Ruby Specification

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by David Ross, Jul 19, 2004.

  1. David Ross

    David Ross Guest

    Request. Can someone create a ruby specification? I
    want to try to create a true rubycc compiler that is
    licensed BSD. I cannot find the Ruby Specification
    book anywhere, and I refuse to read the ruby sources
    for legal reasons. Anyone want to read up on gc.c?
    Thats mainly the monster. It would be nice to have a
    full specification on ruby though. Also, if there are
    any compiler designers out there that would like to
    help or have any comments, drop me an email. Thanks. I
    would really like to create a compiler that generates
    small executables. It is important to expanding ruby
    IMO. Something in the essence of how Lua has a
    compiler. It would be really nice. Also, thanks to
    that there is no ruby compiler I could not use it in a
    commercial project. It would have been really nice to
    use it in projects that require a compiled binary that
    is 1) not open code, 2) not byte compiled. Please
    advise, David Ross



    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
    http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
    David Ross, Jul 19, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Hello David,

    DR> Request. Can someone create a ruby specification? I
    DR> want to try to create a true rubycc compiler that is
    DR> licensed BSD. I cannot find the Ruby Specification
    DR> book anywhere, and I refuse to read the ruby sources
    DR> for legal reasons. Anyone want to read up on gc.c?
    DR> Thats mainly the monster. It would be nice to have a

    That's a typo, the monster is "eval.c".
    Reading the "gc.c" file is as enjoying as reading Harry Potter.

    DR> full specification on ruby though. Also, if there are
    DR> any compiler designers out there that would like to
    DR> help or have any comments, drop me an email. Thanks. I
    DR> would really like to create a compiler that generates
    DR> small executables. It is important to expanding ruby
    DR> IMO. Something in the essence of how Lua has a
    DR> compiler. It would be really nice. Also, thanks to
    DR> that there is no ruby compiler I could not use it in a
    DR> commercial project. It would have been really nice to
    DR> use it in projects that require a compiled binary that
    DR> is 1) not open code, 2) not byte compiled. Please
    DR> advise, David Ross

    This is a huge project that you want to start. And in 99% projects of
    this size die faster then a local minister in iraq, leaving a lot
    of wasted energy.

    You should think twice if it is not better to support matz with doing
    a rewrite of the current interpreter to get byte code for code obfuscation.
    Because of the dynamic nature of Ruby and the interface it provides to
    open languages you have to rewrite more or less the whole kernel
    anyway. So please participate in the development of Rite.

    There is no legal problem with using ruby in commercial projects,
    otherwise matz would not be paid by his company.

    And by the way, do you want to do this as part of some kind of job or
    as a hobbyist ?


    --
    Best regards, emailto: scholz at scriptolutions dot com
    Lothar Scholz http://www.ruby-ide.com
    CTO Scriptolutions Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's
    Lothar Scholz, Jul 19, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David Ross

    Gully Foyle Guest

    David Ross wrote:

    > Request. Can someone create a ruby specification? I
    > want to try to create a true rubycc compiler that is
    > licensed BSD. I cannot find the Ruby Specification
    > book anywhere, and I refuse to read the ruby sources
    > for legal reasons. Anyone want to read up on gc.c?
    > Thats mainly the monster. It would be nice to have a
    > full specification on ruby though. Also, if there are
    > any compiler designers out there that would like to
    > help or have any comments, drop me an email. Thanks. I
    > would really like to create a compiler that generates
    > small executables. It is important to expanding ruby
    > IMO. Something in the essence of how Lua has a
    > compiler. It would be really nice. Also, thanks to
    > that there is no ruby compiler I could not use it in a
    > commercial project. It would have been really nice to
    > use it in projects that require a compiled binary that
    > is 1) not open code, 2) not byte compiled. Please
    > advise, David Ross
    >
    >
    >
    > __________________________________
    > Do you Yahoo!?
    > Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
    > http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
    >
    >
    >


    Wow. I wish you the best of luck!

