From: "Axel.Vanhooren" <Axel_dot_Vanhooren@...>
Date: 2001-10-20T04:26:18+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:22792] Re: Some general questions about Ruby

But then the portability of Ruby-programs are limited
to the platforms upon which Ruby runs (of course), but
exactly the same other components (like TCL/TK, FLTK,
or the same PNG-library, etc..) which are used exists.

This makes Ruby and Ruby programs quite dependent of 
these technologies.

Axel.


Phlip wrote:
> 
> Axel.Vanhooren wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I just started learning Ruby.. and the book didn't
> > lie about it.. Ruby seems to be really funny to work with.
> > But I have a few questions about Ruby.
> 
> Being tutorial-style questions, we suggest you write a page on the Wiki
> at www.rubygarden.com about the answers. (A Wiki is a Web site anyone
> can edit.)
> 
> > How stable is Ruby ?
> 
> I have done >nasty< things to it and have not encountered a bug or
> crashed the interpreter. Others might have stories, though.
> 
> Remember that on a visible-source project getting a bug fixed is MUCH
> easier than on a closed-source project, like Visual C++. Bugs I
> encountered 6 years ago there are still not fixed!
> 
> > In the book they said that Ruby can have some performance
> > problems. How much is it ?
> 
> Ruby is interpreted. This does not just mean that the interpreter reads
> the source every single time it executes. It means that the language
> supports abilities, such as typeless run-time binding and reflection,
> that >require< it to behave like an interpreted language, even if you
> compiled it.
> 
> But programs tend to have two parts; a high-level command-n-control part
> that distributes orders, and low-level libraries that carry-out the
> orders. Libraries that must be fast, such as PNG file decoders,
> typically already have other reasons to be written in a fully compiled
> language. The primary reason is you can share them between applications.
> 
> Command-n-control is light.
> 
> Finally, well-written code consists of many small functions which are
> easy to time, test, and refactor. Code that has survived many automated
> unit tests, and which has been refactored often, tends to reduce to the
> minimum line count between two points. Optimal. This is essentially the
> only reason a slow language like Smalltalk could ever have been used to
> invent windowing user interfaces on 1 megahertz CPUs.
> 
> > Does a Ruby compiler exists ?
> 
> I downloaded rb2c but I have not tried it yet.
> 
> > Will Ruby be extended with it's own GUI-library ?
> 
> Java's success as a "language bundled with a GUI" should not be taken as
> a sign that languages must bundle GUIs. Java merely filled an enormous
> power vacuum in the early Web industry.
> 
> We should, instead, seek powerful cross-platform GUIs that can be driven
> by a number of scripting languages. Not least of these is tk, the
> back-end of TCL/Tk. Most scripting languages can use it. There are also
> Gtk, wxWindows, FLTK, FOX, etc., but I'm not sure which are Rubied,
> though.
> 
> --
> Phlip
> 
> http://www.greencheese.org/HatTrick

-- 

e-mail  : Axel(dot)Vanhooren(at)Village(dot)Uunet(dot)Be
ICQ     : 108061049
Site    : http://itprojmngt.8m.net