From: Michael Bruschkewitz <brusch4_removeunderlinesandtextbetween_@...>
Date: 2009-06-07T06:05:05+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] Endless Ruby 0.0.2


"Eleanor McHugh" <eleanor@games-with-brains.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:9153164A-BE75-41DB-9774-9C898C90102B@games-with-brains.com...
> On 4 Jun 2009, at 15:10, Michael Bruschkewitz wrote:

>> That's exactly may idea, until next required "converter"... or some
>> end marker.
>> It wold be similar to eval_f77 << END_OF_F77CODE ...
>> Core question remaining: Who writes those converters?
>
> I can't help but wonder why bother when you could just write F77 code,
> compile it and then use either ruby/dl or ruby-ffi to call it directly
> from ruby.

I just want to remove the need for dealing with all those interface-issues.
If I understood ruby-ffi description, there is a need to know which 
types/byte sizes are used in the interface. Further sequence and alignment.
Also there is a need for knowing how F77 (weird example, I know) handles 
parameters, global data, function names etc.

Using converters:
If there is one developer (ex.: mathematician) which knows F77 and another 
developer which knows Ruby are working in one team - none of both would need 
to know how dynamic libraries are created or what a dynamic library in 
detail is or if they exist on that particular used platform at all. The 
converter could hide all this knowledge, thus allowing the developers to 
concentrate on the solution of project-related problems.

This interface knowledge is not related to particular projects, but to 
languages. There is only the need for some common interface format. How 
interfaces are exported/imported could be completely transparent to the 
developer. Such an converter needs to be created only once per language.


Michael B.