    Many of us would be overjoyed to see a true rubycc. Even if its kinda
    like gcj with a huge runtime library. And the BSD style licensing makes
    it sound almost too good to be true.

    If this gets started and you need volunteers, I'm sure you'll find many
    ready and willing.
    Gully Foyle, Jul 19, 2004
    #3
  4. il Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:38:31 +0900, David Ross <>
    ha scritto::

    >Request. Can someone create a ruby specification? I
    >want to try to create a true rubycc compiler that is
    >licensed BSD. I cannot find the Ruby Specification
    >book anywhere, and I refuse to read the ruby sources
    >for legal reasons.


    I understand your reasons, but I think you can look at parse.y and
    refer to the ri documentation for most things, safely.
    Matz' company is definitely not SCO, I believe.


    > Anyone want to read up on gc.c?


    I dont think tha gc is part of a ruby specification.
    Maybe you intended eval.c ?

    >Thats mainly the monster. It would be nice to have a
    >full specification on ruby though.


    matz itself agrees, and he told once that he would bless someone that
    wants to fill this gap.

    >Also, if there are
    >any compiler designers out there that would like to
    >help or have any comments, drop me an email. Thanks. I
    >would really like to create a compiler that generates
    >small executables.


    maybe you'd like to take a look at metaruby or jruby.

    >It is important to expanding ruby
    >IMO. Something in the essence of how Lua has a
    >compiler. It would be really nice.


    it would, but you'd need some interpreter runtime anyway.
    Maybe you could compile to C code and link the ruby runtime library

    >Also, thanks to
    >that there is no ruby compiler I could not use it in a
    >commercial project.


    if you mean you need to hide/obfuscate code, maybe you just need a
    vm+bytecode, as lothar scholz pointed.

    > It would have been really nice to
    >use it in projects that require a compiled binary that
    >is 1) not open code, 2) not byte compiled. Please
    >advise, David Ross


    why not byte compiled? there are plenty of java and smalltalk
    commercial apps.
    gabriele renzi, Jul 19, 2004
    #4
  5. David Ross

    David Ross Guest


    > I understand your reasons, but I think you can look
    > at parse.y and
    > refer to the ri documentation for most things,
    > safely.
    > Matz' company is definitely not SCO, I believe.

    I hope they are not SCO. I refuse to look at any
    source code though.

    > I don't think that gc is part of a ruby

    specification.
    > Maybe you intended eval.c ?

    I should have said, "I do not understand the GC, and
    parsing evaluations are a task as well. To start
    though I need to know how ruby is expected to work.
    Each language GC is different, but performs the same
    task.


    > >It is important to expanding ruby
    > >IMO. Something in the essence of how Lua has a
    > >compiler. It would be really nice.

    >
    > it would, but you'd need some interpreter runtime
    > anyway.
    > Maybe you could compile to C code and link the ruby
    > runtime library


    yes, you would need a runtime. I have not planned
    anything out yet, its in the idea stage.


    > >Also, thanks to
    > >that there is no ruby compiler I could not use it

    > in a
    > >commercial project.

    >
    > if you mean you need to hide/obfuscate code, maybe
    > you just need a
    > vm+bytecode, as lothar scholz pointed.
    >


    I really do not like compiling software into bytecode.
    They wanted a standalone executable, they did not want
    any third party interpreters.

    -------

    Okay in response to a few things that have been
    mentioned to me elsewhere. Even with dynamic nature of
    ruby, it is still possible to create a native
    compiler. You have to have a runtime running with it.
    It is difficult, and certainly something that would
    take a while. I'm tired of hearing, "It can't be done"
    in software programming. Just because people think it
    cannot be done doesn't mean they are right about it.

    Why create a compiler to create stand alone
    executables?

    I find it difficult to have third part software
    installed on the computer. Also, if someone wants to
    include an application on a OS which I will not
    mention, they want a standalone that does not need a
    interpreter. This is one of the main reasons.

