[#10209] Market for XML Web stuff — Matt Sergeant <matt@...>

I'm trying to get a handle on what the size of the market for AxKit would be

15 messages 2001/02/01

[#10238] RFC: RubyVM (long) — Robert Feldt <feldt@...>

Hi,

20 messages 2001/02/01
[#10364] Re: RFC: RubyVM (long) — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2001/02/05

[#10708] Suggestion for threading model — Stephen White <spwhite@...>

I've been playing around with multi-threading. I notice that there are

11 messages 2001/02/11

[#10853] Re: RubyChangeRequest #U002: new proper name for Hash#indexes, Array#indexes — "Mike Wilson" <wmwilson01@...>

10 messages 2001/02/14

[#11037] to_s and << — "Brent Rowland" <tarod@...>

list = [1, 2.3, 'four', false]

15 messages 2001/02/18

[#11094] Re: Summary: RCR #U002 - proper new name fo r indexes — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

12 messages 2001/02/19

[#11131] Re: Summary: RCR #U002 - proper new name fo r indexes — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneik@...>

Robert Feldt wrote:

10 messages 2001/02/19

[#11251] Programming Ruby is now online — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

36 messages 2001/02/21

[#11469] XML-RPC and KDE — schuerig@... (Michael Schuerig)

23 messages 2001/02/24
[#11490] Re: XML-RPC and KDE — schuerig@... (Michael Schuerig) 2001/02/24

Michael Neumann <neumann@s-direktnet.de> wrote:

[#11491] Negative Reviews for Ruby and Programming Ruby — Jim Freeze <jim@...> 2001/02/24

Hi all:

[#11633] RCR: shortcut for instance variable initialization — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

13 messages 2001/02/26

[#11652] RE: RCR: shortcut for instance variable initialization — Michael Davis <mdavis@...>

I like it!

14 messages 2001/02/27

[#11700] Starting Once Again — Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>

OK, I'm starting again with Ruby. I'm just assuming that I've

31 messages 2001/02/27
[#11712] RE: Starting Once Again — "Aaron Hinni" <aaron@...> 2001/02/27

> 2. So far I think running under TextPad will be better than running

[#11726] Re: Starting Once Again — Aleksi Niemel<zak@...> 2001/02/28

On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Aaron Hinni wrote:

[ruby-talk:11252] Re: C scripting using Ruby (instead of Perl)?

From: ptkwt@...1.aracnet.com (Phil Tomson)
Date: 2001-02-21 19:10:02 UTC
List: ruby-talk #11252
In article <LAW2-F60TrBoe2U8QVj000015b2@hotmail.com>,
Ben Tilly <ben_tilly@hotmail.com> wrote:
>ts <decoux@moulon.inra.fr> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> "B" == Ben Tilly <ben_tilly@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >> actually *it very easy* to extend Ruby with C
>>
>>B> Our definitions of "very" differ.
>[...]
>>B> Literally just drop the C code directly into the
>>B> script, and leave deciding when to recompile and how
>>B> to link up to Inline.
>>
>>   ruby extconf.rb
>>   make
>>   make install
>>
>>  If you can't do this, perhaps there is a problem
>
>I found that to be an unfair slam.
>
>Did I ever indicate that it was not easy to extend
>Ruby with C?  Not that I saw.  However I pointed out
>that it could be even *easier*, hence I have a
>different definition of "very easy" than you do.

Quite true - it's easier to extend Ruby with C than it is to extend Perl 
with C ("out of the box").  But considering Perl's Inline module, I'd have 
to say it's at least as easy, if not easier, to extend Perl with C now.  
I'm doing a Language comparison matrix for an upcoming presentation and 
intitially I was going to give Ruby a '4' (highest rating) and Perl a '2' 
(1 is the lowest rating), but in light of Perl's Inline module, I'd have 
to give Perl a 4 and Ruby a 3 - Inline actually seems to make extending 
Perl with C a bit easier than extending Ruby with C.  Now, I haven't used 
Inline in Perl (I read the article in The Perl Journal) and I have 
extended Ruby with C - so it' possible that Inline isn't that easy when 
you get down to actually using it.  Of course, we're talking mechanics 
here - the other issue would be Perl's C API vs Ruby's C API.  I find 
Ruby's to be very straightforward and easy to use, but I have to admit I 
haven't done much with Perl in this department.

>
>Now is it worth the extra work of getting Inline set
>up just to make it easier to get C working with Ruby?
>Almost certainly not.  But is it worth that work for
>the potential of then being able to link in other
>languages?  (Which is where Inline.pm is going in
>Perl.)

I actually think that at the moment, it would be more valuable to have an 
Inline for Ruby that allows you to inline Perl code.

Phil

In This Thread