn't been done before. Second, Ruby is being immensely more successful than Smalltalk ever was so having it for .NET is just more significant. I'm not judging in terms of quality, just in terms of success and reach. Maybe there's a reason why Smalltalk never really took off, by the way?

If you need Smalltalk for .NET, it seems like there are already several implementations:

http://www.refactory.com/Software/SharpSmalltalk/

http://www.smallscript.net/Community/community_home.asp

too much ado about ruby, have a look at smalltalk instead

My2Cents — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 10:00:39 GMT

Well, seems I was censored first time, so let us put it mildly now. I know Ruby is a great success and has a good web framework called Rails, well, I still don't see the reason for such a brouhaha, given Ruby's similarity to Smalltalk. Clever guys knew twenty years ago that dynamic languages are good, hipsters just need all those "Rails" and "pragmatic programming" books and websites to jump in.

Blog Highlights

Jeff W. Barnes — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 20:30:27 GMT

Vista Release Date Speculation
Windows Workflow Foundation Beta 2.2 Released
New IE7 Release for...

re: Ruby for .NET? This is going to be interesting...

Bertrand Le Roy — Sat, 15 Apr 2006 01:56:00 GMT

Dear Ruby, thanks for your suggestion to get a life, but I already have one and I suspect it's more interesting than yours seeing how you waste your time on such comments.

people... i have a better idea!

ruby — Sat, 15 Apr 2006 01:51:00 GMT

Here's Ruby on linux. Live. Unabridged. Open. Fine-tuned. Also works on Mac OSX or any other unix. Get a life.

re: Ruby for .NET? This is going to be interesting...

Wayne Kelly — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 07:37:00 GMT

As I understand it, Reflection.Emit does a number of other things beyond generating PE files (such as performing verification). Our PE writer performs only the work that is required.

And just because Ruby is a dynamic language, doesn't mean it can't be compiled.
Only features such as eval require the compiler to be invoked at runtime, and Ruby programmers already expect eval to be slow.

We may very well have performance issues, but I doubt our PE writer will be the most critical.

re: Ruby for .NET? This is going to be interesting...

Jb Evain — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:04:00 GMT

IMHO, using their own PE writer is a big mistake for such a dynamic language as Ruby. If perfect for batch compilers, it's not very well suited for dynamics language where Reflection.Emit and LCG rocks.

At each assembly emitted, they will have it twice in memory...

re: Ruby for .NET? This is going to be interesting...

Bertrand Le Roy — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:51:00 GMT

Yes Yes Yes! Just look at IronPython and how well it works. Why would Ruby be any different?

re: Ruby for .NET? This is going to be interesting...

Michael Bradley — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:05:00 GMT

For a .NET implementation of the Rails framework see http://www.castleproject.org/index.php/MonoRail