    --David Ross



    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
    http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
    David Ross, Jul 19, 2004
    #5
  6. Hello David,


    DR> I really do not like compiling software into bytecode.
    DR> They wanted a standalone executable, they did not want
    DR> any third party interpreters.

    You can have all in one interpreter binary, even DLL's. That is for
    these people just the same.

    DR> Okay in response to a few things that have been
    DR> mentioned to me elsewhere. Even with dynamic nature of
    DR> ruby, it is still possible to create a native
    DR> compiler. You have to have a runtime running with it.
    DR> It is difficult, and certainly something that would
    DR> take a while. I'm tired of hearing, "It can't be done"
    DR> in software programming. Just because people think it
    DR> cannot be done doesn't mean they are right about it.

    Oh, i don't say this. I just say that compiling it will not give you
    any real advantage as long as you don't add type specifications to the
    language. Otherwise the compiler would only have a very very small
    performance advantage.

    The only way to get some benefits is if you can assume that the system
    is closed, means that now new ruby files are loaded and no internal
    program structure is changed, D, Eiffel and some Lisps are taking
    this approach, it's called global program optimization and can give
    a huge boost in evaluation speed because accessing a variable or
    calling a method can be as fast as a native function call.
    But is this restriction really usefull ?

    I don't have the time to go into a deep description of how to solve this
    problems with a good JIT compiler. So maybe you should read some texts
    about this first.

    DR> Why create a compiler to create stand alone
    DR> executables?

    DR> I find it difficult to have third part software
    DR> installed on the computer. Also, if someone wants to
    DR> include an application on a OS which I will not
    DR> mention, they want a standalone that does not need a
    DR> interpreter. This is one of the main reasons.

    Right, but ExErb is just doing this. It's not a compiler, it does
    exist and is a living project and it is in real life usage.
    So this is not an argument for a compiler. If you are unsatisfied with
    ExErb please spend your time there.


    --
    Best regards, emailto: scholz at scriptolutions dot com
    Lothar Scholz http://www.ruby-ide.com
    CTO Scriptolutions Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's
    Lothar Scholz, Jul 19, 2004
    #6
  7. il Tue, 20 Jul 2004 00:17:13 +0900, David Ross <>
    ha scritto::


    >> I don't think that gc is part of a ruby

    >specification.
    >> Maybe you intended eval.c ?

    >I should have said, "I do not understand the GC, and
    >parsing evaluations are a task as well. To start
    >though I need to know how ruby is expected to work.
    >Each language GC is different, but performs the same
    >task.


    yes but I intended: "you can have your own kind of gc, because ruby
    garbage collection does not really determine the behaviour of a
    program".
    If you have 3-color generational gc or simple reference counting with
    cycle detection I think that nothing will change for the final user.
    Anyway, I may be wrong.
    gabriele renzi, Jul 19, 2004
    #7

  8. >yes but I intended: "you can have your own kind of gc, because ruby
    >garbage collection does not really determine the behaviour of a
    >program".
    >If you have 3-color generational gc or simple reference counting with
    >cycle detection I think that nothing will change for the final user.
    >Anyway, I may be wrong.
    >
    >
    >
    >

    I think changing to a reference counting GC system would change the
    behaviour of the program, since it would change when an object is collected.

    I know that this subtlety has caused problems for people moving from
    CPython (Which uses reference counting) to Jython (which uses mark and
    sweep)

    --
    Mark Sparshatt
    Mark Sparshatt, Jul 19, 2004
    #8
  9. David Ross

    Bill Kelly Guest

    Hi,

    From: "David Ross" <>
    >
    > Request. Can someone create a ruby specification? I
    > want to try to create a true rubycc compiler that is
    > licensed BSD.


    Please don't take this as a criticism. I am asking
    because I thought Ruby's license was said to allow
    commerical exploitation (even closed source). And
    so I'm curious if this is your impression too, or what
    additional safeguards or clauses make the BSD license
    preferable for your purposes?

    > I cannot find the Ruby Specification
    > book anywhere, and I refuse to read the ruby sources
    > for legal reasons.


