No. Unless you can compile Ruby into native byte code.
OK, I guess I should read your blurb again (I did a long time back, but
figured that if I needed Pascal installed I would try something else).
Wouldn't it be possible to generate a C
program that embeds Ruby and then that requires all the dependencies? Any
shared libs could be linked in in the compile phase. It wouldn't take much C
code at all to do this and in fact it could just be some template C code (I'm
guessing it would be less than a page of C). Then the Ruby part of the script
takes care of invoking gcc (or I suppose it could invoke VC++ as an option on
Windows) to create the exe. Have Ruby do as much of the work as possible.
Yes, it's possible. If anybody can do this for me/us: please,
do. I'll be glad to help. (I don't know C myself.)
<quote src="
http://www.erikveen.dds.nl/eee/index.html"> EEE is
a program that combines multiple files and actions into a
compressed Windows, Linux or Mac OS X (Darwin) executable. Do
you have to distribute DLL's or SO's along with your
application? The interpreter with you script? The runtime
environment with your program? EEE is what you're looking
That's your statement. I think a lot of people (excluding me,
by the way) won't agree
FreePascal is even more actively
developed than Ruby.
Sorry, I really didn't mean to get into a language war here...
I remember learning Pascal back in college in the early 80's (If I had been
one term later it would have been C as they were transitioning the next
quarter). Batch system. Submit your program and come by the next day for a
printout to see if it worked or if you had a syntax error (if you had an
error you had to resubmit the job and come back the next day)- you can
understand that I don't have happy memories of Pascal, though I suppose it
wasn't all Pascal's fault. ;-)
I knew only three languages which could be compiled into native
byte code: Pascal, PL/I and Cobol. Of all three, Pascal might
be the one which is most alive and most portable (Windows,
Linux and Darwin).
And while I do hear people say things like "I really need to
learn [Lisp|Smalltalk] because they were important languages
and have interesting concepts" I don't hear anyone saying "I
really need to learn Pascal" these days.
What do you mean with this? Is it important, anyway? I don't
use a tool because it's popular or interesting; I use a tool
because it's suitable for the job. In this case, Pascal was
more suitable then Ruby.
Yes, apparently for you that was the case. My point was just that Pascal's
just not a language that a lot of people are learning these days (and I don't
see a lot of people eager to learn it if they don't already know it). Yes,
apparently Pascal has lost it's buzz (probably did around 1986; well, there
_is_ that Delphi thingy, I suppose ;-).
By the way, my question was not about Pascal, but about SSH
access on a Darwin machine.
....and my point wasn't to start a language war, but to suggest that if it
could be done entirely in Ruby (with just about a page of C, maybe only 1/2
page) it would be portable and probably run the same
way on OS X as it does on Linux (and maybe even Windows)... and the other
thing is that Pascal is not a dependency that most people would have
installed (at least most people using Ruby anyway) while gcc is everywhere.
Phil
