From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2004-07-01T20:12:50+09:00
Subject: Re: Why I don't use Ruby.


I totally agree with you.

"gabriele renzi" <surrender_it@remove.yahoo.it> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1rp7e0dc0bgkm0t82r1rk2ta126ut75iuf@4ax.com...
> il Thu, 01 Jul 2004 04:43:49 -0500, TLOlczyk <olczyk2002@yahoo.com> ha
> scritto::
>
>
> This message may be trollish, but it seem it is'nt :)
>
> >The first comment I would make is that I base my desires on features
> >provided in languages created in the functional programming community.
> >Languages such as Scheme/SML/OCaml/Haskell. [..] In
> >effect most of these systems give short shrift to Windows. I preffer
> >my code to work more or less the same on both types of OS.
>
>
> have you tried DrScheme ? The GUI environment is based on wxwindows
> and runs quite fine on windows.
>
> >The main thing I am looking for is a basic environment similar to
> >functional languages. In particular a ( native-code ) compiler and
> >an extensible REPL. By REPL I mean read-eval-print-loop, a fancy
> >word for interpreter. To make clear what I want, and why I think
> >it is a superior approach, I will now explain how it is used.
>
> Why do you feel the need for a native code compiler,
> Do you expect better performances or something else?
>
> Anyway, about REPL env, that's what IRB is for:
> >> def f
> >>  10
> >> end
> => nil
> >> f
> => 10
> >>
>
> >Typically you open the file you are working on in emacs,vi or
> >an IDE. ( Typically it would be emacs or vi. The IDEs available
> >tend to be too primitive. Other editors might do but I am not
> >aware of them. ) The you split the session into two windows
> >and start your REPL in one.[..]
>
> I think ruby-mode.el allows this. I usually do this in different
> terminals, anyway, but that's quite subjective.
>
> >
> >Afdter a while the file is complete. Then you compile it into a
> >library file or application. This way you get the speed of a compiled
> >program with the flexibility of an interpreted program. And in
> >some cases you need the speed. In others you don't. In others
> >you don't know (eg libwww). Of course it would be nice to be
> >able to build new REPL with libraries incorporated, or at
> >least specified on the commandline.
>
> I'm not sure what you intended with the last statement, maybe
>  irb -r mylib
>
> It's really agreeable that better performance would be nice. I think a
> JIT would be ok, anyway.
>
> If you feel that speed is such an important thing in your application
> field, and that current C libraries or ruby extension are not a good
> fit, I completely agree with you, ruby is not fine.
>
> OTOH IIRC there are some effort to build ruby2c, ruby2asm, and JIT
> compilers for ruby. I hope those will mature with time, but I
> understand you can't care about them.

And, for real high performance requirements it's likely that Ruby -
whether compiled to native or whatever - will not reach the mark that can
be set languages like C and C++.  The dynamic nature does cost some
performance.  If performance is paramount one either has to use another
language or write an extension that does the performance critical things.

> >It would also be nice to have an optional core/image.
> >That way if I run tests where testing uses a lot of data,
> >I can save images when i debug later stages and
> >save myself some time initializing.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you want to freeze the interpreter
> in a given state? Or do you feel the need for some serialization
> format that can be retrieved at any time fast? (in this case Marshal
> could fit, maybe?)

I'd use Marshal for that.  I even once wrote a function that automatically
loads the marshalled representation of a file if that is unchanged and
otherwise loads the file.  Marhshall is pretty fast indeed.

Regards

    robert