[#14464] who uses Python or Ruby, and for what? — ellard2@...01.fas.harvard.edu (-11,3-3562,3-3076)

A while ago I posted a request for people to share their experiences

12 messages 2001/05/01

[#14555] Ruby as a Mac OS/X scripting language — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

10 messages 2001/05/02

[#14557] Arggg Bitten by the block var scope feature!!! — Wayne Scott <wscott@...>

13 messages 2001/05/02

[#14598] Re: Arggg Bitten by the block var scope feature!!! — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneik@...>

# On Thu, 3 May 2001, Wayne Scott wrote:

9 messages 2001/05/03

[#14636] Yet another "About private methods" question — Eric Jacoboni <jacoboni@...2.fr>

I'm still trying to figure out the semantics of private methods in Ruby.

39 messages 2001/05/04
[#14656] Re: Yet another "About private methods" question — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2001/05/04

Eric Jacoboni <jaco@teaser.fr> writes:

[#14666] Ruby and Web Applications — "Chris Montgomery" <monty@...> 2001/05/04

Greetings from a newbie,

[#14772] Re: Ruby and Web Applications — Jim Freeze <jim@...> 2001/05/07

On Sat, 5 May 2001, Chris Montgomery wrote:

[#14710] Why's Ruby so slow in this case? — Stefan Matthias Aust <sma@3plus4.de>

Sure, Ruby, being interpreted, is slower than a compiled language.

12 messages 2001/05/05

[#14881] Class/Module Information — "John Kaurin" <jkaurin@...>

It is possible to modify the following code to produce

18 messages 2001/05/09

[#15034] Re: calling .inspect on array/hash causes core dump — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "A" == Andreas Riedl <viisi@chello.at> writes:

15 messages 2001/05/12

[#15198] Re: Q: GUI framework with direct drawing ca pabilities? — Steve Tuckner <SAT@...>

Would it be a good idea to develop a pure Ruby GUI framework built on top of

13 messages 2001/05/15

[#15234] Pluggable sorting - How would you do it? — "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>

Hello all,

16 messages 2001/05/16

[#15549] ColdFusion for Ruby — "Michael Dinowitz" <mdinowit@...2000.com>

I don't currently use Ruby. To tell the truth, I have no real reason to. I'd

12 messages 2001/05/22

[#15569] I like ruby-chan ... — Rob Armstrong <rob@...>

Ruby is more human(e) than Python. We already have too many animals :-).

15 messages 2001/05/23

[#15601] How to avoid spelling mistakes of variable names — ndrochak@... (Nick Drochak)

Since Ruby does not require a variable to be declared, do people find

13 messages 2001/05/23

[#15734] java based interpreter and regexes — "Wayne Blair" <wayne.blair@...>

I have been thinking about the java based ruby interpreter project, and I

48 messages 2001/05/25

[#15804] is it possible to dynamically coerce objects types in Ruby? — mirian@... (Mirian Crzig Lennox)

Greetings to all. I am a newcomer to Ruby and I am exploring the

13 messages 2001/05/27
[#15807] Re: is it possible to dynamically coerce objects types in Ruby? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2001/05/27

Hi,

[#15863] Experimental "in" operator for collections — Stefan Matthias Aust <sma@3plus4.de>

There's one thing where I prefer Python over Ruby. Testing whether an

13 messages 2001/05/28

[#15925] Re: Block arguments vs method arguments — ts <decoux@...>

>>>>> "M" == Mike <mike@lepton.fr> writes:

43 messages 2001/05/29
[#16070] Re: Block arguments vs method arguments — "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...> 2001/05/31

----- Original Message -----

[#16081] Re: Block arguments vs method arguments — Sean Russell <ser@...> 2001/05/31

On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 11:53:17AM +0900, Hal E. Fulton wrote:

[#16088] Re: Block arguments vs method arguments — Dan Moniz <dnm@...> 2001/05/31

At 11:01 PM 5/31/2001 +0900, Sean Russell wrote:

[#15954] new keyword idea: tryreturn, tryturn or done — Juha Pohjalainen <voidjump@...>

Hello everyone!

12 messages 2001/05/29

[ruby-talk:15960] Ruby Standard and Enterprise Edition

From: Bryan Zarnett <b@...>
Date: 2001-05-29 21:40:10 UTC
List: ruby-talk #15960
One of the best "marketing" things that Java did was there standard and 
enterprise edition bundles. Maybe this is something we should do with 
ruby as well.  The core idea would be that we would not have to compile 
all those important libraries over and over again.

One of the big things that got ruby off the ground was not having to 
personally compile everything -- something that generally has to be done 
with Ruby. You want LDAP support, compile it yourself. You want XSL 
support, compile it yourself.

IMHO, the use of standard bundles would benefit Ruby in a variety of 
ways:

1. People would not have to compile all the libraries for there 
platforms making it easier to use
2. Easier corporate buy-in by saying "Advanced edition" comes with XXXX
3. Applications can state Advanced Edition 1.4 as a pre-req
5. People would not have to compile all the libraries for there 
platforms making it easier to use
6. People would not have to compile all the libraries for there 
platforms making it easier to use
7. same as 1, 5, and 6

[Did I mention how much I hate compiling C/C++ code???]

I was thinking the following bundles:

1. Standard Edition -- Just ruby and the core Libraries (and ruby unit)
2. Advanced Edition -- includes XML, XSL
3. Enterprise Edition -- includes the LDAP,DBD:DBI,  mod_ruby, eRuby

(off the top of my head)

The standard edition is important so people can complain about 14mb 
downloads and bloatware!

Considering the libraries are in such flux, it would not be expected to 
make a new release with each library but for the first while we might do 
a new release every three or six months.

We could also pick a key series to support: OS/X, Linux, BSD, Windows, 
Solaris, AIX as the base.

Any thoughts? Any volunteers?

Bryan

[Now I got to go back and figure out why extconf.rb is not picking up 
libpq for the Postgres driver. Grumble!]

In This Thread

Prev Next