We have not really spent time to formalize what works and what doesn't but most features do have tests. It is on my to-do list to come up with a more formal spec of the language that is and the language we want to see. Any who would like to start filling in blanks on the wiki is welcome to do so. - Charlie (mobile) On Oct 27, 2009, at 18:23, Dean Wampler <deanwampler / gmail.com> wrote: > Charlie, > > Your Strange Loop talk compared examples in Ruby, Duby, and Surinx. > It was > interesting how the examples differed very little from each other. I > wonder > if automated translation between the three would be possible? > Perhaps the > only realistic direction would be from Duby/Surinx -> Ruby (e.g., > removing > type information). > > Also, have you documented the syntax differences somewhere, in case > someone > wanted to do a manual translation? > > dean > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter > <headius / headius.com>wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Bill Kelly <billk / cts.com> wrote: >>> Wow! That Fibonacci example on >>> http://kenai.com/projects/duby/pages/DubySamples >>> is really neat, especially the return value inferencing. >>> I would love it if ruby had something baked-in to the language >>> that was >>> so unobtrusive, so much like writing regular ruby, but which could >> compile >>> to fast static code. >>> >>> I've wondered to what degree such a thing might be possible, but I >>> never realized it could really mirror regular ruby that closely. >>> Very >> cool. >> >> I'm very interested in adding optional static typing to JRuby, for >> people that need it. Duby is, in a way, research into how this can be >> done without damaging Ruby's syntax substantially. I think the >> trade-offs so far in Duby are acceptable. >> >> Granted, some people will want to lynch me for even suggesting the >> idea. But when you need static types, or the performance that can >> come >> more easily from static types, it's nice to have without dropping >> to C >> or Java. So it's worth exploring for Ruby, and JRuby is the Ruby I >> know how to hack. >> >>> Is your system able to compile floating point operations down to >>> primitives the way it does with fixnums? >> >> Yes, check the bench_fractal.duby benchmark in examples/. It's mostly >> the same code as the Ruby version, but runs almost two OOM faster. >> Heavy floating-point math. >> >> And I should make it clear....Duby is not a "statically typed Ruby". >> It's a different language that co-opts Ruby's syntax and adds static >> types and uses Java/JVM type system (though other backends are >> possible). >> >> - Charlie >> >> > > > -- > Dean Wampler > coauthor of "Programming Scala" (O'Reilly) > - http://programmingscala.com > > twitter: @deanwampler, @chicagoscala > Chicago-Area Scala Enthusiasts (CASE): > - http://groups.google.com/group/chicagoscala > - http://www.meetup.com/chicagoscala/ (Meetings) > http://www.linkedin.com/in/deanwampler > http://www.polyglotprogramming.com > http://aquarium.rubyforge.org > http://www.contract4j.org