Ruby::DL vs Ruby::FFI


A

Aston

Ruby.DL and FFI libraries are great for programmers like me who are not int=
ernet programmers, but are more interested in scientific and number process=
ing etc.=0A=0AI really like FFI, though I started with DL since at that tim=
e FFI won't build on windoz. Good part of DL is that it is part of standard=
libary, not supported (fully) by JRuby though. FFI on the other hand has m=
atured and is available on windoz, greatest joy is same script will, in all=
probability run across all implementations.=0A=0Arecently few days back I =
saw some svn msgs suggesting that DL's dependency on libffi was removed, si=
nce libffi won't build on windoz (again!). so my question is will DL in fut=
ure be based on libffi ? why just not use FFI. Its API and idea is very goo=
d and ruby like, against DL's idea of giving in C snippets to be interprete=
d by DL ?=0A=0AAston=0A=0A=0A The INTERNET now has a personality. YOUR=
S! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/
 
Ad

Advertisements

D

Daniel Berger

Ruby.DL and FFI libraries are great for programmers like me who are not i=
nternet programmers, but are more interested in scientific and number proce=
ssing etc.
I really like FFI, though I started with DL since at that time FFI won't =
build on windoz. Good part of DL is that it is part of standard libary, not=
supported (fully) by JRuby though. FFI on the other hand has matured and i=
s available on windoz, greatest joy is same script will, in all probability=
run across all implementations.
recently few days back I saw some svn msgs suggesting that DL's dependenc=
y on libffi was removed, since libffi won't build on windoz (again!). so my=
question is will DL in future be based on libffi ? why just not use FFI. I=
ts API and idea is very good and ruby like, against DL's idea of giving in =
C snippets to be interpreted by DL ?

FFI will build on Windows, so long as you're using mingw and gcc.
Actually, FFI won't build on any platform without gcc at the moment as
far as I know, so if you were thinking of building it with the Sun
Studio Compiler or the HP-UX compiler, for example, you're out of
luck.

DL, so far as I know, will build on any platform with any compiler.

Regards,

Dan
 
C

Charles Oliver Nutter

FFI will build on Windows, so long as you're using mingw and gcc.
Actually, FFI won't build on any platform without gcc at the moment as
far as I know, so if you were thinking of building it with the Sun
Studio Compiler or the HP-UX compiler, for example, you're out of
luck.

JRuby supports FFI on Windows just fine.

- Charlie
 
C

Charles Oliver Nutter

recently few days back I saw some svn msgs suggesting that DL's dependency
on libffi was removed, since libffi won't build on windoz (again!). so my
question is will DL in future be based on libffi ? why just not use FFI. Its
API and idea is very good and ruby like, against DL's idea of giving in C
snippets to be interpreted by DL ?

Why not build DL atop FFI, and get FFI into Ruby 1.9.2?

JRuby already has a partial start on a DL that just uses FFI:

http://github.com/jruby/jruby/blob/master/lib/ruby/1.8/dl.rb

and

http://github.com/jruby/jruby/blob/master/lib/ruby/1.8/dl

A DL that uses FFI would work without modification or build hassles on
any impl+platform that supports FFI.

- Charlie
 
A

Aston

=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Charles Oliver Nutt=
er <[email protected]>=0ATo: ruby-talk ML <[email protected]>=0ASen=
t: Wed, 10 March, 2010 8:12:11 PM=0ASubject: Re: Ruby::DL vs Ruby::FFI=0A=
Actually, FFI won't build on any platform without gcc at the moment as=0A=
far as I know, so if you were thinking of building it with the Sun=0A> St=
udio Compiler or the HP-UX compiler, for example, you're out of=0A> luck.=
=0A=0AJRuby supports FFI on Windows just fine.=0A=0A- Charlie=0A=0AJRuby is=
of course an excellant option for us, but it can still improve if it start=
s supporting win32ole=0Awe need win32ole since we are required to parse som=
e MS apps generated *.xml files=0Aand they are generated by MS DOM impl, so=
metimes REXML just errors out and MSXML does it fine=0A=0A=0A=0A Your =
Mail works best with the New Yahoo Optimized IE8. Get it NOW! http://downlo=
ads.yahoo.com/in/internetexplorer/
 
Ad

Advertisements

C

Chuck Remes

________________________________
From: Charles Oliver Nutter <[email protected]>
To: ruby-talk ML <[email protected]>
Sent: Wed, 10 March, 2010 8:12:11 PM
Subject: Re: Ruby::DL vs Ruby::FFI



JRuby supports FFI on Windows just fine.

- Charlie

JRuby is of course an excellant option for us, but it can still improve if it starts supporting win32ole
we need win32ole since we are required to parse some MS apps generated *.xml files
and they are generated by MS DOM impl, sometimes REXML just errors out and MSXML does it fine

Here's a project that is providing the beginning of win32ole support for jruby [1]. Please try it out with your application to see if it works. File tickets or provide patches for broken or missing functionality.

cr

[1] http://github.com/bpmcd/win32ole
 
Ad

Advertisements


Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

Ruby/DL problem 3
ruby-ffi problem 1

Top