    I find this perplexing. I thought open source
    wasn't doing a good job of being open source if you
    had to be wary of reading it for legal reasons?

    An example in my field of interest is id Software's
    generous release of their older game engines, such as
    DOOM, Quake, and Quake 2 under the GPL. I was a game
    developer when the Quake source was released, and it
    never would have occurred to me to be afraid to look
    at it.

    Anyway, again, this is not intended as a criticism -
    I'm just trying to understand what could possibly be
    wrong with looking at Ruby's source code.


    Regards,

    Bill
    Bill Kelly, Jul 19, 2004
    #9
  10. David Ross

    David Ross Guest

    > Please don't take this as a criticism. I am asking
    > because I thought Ruby's license was said to allow
    > commerical exploitation (even closed source). And
    > so I'm curious if this is your impression too, or
    > what
    > additional safeguards or clauses make the BSD
    > license
    > preferable for your purposes?



    > I find this perplexing. I thought open source
    > wasn't doing a good job of being open source if you
    > had to be wary of reading it for legal reasons?


    I want to make sure my code stays under the BSD
    license. Ruby's license confuses me a bit. --David Ross



    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
    http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
    David Ross, Jul 19, 2004
    #10
  11. David Ross

    Jeremy Henty Guest

    (Disclaimer: the isn't really (directly) about Ruby, so you may think
    it off-topic. But it is (indirectly) about the consequences of
    looking at the Ruby source, so I hope it is on-topic.)

    In article <019301c46db9$6a9f7930$6442a8c0@musicbox>, Bill Kelly wrote:

    > I thought open source wasn't doing a good job of being open source
    > if you had to be wary of reading it for legal reasons?


    "Open source" only means "you have the right to do certain things with
    this software". It does *not* mean "you can do whatever you like with
    it and not worry about the consequences". *That* is only true of
    software released into the public domain.

    > An example in my field of interest is id Software's generous release
    > of their older game engines, such as DOOM, Quake, and Quake 2 under
    > the GPL. I was a game developer when the Quake source was released,
    > and it never would have occurred to me to be afraid to look at it.


    Pardon my bluntness, but that was foolish of you. The GPL requires
    you to release all derived works under the GPL too. If you looked at
    id Software's source and used it in a closed source product of your
    own then id Software would have grounds for suing you for damages.

    I am not accusing you of trying to rob id Software (nor am I accusing
    id Software of being litigious <disrespectful_term>s). I just want to
    point out that good intentions may not be enough to keep you out of
    court. Companies have sued ex-employees simply for working in the
    same industry, claiming "inevitable disclosure" ie. "this person
    learned their skills with us, so if they use those skills elsewhere
    they are violating our IP rights". I don't condone their behaviour (I
    actually find it loathsome), but the practical upshot is that if you
    don't like the idea of being sued by people with much more lawyers and
    money than you then you should think very hard about the licenses of
    any software you look at.

    > Anyway, again, this is not intended as a criticism - I'm just trying
    > to understand what could possibly be wrong with looking at Ruby's
    > source code.


    Nothing, as long as you conform to its license. But if the OP wants
    to release code under the BSD license and is not sure whether the Ruby
    license is BSD-compatible, then the OP's decision not to look at the
    Ruby source is IMHO extremely sensible.

    Regards,

    Jeremy Henty
    Jeremy Henty, Jul 19, 2004
    #11
  12. On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:51:46 +0000, Jeremy Henty wrote:

    Hi,

    >
    > Pardon my bluntness, but that was foolish of you. The GPL requires
    > you to release all derived works under the GPL too. If you looked at
    > id Software's source and used it in a closed source product of your
    > own then id Software would have grounds for suing you for damages.
    >


    I am not a lawyer, but I believe this is not correct.
    As far as I know, copyright only applies to the code, not to
    the techniques used. So as long as you are not
    copying code directly into your program, you are not in breach
    of copyright. For the GPL a derived work is only derived if it
    uses the same code. Techniques don't fall under copyright,
    but under patent law. (Wether patents should be allowed for
    software is a different discussion).
    Of course you could copy the code, change the names of some
    variables and functions, and then claim it's your code, but
    this would obviously still fall under the copyright case.
    However if you just look at the techniques used, and use
    them in you code (not verbatim), then there wouldn't be any
    grounds to be sued (apart from patents).

