Comments on: Improving the Rubinius Bytecode Compiler

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:15:54 +0000

@Zen: er sorry, that should be I have worked with FXRuby some. :)

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:14:42 +0000

@Zen: There is indeed a lot of room to improve Ruby. The ability to JIT Ruby code is a big step forward. The compiler output can be used for obfuscation, but we also have the ability to add, for instance, encryption for security. I agree that an excellent cross-platform GUI library would be a great addition. I have worked FXRuby (http://www.fxruby.org/)

@mario: As you probably know, Engine Yard in general and Rubinius in particular are big supporters of open-source software. At the same time, people need to have choices. Sometimes, open-source is not the best choice. I personally hope that those situations become fewer and fewer, but giving people the tools they need is important.

By: marcio

marcio — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:49:31 +0000

"every one know that Ruby is too slow to be used as a main language."
yeah, right, and 37signals it's a proof of that.
"though absence of a compiler also means that your code is exposed with all the negative impacts, no intellectual property, and also open to hacking."
again, right on the spot! Everybody knows that a compiled code it's unhackable! And the letter of the law says "if your code is not compiled, than you dont have any intellectual property rights" … (and i can't believe that i used that term "intellectual property")

By: Zen

Zen — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:23:07 +0000

there are three main weaknesses in Ruby
1) Performance
2) no compiler
3) gui

Performance wise , every one know that Ruby is too slow to be used as a main language. Even cobol ( a dying language, which almost everybody looks down on) is faster than Ruby.

performance and compiler weaknesses go together, though absence of a compiler also means that your code is exposed with all the negative impacts, no intellectual property, and also open to hacking.

so your rubiniius compile will solve the first 2 weaknesses if it really works, and I applaud your valiant effort. This is something that will give Ruby that extra push it needs.

for gui, I think the existing gui framework whether QT, FOX or Swing(using JRuby) , etc … is still weak. I would like something like Rebol gui framework to exist in Ruby.

Zen

By: andhapp

andhapp — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:45:41 +0000

All your posts are very detailed and explained in an excellent manner. Awesome.

By: Anon

Anon — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:09:56 +0000

and why is this better then anything else out there?

By: Jan Wedekind

Jan Wedekind — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:52:23 +0000

I wonder whether it would be more elegant to add full reflection to the Ruby interpreter. I.e. everything including "=", if-then-else, while, … would be a method-call.

p = lambda { |x,y| x + y }
q = p.compile # x and y are VM-variables; the call "x.+( y )" generates bytecode
q.call 1, 2 # the bytecode is executed

By: Misty Mays

Misty Mays — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:44:35 +0000

I dont what this is looks like an old MS-DOS program

By: cldwalker

cldwalker — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:33:31 +0000

Thanks for the writeup

By: brainopia

brainopia — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:22:20 +0000

Congrats, guys. Sure looks very attractive, waiting for rubinius to hit 1.0 milestone to use it exclusively.