[#83328] tcltklib and not init'ing tk — aakhter@... (Aamer Akhter)

Hello,

13 messages 2003/10/01

[#83391] mixing in class methods — "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...>

Okay, probably a dumb question, but: is there any way to define

22 messages 2003/10/01
[#83392] Re: mixing in class methods — Ryan Pavlik <rpav@...> 2003/10/01

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 06:02:32 +0900

[#83397] Re: mixing in class methods — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...> 2003/10/01

On Thursday, October 2, 2003, 7:08:00 AM, Ryan wrote:

[#83399] Re: mixing in class methods — "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...> 2003/10/02

On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 07:37:25AM +0900, Gavin Sinclair wrote:

[#83404] Re: mixing in class methods — "Gavin Sinclair" <gsinclair@...> 2003/10/02

> On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 07:37:25AM +0900, Gavin Sinclair wrote:

[#83416] C or C++? — "Joe Cheng" <code@...>

I'd like to start writing Ruby extensions. Does it make a difference

32 messages 2003/10/02
[#83435] Re: C or C++? — "Aleksei Guzev" <aleksei.guzev@...> 2003/10/02

[#83448] xml in Ruby — paul vudmaska <paul_vudmaska@...> 2003/10/02

The biggest problem i have with Ruby is the sleepness

[#83455] Re: xml in Ruby — Chad Fowler <chad@...> 2003/10/02

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, paul vudmaska wrote:

[#83464] Re: xml in Ruby or no xml it's just a question — paul vudmaska <paul_vudmaska@...> 2003/10/02

>>--------

[#83470] Re: xml in Ruby — paul vudmaska <paul_vudmaska@...>

>>>

15 messages 2003/10/02

[#83551] xml + ruby — paul vudmaska <paul_vudmaska@...>

>>---------

20 messages 2003/10/03
[#83562] Re: xml + ruby — Austin Ziegler <austin@...> 2003/10/03

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 16:11:46 +0900, paul vudmaska wrote:

[#83554] hash of hashes — Paul Argentoff <argentoff@...>

Hi all.

18 messages 2003/10/03

[#83675] fox-tool - interactive gui builder for fxruby — henon <user@...>

hi fellows,

15 messages 2003/10/05

[#83730] Re: Enumerable#inject is surprising me... — "Weirich, James" <James.Weirich@...>

> Does it surprise you?

17 messages 2003/10/06
[#83732] Re: Enumerable#inject is surprising me... — nobu.nokada@... 2003/10/07

Hi,

[#83801] Extension Language for a Text Editor — Nikolai Weibull <ruby-talk@...>

OK. So I'm going to write a text editor for my masters' thesis. The

35 messages 2003/10/08
[#83803] Re: Extension Language for a Text Editor — Ryan Pavlik <rpav@...> 2003/10/08

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 05:06:32 +0900

[#83806] Re: Extension Language for a Text Editor — Nikolai Weibull <ruby-talk@...> 2003/10/08

* Ryan Pavlik <rpav@mephle.com> [Oct, 08 2003 22:30]:

[#83812] Re: Extension Language for a Text Editor — Ryan Pavlik <rpav@...> 2003/10/08

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 06:09:29 +0900

[#83955] Re: Extension Language for a Text Editor — Nikolai Weibull <ruby-talk@...> 2003/10/09

* Ryan Pavlik <rpav@mephle.com> [Oct, 09 2003 09:10]:

[#84169] General Ruby Programming questions — Simon Kitching <simon@...>

21 messages 2003/10/15
[#84170] Re: General Ruby Programming questions — Florian Gross <flgr@...> 2003/10/15

Simon Kitching wrote:

[#84172] Re: General Ruby Programming questions — Simon Kitching <simon@...> 2003/10/15

Hi Florian..

[#84331] Re: Email Harvesting — Greg Vaughn <gvaughn@...>

Ryan Dlugosz said:

17 messages 2003/10/21
[#84335] Re: Email Harvesting — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...> 2003/10/21

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Greg Vaughn wrote:

[#84343] Re: Email Harvesting — Ruben Vandeginste <Ruben.Vandeginste@...> 2003/10/22

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 08:35:32 +0900, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng

[#84341] Ruby-oriented Linux distro? — Hal Fulton <hal9000@...>

There's been some talk of something like this in the past.

