Comments on: Ruby.NET is dead http://antoniocangiano.com/2008/02/04/rubynet-is-dead/ By Antonio Cangiano, Software Engineer & Technical Evangelist at IBM Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:41:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: secretGeek http://antoniocangiano.com/2008/02/04/rubynet-is-dead/#comment-2477 secretGeek Fri, 08 Feb 2008 14:23:04 +0000 http://antoniocangiano.com/2008/02/04/rubynet-is-dead/#comment-2477 interesting that IronRuby incorporates: "the Ruby.NET parser and scanner" I've never heard J.Lam credit that fact. Maybe, hopefully it's just that I havent listened closely enough. I'd definitly like to see competing implementations of Ruby on the .net platform. It's a more than worthy exercise for an academic institution. Give those DLR boys a run for their (fat) money! interesting that IronRuby incorporates:
“the Ruby.NET parser and scanner”

I’ve never heard J.Lam credit that fact. Maybe, hopefully it’s just that I havent listened closely enough.

I’d definitly like to see competing implementations of Ruby on the .net platform.

It’s a more than worthy exercise for an academic institution. Give those DLR boys a run for their (fat) money!

]]> By: Jeff Dickey http://antoniocangiano.com/2008/02/04/rubynet-is-dead/#comment-2451 Jeff Dickey Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:04:27 +0000 http://antoniocangiano.com/2008/02/04/rubynet-is-dead/#comment-2451 I see Dr. Kelly's point about the relative viability of the two projects. But even having commented elsewhere that an improved single implementation could, in plausible theory, turn out to be a Good Thing <em>in terms of Ruby adoption on .NET</em>, rereading his email excerpted here causes me to have some serious second thoughts. He writes, <blockquote> I believe that ultimately there is no need for two different implementations of Ruby on .NET </blockquote> I can see the desire to have a single <em>reference</em> implementation. I could even be persuaded that the idea of a single common production-quality implementation has major benefits for reusability and interoperability. But, especially having worked at and with Microsoft using compilers of varying levels of quality and conformance, I think it would be a very good thing to have alternate implementations that can be used as development aids. Much as Borland C++ served as a backup compiler for me for many years while Microsoft was still working on a sensible C++ implementation (and having shipped at least one program using BC++ after publicly stating that we "used Microsoft tools in production" due to language-implementation and RTL defects), I would feel much more comfortable <em>as a Ruby developer on .NET</em> if K new that I could use another tool to help me diagnose troubles I was having with IronRuby on .NET. Note that I am not saying that I have those troubles today, just as I would have said that my team was by and large happy with Microsoft's C++ implementation up until two weeks before we shipped on Borland. But having an alternative compiler/interpreter/adjudicator of the language you are using <em>on the platform you are targeting</em> can and more than once has made the difference between survival and failure for startups and other delicate projects. I would look to someone carrying on, or if necessary forking, Ruby.NET for just that purpose. Maybe it's not and never plausibly will be "the best" Ruby implementation on .NET; it doesn't have to be. It's just there as a crutch for developers, and as something to keep the ongoing IronRuby project "honest". Performing that role, even if the resulting code was never as fast or small or as the IronRuby equivalent, would still be a service worthy of lyric and epic praise. I see Dr. Kelly’s point about the relative viability of the two projects. But even having commented elsewhere that an improved single implementation could, in plausible theory, turn out to be a Good Thing in terms of Ruby adoption on .NET, rereading his email excerpted here causes me to have some serious second thoughts. He writes,

I believe that ultimately there is no need for two different implementations of Ruby on .NET

I can see the desire to have a single reference implementation. I could even be persuaded that the idea of a single common production-quality implementation has major benefits for reusability and interoperability. But, especially having worked at and with Microsoft using compilers of varying levels of quality and conformance, I think it would be a very good thing to have alternate implementations that can be used as development aids. Much as Borland C++ served as a backup compiler for me for many years while Microsoft was still working on a sensible C++ implementation (and having shipped at least one program using BC++ after publicly stating that we “used Microsoft tools in production” due to language-implementation and RTL defects), I would feel much more comfortable as a Ruby developer on .NET if K new that I could use another tool to help me diagnose troubles I was having with IronRuby on .NET. Note that I am not saying that I have those troubles today, just as I would have said that my team was by and large happy with Microsoft’s C++ implementation up until two weeks before we shipped on Borland. But having an alternative compiler/interpreter/adjudicator of the language you are using on the platform you are targeting can and more than once has made the difference between survival and failure for startups and other delicate projects. I would look to someone carrying on, or if necessary forking, Ruby.NET for just that purpose. Maybe it’s not and never plausibly will be “the best” Ruby implementation on .NET; it doesn’t have to be. It’s just there as a crutch for developers, and as something to keep the ongoing IronRuby project “honest”. Performing that role, even if the resulting code was never as fast or small or as the IronRuby equivalent, would still be a service worthy of lyric and epic praise.