    Kristof
    Kristof Bastiaensen, Jul 19, 2004
    #12
  13. il Tue, 20 Jul 2004 02:49:00 +0900, Mark Sparshatt
    <> ha scritto::

    >I think changing to a reference counting GC system would change the
    >behaviour of the program, since it would change when an object is collected.
    >
    >I know that this subtlety has caused problems for people moving from
    >CPython (Which uses reference counting) to Jython (which uses mark and
    >sweep)


    CPython does reference count, while JPython should use the jvm's GC.

    This problem may appear when going from refcount to gc, cause you may
    expect that an object gets gc'ed at the end of a code block (in ref
    count)while it does not (gc).
    OTOH, when you're expecting a general GC behaviour you don't make
    assumptions about the automatic deletion of an object, so this problem
    does not arise. At least, I think.
    gabriele renzi, Jul 19, 2004
    #13
  14. David Ross

    Bill Kelly Guest

    Hi,

    From: "Jeremy Henty" <>
    >
    > (Disclaimer: the isn't really (directly) about Ruby, so you may think
    > it off-topic. But it is (indirectly) about the consequences of
    > looking at the Ruby source, so I hope it is on-topic.)
    >
    > In article <019301c46db9$6a9f7930$6442a8c0@musicbox>, Bill Kelly wrote:
    >
    > > I thought open source wasn't doing a good job of being open source
    > > if you had to be wary of reading it for legal reasons?

    >
    > "Open source" only means "you have the right to do certain things with
    > this software". It does *not* mean "you can do whatever you like with
    > it and not worry about the consequences". *That* is only true of
    > software released into the public domain.


    Certainly. I thought that copyright law (IANAL) distinguished
    between modifying someone else's code (derivative work) and
    writing your own code from scratch. I have seen *a lot* of code
    in my life so far, much of it proprietary and closed source.
    You aren't supposed to be able to copyright an *idea*. That's
    what Software Patents do (and I think they are an abomination,
    but that's a different topic.) My point is that I don't live
    in fear that I might accidentally "steal" someone else's code
    just because I've looked at it. I know the difference between
    "copying someone else' code modifying it" vs. "implementing my
    own code from scratch based on all the knowledge I've picked up
    over my career."

    I guess I'm approaching this using my own GPL software as a
    yardstick - would I care if someone learned from my GPL code,
    and then decided to re-implement the same functionality from
    scratch, just using what they'd learned? No! I'd be thrilled
    that my code was useful to someone. That's why I released it!!

    > > An example in my field of interest is id Software's generous release
    > > of their older game engines, such as DOOM, Quake, and Quake 2 under
    > > the GPL. I was a game developer when the Quake source was released,
    > > and it never would have occurred to me to be afraid to look at it.

    >
    > Pardon my bluntness, but that was foolish of you.


    No worries, I'm here to learn . . .

    > The GPL requires
    > you to release all derived works under the GPL too. If you looked at
    > id Software's source and used it in a closed source product of your
    > own then id Software would have grounds for suing you for damages.


    Apologies if this is getting too off-topic... But here is an
    excerpt from id Software's release of the Quake 2 code:

    The code is all licensed under the terms of the GPL (gnu public license).
    You should read the entire license, but the gist of it is that you can do
    anything you want with the code, including sell your new version. The catch
    is that if you distribute new binary versions, you are required to make the
    entire source code available for free to everyone.

    The primary intent of this release is for entertainment and educational
    purposes, but the GPL does allow commercial exploitation if you obey the
    full license.

