From: Ben Giddings <bg-rubytalk@...>
Date: 2003-09-18T02:44:37+09:00
Subject: Ruby on an Embedded Linux device (was Re: performance...)

gabriele renzi wrote:
> programs, cause an interpreted language script  is far more 'dense' 
> that compiled C or whatever.
> (btw, if Ruby 1.8 was used you'll get the standard unix tools for free
> , as in cd,cat,sort,grep...)
> 
> what do you think of it ?

ben@magneto% du --max-depth=0 /usr/lib/ruby
3.1M    /usr/lib/ruby
ben@magneto% ll busybox
-rwxr-xr-x    1 ben      ben          239K Sep  2 10:13 busybox

ben@magneto% ll |grep busybox |ruby -n -e 'print split(/\s/)[-3 .. -1], 
"\n"'
210:13busybox
cat->busybox
chgrp->busybox
chmod->busybox
chown->busybox
cp->busybox
date->busybox
dd->busybox
df->busybox
dmesg->busybox
echo->busybox
false->busybox
getopt->busybox
grep->busybox
gunzip->busybox
gzip->busybox
hostname->busybox
kill->busybox
ln->busybox
ls->busybox
mkdir->busybox
mknod->busybox
mktemp->busybox
more->busybox
mount->busybox
mv->busybox
pidof->busybox
ps->busybox
pwd->busybox
rm->busybox
rmdir->busybox
sed->busybox
sleep->busybox
stty->busybox
sync->busybox
tar->busybox
touch->busybox
true->busybox
umount->busybox
uname->busybox
usleep->busybox
vi->busybox
zcat->busybox

Busybox does nearly every system administration type command I need, and 
uses only 200K, Ruby uses over 3MB and that's a huge chunk of what I 
have to play with.  I haven't given up wanting to use it, but odds are I 
just won't have room.

Ben