15 messages 2003/10/22
[#84348] Re: Ruby-oriented Linux distro? — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...> 2003/10/22

On Wednesday, October 22, 2003, 6:01:16 PM, Hal wrote:

[#84351] Re: Ruby-oriented Linux distro? — Andrew Walrond <andrew@...> 2003/10/22

On Wednesday 22 Oct 2003 11:02 am, Gavin Sinclair wrote:

[#84420] Struggling with variable arguments to block — "Gavin Sinclair" <gsinclair@...>

Hi -talk,

18 messages 2003/10/24
[#84428] Re: Struggling with variable arguments to block — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/10/24

Hi,

[#84604] ruby-dev summary 21637-21729 — Takaaki Tateishi <ttate@...>

Hello,

21 messages 2003/10/30
[#84787] Re: ruby-dev summary 21637-21729 — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2003/11/06

On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 07:01:28AM +0900, Takaaki Tateishi wrote:

[#84789] Re: ruby-dev summary 21637-21729 — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/11/06

Hi,

[#84792] Re: ruby-dev summary 21637-21729 — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2003/11/06

On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 11:17:59PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#84794] Re: ruby-dev summary 21637-21729 — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/11/06

Hi,

Re: Article on ARTIMA

From: Simon Kitching <simon@...>
Date: 2003-10-03 01:42:54 UTC
List: ruby-talk #83526
On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 18:10, Lothar Scholz wrote:

> JC> Putting aside the fact that on Windows there are some really pathological
> JC> threading issues... does the fact that Ruby doesn't support "native threads"
> JC> means Ruby will not take advantage of multiple processors (and
> JC> pseudo-multiprocessors, like Intel's HyperThreading)?  I don't know much
> 
> Yes thats right !

Yes, it is. If an application implements threading at the "user-space"
level, then the kernel sees the app as one thread, and therefore cannot
distribute processing over multiple physical processors.

> One of the reasons why it is not the best language for larger server
> applications where at least dual processors are very common. Of couse
> you can use multiple processes, but then you will see much harder IPC
> and caching problems if you don't use one fat central database server.
> 
> JC> about the microprocessor industry but from what little I know, it seems like
> JC> at least some of the big companies are looking to multiple cores and other
> JC> parallelism at the thread level for their future chips.

Yep, I'd agree with this too. With the proviso, of course, that the vast
majority of programs are not multi-threaded internally, and therefore
don't run any faster on multi-cpu systems no matter what.

> 
> That's right and it's the right way. But i think the NUMA architecture
> will win (long term future). With NUMA (Non unified memory
> architecture) you don't have a shared memory anymore - so the ruby way
> is not so bad.

Numa does have shared memory; it's just that memory "local" to the CPU
is faster to access than memory "local" to some other CPU. I do think
NUMA is going to win on very big servers, but is unlikely to come to a
desktop system - though I'm not an expert here.



Have you heard of the "Parrot" project? A team of developers are
building an open-source high-performance virtual machine for
"interpreted" languages. Their initial target is Perl6, but the
expicitly want to support other languages including Python and Ruby.

>From the FAQ:
"Ideally, Parrot can be used to support other dynamic, bytecode-compiled
languages such as Python, Ruby and Tcl."

There are some really smart people working on this one, and the project
is coming along nicely it seems. 

Re parrot, see: 
* http://www.parrotcode.org/
* http://dev.perl.org/perl6/
* http://www.sidhe.org/~dan/blog/archives/000151.html


I presume Parrot supports kernel-level multithreading, though I guess
some of the Ruby libraries would need work on threadsafety to run
correctly in kernel-threading-mode...

There was a project called "Cardinal" to implement Ruby on Parrot.
It appears to be defunct though (so appropriate for us Monty Python fans
:-). Or maybe just dormant until Parrot is more advanced...

Re Ruby on Parrot, see:
* http://www.rubyxml.com/parrot/parrot_notes.html
* http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/76623
* http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/76552
* http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/29980
* http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?CardinalProject


Does anyone here know any more on the status of ruby-for-parrot
projects?


Cheers,

Simon


In This Thread