Next Official Ruby Version

[Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner]

Is it somehow planned to build a new official Ruby before Ruby 2, that means a version called 1.10 or so?

 

[Eric Hodel]

Is it somehow planned to build a new official Ruby before Ruby 2, =20
that means a version called 1.10 or so?

1.8.3 will be the next stable release. A preview was released in =20
May, IIRC.

--=20
Eric Hodel - (e-mail address removed) - http://segment7.net
FEC2 57F1 D465 EB15 5D6E 7C11 332A 551C 796C 9F04

 

[Jeff Wood]

Is there a release calendar for Ruby ... I've never looked for one ...
but figured the question might have an interesting answer.

j.

=20
On 26 Jul 2005, at 13:15, Wolfgang N=E1dasi-Donner wrote:
=20
=20
1.8.3 will be the next stable release. A preview was released in
May, IIRC.
=20
--
Eric Hodel - (e-mail address removed) - http://segment7.net
FEC2 57F1 D465 EB15 5D6E 7C11 332A 551C 796C 9F04
=20
=20
=20

--=20
"So long, and thanks for all the fish"

Jeff Wood

 

[Jeff Wood]

Also, I've seen documents that point to version 1.9 as the integration
point for oniguruma ( sp? ) ...

... haven't seen much news on the 1.9.x releases either.

j.

Is there a release calendar for Ruby ... I've never looked for one ...
but figured the question might have an interesting answer.
=20
j.
=20

=20
=20
--
"So long, and thanks for all the fish"
=20
Jeff Wood
=20

--=20
"So long, and thanks for all the fish"

Jeff Wood

 

[Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner]

Is it somehow planned to build a new official Ruby before Ruby 2, that means a version called 1.10 or so?

Ooops - I mean a Version that is based on Ruby 1.9, sorry for my wrong formulation.

 

[Lothar Scholz]

Hello Wolfgang,


WND> Ooops - I mean a Version that is based on Ruby 1.9, sorry for my wro=
ng formulation.

For some reasons there will be no 1.10 (release number will
never be two digit). So 1.9 will end up in Ruby 2.0 and this means it
will integrate YARV, the new bytecode/JIT compiler. Only God and
Buddha knows when the time for this will come.

If everything works as expected i think 1.8.3 will be out on
christmas. (1.8.1 + 1.8.2 very both released on one of the christmas
days, and also started with previews in jun, so i expect it will be
the same this year).



--=20
Best regards, emailto: scholz at scriptolutions d=
ot com
Lothar Scholz http://www.ruby-ide.com
CTO Scriptolutions Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's
=20

 

[Jeff Wood]

Lothar,

First, thanks for the information, that makes sense ...

Second, 1.9 is where we're going to see oniguruma (spelling?) ...
right? Does anybody know what other features Matz has planned for us?

And Third, I've always wanted to know, I'm impressed with your work on
the Arachno IDE, but, why didn't you write it in Ruby? What made you
choose Haskell?

j.

Hello Wolfgang,
=20

=20
WND> Ooops - I mean a Version that is based on Ruby 1.9, sorry for my wro= ng formulation.
=20
For some reasons there will be no 1.10 (release number will
never be two digit). So 1.9 will end up in Ruby 2.0 and this means it
will integrate YARV, the new bytecode/JIT compiler. Only God and
Buddha knows when the time for this will come.
=20
If everything works as expected i think 1.8.3 will be out on
christmas. (1.8.1 + 1.8.2 very both released on one of the christmas
days, and also started with previews in jun, so i expect it will be
the same this year).
=20
=20
=20
--
Best regards, emailto: scholz at scriptolutions d= ot com
Lothar Scholz http://www.ruby-ide.com
CTO Scriptolutions Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's
=20
=20
=20
=20

--=20
"So long, and thanks for all the fish"

Jeff Wood

 

[Lothar Scholz]

Hello Jeff,

JW> the Arachno IDE, but, why didn't you write it in Ruby? What made you
JW> choose Haskell?

It's Eiffel not Haskell. But for most guys its on the same exotic
languages level.

A script language is just not powerfull enough for this task (speed,
memory consumption and yes, speed) to do this.

For Ruby specific tasks i run simpler ruby scripts. And some parts are
written in Python but the core must be written in a static typed garbage
collected native compiled and imperative high level language. And
there he number of choices was very low in 2001.

Today i would choose a more cleaner D + Python system.

Ruby was never an option as it does not support native threads.

 

[Jeff Wood]

I agree that D is pretty neat.

... beyond that, why would you choose Python over Ruby? ( Just
asking, not trying to be flamebait or anything )

Hello Jeff,
=20
JW> the Arachno IDE, but, why didn't you write it in Ruby? What made you
JW> choose Haskell?
=20
It's Eiffel not Haskell. But for most guys its on the same exotic
languages level.
=20
A script language is just not powerfull enough for this task (speed,
memory consumption and yes, speed) to do this.
=20
For Ruby specific tasks i run simpler ruby scripts. And some parts are
written in Python but the core must be written in a static typed garbage
collected native compiled and imperative high level language. And
there he number of choices was very low in 2001.
=20
Today i would choose a more cleaner D + Python system.
=20
Ruby was never an option as it does not support native threads.
=20
=20
--
Best regards, emailto: scholz at scriptolutions d= ot com
Lothar Scholz http://www.ruby-ide.com
CTO Scriptolutions Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's
=20
=20
=20
=20

--=20
"So long, and thanks for all the fish"

Jeff Wood

 

[Lothar Scholz]

Hello Jeff,

JW> I agree that D is pretty neat.

