On 1/16/07, Gavin Kistner <gavin.kistner / anark.com> wrote:
> I want the scripting language to be Ruby. Right now, it's IronPython.
> I've been told that the reason is that with using Ruby under this
> scenario, a new Assembly is created for each command that the user
> enters. This is a Bad Thing, as it's been described to me, for

This is not a behavior defined by RubyCLR (the only of the three I'm
familiar with). RubyCLR  does a very nice job of allowing .NET and
Ruby object to interoperate. If you want to look at some code that
uses RubyCLR, check out my "codebuilder" gem
(http://rubyforge.org/projects/codedombuilder/). All the tests but one
or two work with the latest version of RubyCLR, so its a good demo of
interoperation.

> 1)       Does this sound correct to people who know Ruby/.NET or
> RubyCLR?

Like I said above, no. Unless something specific in your application
requires it, RubyCLR itself doesn't do this to you.

>
> 2)       If it's not correct, could you elaborate on how one might
> achieve the functionality I describe above?

My experience in RubyCLR is from the opposite direction of your app -
I have used it quite a bit to script .NET components, but I have not
done a lot of automation the other way. However, I can tell you that
once RubyCLR gets a reference to a .NET object, you can call any of
it's methods and properties in a fairly intuitive way.

> I'd really like our software to use Ruby, and I could probably convince
> the engineers to use it if we could overcome this hurdle. More Ruby
> everywhere is better for the world. ;)

If you have more specific questions I'd be glad to help. I love
RubyCLR, .NET and Ruby too :)

Justin