    I firmly believe id Software's intent was not to say: Here's our
    code for you to learn from! DON'T LOOK AT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I truly do not believe the purpose of their releasing their code
    was to try to drum up lawsuits against anyone who might have wanted
    to learn from it.

    > I am not accusing you of trying to rob id Software (nor am I accusing
    > id Software of being litigious <disrespectful_term>s). I just want to
    > point out that good intentions may not be enough to keep you out of
    > court. Companies have sued ex-employees simply for working in the
    > same industry, claiming "inevitable disclosure" ie. "this person
    > learned their skills with us, so if they use those skills elsewhere
    > they are violating our IP rights". I don't condone their behaviour (I
    > actually find it loathsome), but the practical upshot is that if you
    > don't like the idea of being sued by people with much more lawyers and
    > money than you then you should think very hard about the licenses of
    > any software you look at.


    OK. But perhaps we can take this on a case-by-case basis? Meaning,
    We're talking about Matz here, (and in my examples, John Carmack).

    I am personally willing to trust that I understand the intent of
    id Software releasing their code. And that for people to be afraid
    to look at it for fear of getting sued based on what they learned from
    it, is COMPLETELY CONTRARY to that intent. (Again I'm distinguishing
    between learning from the code, and *copying* it.)

    Oh well, that's just me. I think there's something a little sad
    about all this though... (Maybe our nations should cease development
    of missile defense shields, and start working on lawyer containment
    mechanisms... ;-P)


    Regards,

    Bill
    Bill Kelly, Jul 19, 2004
    #14
  15. gabriele renzi wrote:

    >il Tue, 20 Jul 2004 02:49:00 +0900, Mark Sparshatt
    ><> ha scritto::
    >
    >
    >
    >>I think changing to a reference counting GC system would change the
    >>behaviour of the program, since it would change when an object is collected.
    >>
    >>I know that this subtlety has caused problems for people moving from
    >>CPython (Which uses reference counting) to Jython (which uses mark and
    >>sweep)
    >>
    >>

    >
    >CPython does reference count, while JPython should use the jvm's GC.
    >
    >This problem may appear when going from refcount to gc, cause you may
    >expect that an object gets gc'ed at the end of a code block (in ref
    >count)while it does not (gc).
    >OTOH, when you're expecting a general GC behaviour you don't make
    >assumptions about the automatic deletion of an object, so this problem
    >does not arise. At least, I think.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    The problem would come if someone did release an alternate
    implementation of Ruby with reference counting GC. Then if people who
    were used to alternate Ruby moved to standard ruby they might expect the
    same behaviour, and assume it's a bug when standard ruby behaves
    differently.

    --
    Mark Sparshatt
    Mark Sparshatt, Jul 19, 2004
    #15
  16. David Ross

    James Britt Guest

    David Ross wrote:

    > ...
    > Why create a compiler to create stand alone
    > executables?
    >
    > I find it difficult to have third part software
    > installed on the computer. Also, if someone wants to
    > include an application on a OS which I will not
    > mention, they want a standalone that does not need a
    > interpreter. This is one of the main reasons.


    Not sure why you are so reluctant to mention an OS, or look at certain
    source code; quite mysterious. But on Windows, for example, the
    requirement for an interpreter or runtime engine is quite common. Any
    Java(tm) app needs a VM installed. VB apps (pre .Net) require some
    version of vbrun.dll.

    Sometimes these things are already installed, sometimes not. But once
    installed they are available for other applications as well.

    Plus, one can bundle up the Ruby interpreter into an executable using
    exerb. Makes the app larger, but still probably smaller than your
    typical "stand-alone" Java(tm) program.



    James
    James Britt, Jul 19, 2004
    #16
  17. Mark Sparshatt wrote:
    > The problem would come if someone did release an alternate
    > implementation of Ruby with reference counting GC. Then if people who
    > were used to alternate Ruby moved to standard ruby they might expect the
    > same behaviour, and assume it's a bug when standard ruby behaves
    > differently.


    In my understanding, ruby makes no guarantees about memory management,
    except that unreferenced objects will eventually get recycled. A ruby
    specification should state explicitly that, aside from this guarantee,
    behavior is unspecified.