]]> By: Antonio Cangiano http://antoniocangiano.com/2008/02/04/rubynet-is-dead/#comment-2443 Antonio Cangiano Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:17:00 +0000 http://antoniocangiano.com/2008/02/04/rubynet-is-dead/#comment-2443 Robert, DLR stands for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Language_Runtime" rel="nofollow">Dynamic Language Runtime</a>. Robert, DLR stands for Dynamic Language Runtime.

]]> By: Robert Craven http://antoniocangiano.com/2008/02/04/rubynet-is-dead/#comment-2441 Robert Craven Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:25:24 +0000 http://antoniocangiano.com/2008/02/04/rubynet-is-dead/#comment-2441 What is DLR? What is DLR?

]]> By: she http://antoniocangiano.com/2008/02/04/rubynet-is-dead/#comment-2440 she Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:24:55 +0000 http://antoniocangiano.com/2008/02/04/rubynet-is-dead/#comment-2440 Anyone knows what Wayne will do next? PS: I really hope this doesnt hurt Ruby. I use Ruby almost exclusively, so Ruby-on-Net (working, maintained) definitely would definitely be awesome. Anyone knows what Wayne will do next?

PS: I really hope this doesnt hurt Ruby. I use Ruby almost exclusively, so Ruby-on-Net (working, maintained) definitely would definitely be awesome.

]]> By: Tim http://antoniocangiano.com/2008/02/04/rubynet-is-dead/#comment-2437 Tim Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:26:43 +0000 http://antoniocangiano.com/2008/02/04/rubynet-is-dead/#comment-2437 I have only just gotten used to Ruby. And now you pronounce it "dead" is just funny and quite ironic. I do hope for a more improved Ruby though, if it's available. I have only just gotten used to Ruby. And now you pronounce it “dead” is just funny and quite ironic. I do hope for a more improved Ruby though, if it’s available.

]]> By: Ruby.NET death brings up the topic again, Microsoft, ALT, OSS, ... - Guru Stop http://antoniocangiano.com/2008/02/04/rubynet-is-dead/#comment-2435 Ruby.NET death brings up the topic again, Microsoft, ALT, OSS, ... - Guru Stop Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:19:57 +0000 http://antoniocangiano.com/2008/02/04/rubynet-is-dead/#comment-2435 [...] death brings up the topic again, Microsoft, ALT, OSS, ... Reading the news that Ruby.NET is dead although doesn't feel the best thing to hear, is still logical, and more explicitly it's even [...] [...] death brings up the topic again, Microsoft, ALT, OSS, … Reading the news that Ruby.NET is dead although doesn’t feel the best thing to hear, is still logical, and more explicitly it’s even [...]

]]> By: Virtual Surreality » Ruby.NET is dead http://antoniocangiano.com/2008/02/04/rubynet-is-dead/#comment-2434 Virtual Surreality » Ruby.NET is dead Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:54:33 +0000 http://antoniocangiano.com/2008/02/04/rubynet-is-dead/#comment-2434 [...] Antonio Cangiano let everyone else who isn’t on the list know the disappointing news from earlier this afternoon. [...] [...] Antonio Cangiano let everyone else who isn’t on the list know the disappointing news from earlier this afternoon. [...]

]]> By: Wayne Kelly http://antoniocangiano.com/2008/02/04/rubynet-is-dead/#comment-2433 Wayne Kelly Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:17:06 +0000 http://antoniocangiano.com/2008/02/04/rubynet-is-dead/#comment-2433 Thanks Antonio! Cheers, Wayne Thanks Antonio!

Cheers, Wayne

]]> By: hattoum http://antoniocangiano.com/2008/02/04/rubynet-is-dead/#comment-2432 hattoum Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:24:53 +0000 http://antoniocangiano.com/2008/02/04/rubynet-is-dead/#comment-2432 :'( :’(

]]>