On Sep 25, 6:52 am, Gregory Seidman <gsslist+r... / anthropohedron.net> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 10:35:06PM +0900, Ruby Maniac wrote: > > I love Ruby but what is the deal with the lack of a VM ? > > I love Ruby but what is the deal with the lack of performance ? > > Why does FreeBASIC run faster than my lovely Ruby code ? > > Ruby is a language written to scratch someone's (Matz) itch. It happens to > be quite nice as a language, but its development isn't driven by corporate > concerns or corporate money. > > > Why do I have to ship source code with my Ruby app ? > > You don't. Check out rubyscript2exe, among other things. > > > Does this mean I have no choice but to develop Open Source Code > > forever using Ruby ? > > How will I ever be able to make any money coding Ruby when I have to > > ship source code to all my customers ? > > Absolutely not. Just because you ship source code doesn't mean that the > code is not protected by copyright laws. Indeed, if not for copyright > protection there would be no such thing as open source licenses, since they > depend upon copyright law protecting the source code. If you wish to > develop an application and make it available under a license that allows > only single use on a single processor machine with less than 1GB of RAM and > only on alternate Tuesdays, you are free to do so and the license (should > anyone enter into such a licensing agreement with you) is enforceable. > > > Why have all other languages that attempted to be commercial successes > > failed because programmers had to ship source code with their apps for > > those languages ? (*Check the history of Smalltalk*) > > Smalltalk may or may not have attempted to be a commercial success. As of > now, Ruby is *not* attempting to become a commercial success, except > insofar as Microsoft is supporting/pushing IronRuby (which does have a VM > since it involves a Ruby to CLR bytecode compiler). > > > Where the heck is Ruby 1.9.0 for crying out-loud, I mean it's going on > > 2 years and still no stable Ruby 1.9.0 for me to play with at work ! > > As far as I know, Ruby development is following a versioning scheme similar > to what Linux development used to follow. That is, odd-numbered point > releases are unstable. When it is stable it will be called 2.0 (last I > heard, anyway). > > > I want to use Ruby for absolutely everything ! > > I want Ruby to be the only computer language anyone can legally use in > > the USA ! > > I want to run for congress to get a law passed to make Ruby the > > national programming language. > > I want all other Moneky Coders like me to have to use the lovely Ruby > > code I love to write ! > > If you really mean any of that, you are a fool. Ruby is a single language, > a single tool. It is the right tool for many jobs, but not for all jobs. > Don't limit yourself. If you are unhappy with the state of Ruby right now, > take a break from it and learn some other languages (my suggestions: > Lisp/Scheme, Erlang, Haskell, OCAML, C, C++, C#, PostScript, MIPS assembly, > SPARC assembly, x86 assembly, and not necessarily in that order) to broaden > the set of tools in your toolbox. > > > Ruby Rocks ! (*Pass me another Red Bull so I can get back to work > > writing more Ruby code !*) > > Ruby is the most pleasant language I've ever used. It also has its warts. > Have a little perspective. > > --Greg I was not able to get rubyscript2exe to work when I gave it a whirl. Once upon a time, Smalltalk was a commercially successful language with several public companies selling it but then one day Smalltalk fell into disrepute and all those public companies ceased to be public companies and now Smalltalk is largely Open Source and no longer a commercial success. One of the problems with Smalltalk was the fact that source code had to be shipped with Smalltalk apps. Copyright Laws do NOT protect you from reverse engineering regardless of what the License Agreement says, reverse engineering is a time honored art that is fully supported by current copyright laws. Believe it or not, reverse engineering is a bit easier when you have full source to play with... I just thought I would toss this out for all of us to ponder. Even when rubyscript2exe is successfully used the source code is still available and must be available or Ruby cannot work. I love Ruby ! I want this made perfectly clear. I seriously want Ruby used for every single programming problem known to mankind and I will hate all those who fail to live up to this ideal. Maybe I am just a lazy programmer who doesn't want to learn any new languages but I love Ruby so much I cannot stand to even be in the same room with anyone who even mentions any other languages other than Ruby. You call me foolish because I use Ruby for everything but I think I am a genius with a vision. Recently I was given the task of importing data from one SQL Server 2005 database to another and rather than allow a co-worker use C# to code a faster way to accomplish this I chose to use Ruby even though the work took weeks to complete and that Moron who wanted to use C# might have completed the work in less than a day I know Ruby as a superior language is well worth the weeks of time my team has invested in the process or doing a rather simple data import task. Ruby rocks !