    Of course, if programmers don't read the spec, they can still get bitten...
    Joel VanderWerf, Jul 19, 2004
    #17
  18. il Tue, 20 Jul 2004 05:05:38 +0900, Mark Sparshatt
    <> ha scritto::


    >The problem would come if someone did release an alternate
    >implementation of Ruby with reference counting GC. Then if people who
    >were used to alternate Ruby moved to standard ruby they might expect the
    >same behaviour, and assume it's a bug when standard ruby behaves
    >differently.


    agreed, but given that current alghoritm is known (mark&sweep, unknown
    GC runs) I suppose the OP does not need to dwell in the internals of
    gc.c. Just my thought, anyway
    gabriele renzi, Jul 19, 2004
    #18
  19. On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 03:00:44 +0900
    David Ross <> wrote:

    [snippety-snip]
    > I want to make sure my code stays under the BSD
    > license. Ruby's license confuses me a bit. --David Ross


    Ehrm, this is just a suggestion, I'm not really into the whole licensing
    thingy, so this might not be a solution.
    But, why not get into a dialogue with matz about this?
    I mean, he must know what's right and wrong regarding the Ruby License.

    And just a little note.
    I don't see why some people (e.g. Lothar) makes a problem out of someone
    wanting to make rubycc. IMO a Ruby compiler wouldn't hurt anyone. Even
    if there are some approximating the functionality around already. If
    they dislike this project, they should just ignore it and stop being so
    damn negative about it! It's not a very creative approach to anything!

    I'd love to help, but unfortunately I'm most certainly not skilled
    enough for such a project.

    Best regards and good luck on the project!

    Madsen

    --
    Anders K. Madsen --- http://lillesvin.linux.dk

    "There are 10 types of people in the world.
    Those who understand binary - and those who don't."

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFA/MSplNHJe/JASHcRAguEAJ9L/vZzBGythQkCxCHND9CwL7LkFQCcDYk3
    lDrNYR2yDieLJeatbGboTvc=
    =E7/4
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Anders K. Madsen, Jul 20, 2004
    #19
  20. il Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:07:18 +0200, "Anders K. Madsen"
    <> ha scritto::


    >And just a little note.
    >I don't see why some people (e.g. Lothar) makes a problem out of someone
    >wanting to make rubycc. IMO a Ruby compiler wouldn't hurt anyone. Even
    >if there are some approximating the functionality around already. If
    >they dislike this project, they should just ignore it and stop being so
    >damn negative about it! It's not a very creative approach to anything!


    I don't think people is being "damn negative". I think everybody would
    agree that having a fastlight ruby compiler with type inference,
    runtime hotspot detection and magic based garbage collection would be
    nice.

    People (me) is just pointing out that this is quite hard (as
    Cardinal, Carbone, MetaRuby, YARV, netruby and others show, ending
    such a task is really difficult, starting it is not), and that maybe
    time could be used working on matz' ruby instead of restarting from
    scratch.
    In the end I wish David Ross best luck for his own implementation,
    I'll be pleased to use it.
    gabriele renzi, Jul 20, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Roberto Gallo
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    520
    Roberto Gallo
    Nov 19, 2003
  2. Ronald Pijnacker

    Specification of Ruby regex?

    Ronald Pijnacker, Aug 25, 2003, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    118
    Hal Fulton
    Aug 27, 2003
  3. Vasco Andrade e Silva

    Ruby Lex Specification

    Vasco Andrade e Silva, Oct 30, 2007, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    123
    Gene Tani
    Oct 31, 2007
  4. Shugo Maeda

    [ANN] Ruby draft specification

    Shugo Maeda, Dec 1, 2009, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    166
    Ryan Davis
    Dec 2, 2009
  5. Shugo Maeda

    The Final Draft Ruby Specification

    Shugo Maeda, Sep 22, 2010, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    116
    Shugo Maeda
    Sep 22, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page