JW> ... beyond that, why would you choose Python over Ruby? ( Just
JW> asking, not trying to be flamebait or anything )

Ruby is without the nicer and cleaner language, but Python still
has better libraries and implementation (native threads, multiple
separated interpreters and bytecode for source code obfuscation)

I use Ruby whenever i can, but in some application domains Ruby is
unfortunately still not very useable.

 

[Jeff Wood]

Thank you very much for your insight ... I believe that your opinion
is dead on for production/shrink-wrap coding.

Thank you for having this chat. It's been enlightening.

j.

Hello Jeff,
=20
JW> I agree that D is pretty neat.
=20
JW> ... beyond that, why would you choose Python over Ruby? ( Just
JW> asking, not trying to be flamebait or anything )
=20
Ruby is without the nicer and cleaner language, but Python still
has better libraries and implementation (native threads, multiple
separated interpreters and bytecode for source code obfuscation)
=20
I use Ruby whenever i can, but in some application domains Ruby is
unfortunately still not very useable.
=20
--
Best regards, emailto: scholz at scriptolutions d= ot com
Lothar Scholz http://www.ruby-ide.com
CTO Scriptolutions Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's
=20
=20
=20
=20

--=20
"So long, and thanks for all the fish"

Jeff Wood

 

[Mark Probert]

Hi ..

Today i would choose a more cleaner D + Python system.

What is it that you like about D? Personally, I was always impressed by
Mr Bright's work and this seems to be a nice continuation. Do you feel
that it is ready for production use?

 

[Martin DeMello]

Hi ..



What is it that you like about D? Personally, I was always impressed by
Mr Bright's work and this seems to be a nice continuation. Do you feel
that it is ready for production use?

I'd be interested too, particularly as regards usability for GUI
programs (preferably GTK).

martin

 

[Lothar Scholz]

Hello Mark,


MP> What is it that you like about D? Personally, I was always impressed by
MP> Mr Bright's work and this seems to be a nice continuation. Do you feel
MP> that it is ready for production use?

No. It's beta. The recent change in the hash semantic shows
this. Think that it still takes a year or two. Also a few features
like the method delegates are far from perfect (they should
look at Eiffels agents to see a good implementation) and they are
essential as GUI callbacks.

What i like about D?

Well, tell me where are the alternatives ?

Show me some for a higher level language that does not have the
gotchas of C++, will work for large projects (SmartEiffel does not
do this well), compiles to native executable, is statically typed,
has a garbage collector and is available on MacOSX,Linux,Win32 ?

I don't see any at the moment.

A C# compiler that does not generate .NET code would be nice but
its not there.

Still the same as 20 years ago, the Hardware is much faster developed
then the software. From this point of view i'm scared with the
new dual core CPU's in desktop machines. When will we get good
languages that support multithreading with some modern concepts ?
"occam" for the transputer was one idea, still have this occam book on
the shelf and "scoop" from the eiffel world another one.

 

[Mark Probert]

Hi ..

No. It's beta.

That was also my take on it. Though some of the semantics and included
libraries are nice. Certainly an improvement on C++.

Well, tell me where are the alternatives ?

Show me some for a higher level language that does not have the
gotchas of C++, will work for large projects ... compiles to native
executable, is statically typed,
has a garbage collector and is available on MacOSX,Linux,Win32 ?

ocaml? Not that I have used it in anger ...

A C# compiler that does not generate .NET code would be nice but
its not there.

Or an Oberon-2 compiler without the junk and with decent libraries.

;-)

Regards,

 

[Martin DeMello]

Well, tell me where are the alternatives ?

Show me some for a higher level language that does not have the
gotchas of C++, will work for large projects (SmartEiffel does not
do this well), compiles to native executable, is statically typed,
has a garbage collector and is available on MacOSX,Linux,Win32 ?

Erlang and OCaml come to mind (not saying they're as suitable as D for a
C++ replacement, but they meet all the criteria above).

martin

 

[Ara.T.Howard]

Erlang and OCaml come to mind (not saying they're as suitable as D for a
C++ replacement, but they meet all the criteria above).

have you used D martin?

-a
--
===============================================================================
| email :: ara [dot] t [dot] howard [at] noaa [dot] gov
| phone :: 303.497.6469
| My religion is very simple. My religion is kindness.
| --Tenzin Gyatso
===============================================================================

 

[Lothar Scholz]

Hello Martin,


MD> Erlang and OCaml come to mind (not saying they're as suitable as D for a
MD> C++ replacement, but they meet all the criteria above).

I forgot OO on my criteria list, so Erlang is also off the list.

Oberon2 and Modula3 meet this goals but i find both are too simple.

 

[Adam P. Jenkins]

Erlang and OCaml come to mind (not saying they're as suitable as D for a
C++ replacement, but they meet all the criteria above).

Erlang is not statically typed, nor does it have a native code compiler
as far as I know. From the Erlang FAQ:

<quote>
1.4. What sort of problems is Erlang not particularly suitable for?

Anything where constant-factors are crucial for performance, such as
image processing, signal processing, sorting large volumes of data,
device drivers and low-level protocol termination.

Most (all?) large systems developed using Erlang make heavy use of C for
low-level code, leaving Erlang to manage the parts which tend to be
complex in other languages, like controlling systems spread across
several machines and implementing complex protocol logic.
</quote>

Adam.

 

[gabriele renzi]

Martin DeMello ha scritto:

Erlang and OCaml come to mind (not saying they're as suitable as D for a
C++ replacement, but they meet all the criteria above).

is'nt erlang dynamically tiped
(with external optional type inferencers) ?