Coffeehouse Thread

61 posts

IronRuby dead

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Bass

    http://blog.jimmy.schementi.com/2010/08/start-spreading-news-future-of-jimmy.html

     

    Well not entirely dead, but Microsoft decided to no longer fund its development.

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    Well that's not actually what it says either. Rather that Jimmy is leaving and he was one of the last on the IronRuby team, which Microsoft may now decide to stop funding.

     

    Personally I've always seen Ruby as a bit of a fad and one whose day seems to have passed, I suspect there are better areas to focus development on.

  • User profile image
    Bass

    AndyC said:

    Well that's not actually what it says either. Rather that Jimmy is leaving and he was one of the last on the IronRuby team, which Microsoft may now decide to stop funding.

     

    Personally I've always seen Ruby as a bit of a fad and one whose day seems to have passed, I suspect there are better areas to focus development on.

    Like what? Another rewrite of WF?

     

    I'm just finding it ironic that .NET which seems to have billed as a "multi-language runtime" keeps losing languages. While the JVM (never ment for anything but Java) seems to be where all the language development action is these days. Good work Microsoft. Keep killing your development story.

     

    I'm sure everyone in the world will drink the Kool-Aid and use C#. Perplexed

  • User profile image
    MasterPi

    AndyC said:

    Well that's not actually what it says either. Rather that Jimmy is leaving and he was one of the last on the IronRuby team, which Microsoft may now decide to stop funding.

     

    Personally I've always seen Ruby as a bit of a fad and one whose day seems to have passed, I suspect there are better areas to focus development on.

    After spending about a year with RoR, I have to say that Rails is nice. I love ActiveRecord and I love how easy it is to scaffold an entire site from the command line. Works as an excellent prototyping tool.

     

    On the other hand, Ruby is crummy. So much effort has gone into making it easy to write stuff like 5.days.ago that it becomes harder to read code or to predict what a certain method will return. Granted, it isn't strongly typed, and that my negative attitude towards Ruby basically stems from not being able to guarantee a variable will be of a certain type and that to handle objects of unknown types, you need to call respond_to?(METHOD_NAME).

     

    I do have other issues with Ruby, which fall far more towards "By design." For example, I don't like how you can very easily modify the behavior of any class in Ruby from anywhere (including your source code). You don't like how the Time class spits out milliseconds...overwrite it in your source code. Yay, now some developer in your open source project who depends on millseconds for database operations will get confused.

     

    I remember spending several hours trying to debug my web application because I had accidentally overriden the *"type" class when I declared it as a field in a class. I had essentially made it do nothing, and any reference to the "*type" class blew up ruby.

     

    I will admit that it is nice using ruby on the command line. But for anything else...nah. It's not for me. Sad

     

     

     

    *It wasn't actually the "type" class. I can't remember what it was, but it actually wasn't something you'd expect to be a "reserved" word.

  • User profile image
    Charles
  • User profile image
    vesuvius

    There are 1000 ruby developers that Microsoft choose to not ignore but learn from while procuring super powerful scripting languages like F#.

     

    Truth be told, F# does a lot of what any scripting langauge can do, very very well for that matter, hence the hammer, coffin and nails.

  • User profile image
    Charles

    vesuvius said:

    There are 1000 ruby developers that Microsoft choose to not ignore but learn from while procuring super powerful scripting languages like F#.

     

    Truth be told, F# does a lot of what any scripting langauge can do, very very well for that matter, hence the hammer, coffin and nails.

    I don't understand the relationship here. F# is a strongly-typed hybrid (functional and imperative) language that is a thin skin around CLI.  It is not a dynamically typed language and therefore is not the right tool when you need/want dynamic capabilities (like Python and Ruby afford...). Dynamic languages are dynamic at the type system level. F# targets a static type system, which is baked into the CLR (this is why the DLR was invented...).


    What do you mean, exactly?
    C

  • User profile image
    Bass

    Charles said:

    Quote:

    Ruby almost exclusively runs on Linux (for the server) and Mac (for the desktop) - both of which are major competitors to Windows. Both of which, with respect to Ruby, are better than Windows. It would be beyond stupid for Microsoft to open the door, ever so slightly, and allow its developers to get a glimpse at this better world.

     

     

    Interesting that you agree with the assessment. Smiley

  • User profile image
    Bass

    Is IronPython next by the way? I heard C++ runs on Linux and OS X too, is that on the way out?

  • User profile image
    Charles

    Bass said:
    Charles said:
    *snip*

    Quote:

    Ruby almost exclusively runs on Linux (for the server) and Mac (for the desktop) - both of which are major competitors to Windows. Both of which, with respect to Ruby, are better than Windows. It would be beyond stupid for Microsoft to open the door, ever so slightly, and allow its developers to get a glimpse at this better world.

     

     

    Interesting that you agree with the assessment. Smiley

    Well, I should have been more specific about the assessment (related to this thread and the demise of Iron languages at Microsoft)..... Obviously, I don't think about Linux as being a better server OS than Windows Server (I don't really think about this at all....)

     

    I am focusing only on the notion of the flawed strategy for Iron languages... The CLR is a statically-typed runtime. That's the first obvious problem. Second, it doesn't make a lot of sense to maintain mulitple implementations of the same language. With Azure, the tent will grow (why would you run and Iron version of a language on Azure when you could just use the language itself....).

    So, again, my agreement with the author is limited to basic premise surrounding the demise of Iron languages, not the platform politic$....

    You know my stance on this $tuff by now, right? I shouldn't have to defend myself. Smiley

     

    C

  • User profile image
    Bass

    Charles said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    Well, I should have been more specific about the assessment (related to this thread and the demise of Iron languages at Microsoft)..... Obviously, I don't think about Linux as being a better server OS than Windows Server (I don't really think about this at all....)

     

    I am focusing only on the notion of the flawed strategy for Iron languages... The CLR is a statically-typed runtime. That's the first obvious problem. Second, it doesn't make a lot of sense to maintain mulitple implementations of the same language. With Azure, the tent will grow (why would you run and Iron version of a language on Azure when you could just use the language itself....).

    So, again, my agreement with the author is limited to basic premise surrounding the demise of Iron languages, not the platform politic$....

    You know my stance on this $tuff by now, right? I shouldn't have to defend myself. Smiley

     

    C

    The Iron* languages allowed strong interoperability with .NET, just like JRuby allows interoperability with Java. You can't do that with CPython, for instance.

     

    I always thought IronPython/IronRuby was a way to get Python/Ruby programmers to write on and for the Windows and .NET platform. I guess Python/Ruby was so good it was stealing away .NET programmers instead of vise versa.  Smiley

  • User profile image
    Bas

    Charles said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    Well, I should have been more specific about the assessment (related to this thread and the demise of Iron languages at Microsoft)..... Obviously, I don't think about Linux as being a better server OS than Windows Server (I don't really think about this at all....)

     

    I am focusing only on the notion of the flawed strategy for Iron languages... The CLR is a statically-typed runtime. That's the first obvious problem. Second, it doesn't make a lot of sense to maintain mulitple implementations of the same language. With Azure, the tent will grow (why would you run and Iron version of a language on Azure when you could just use the language itself....).

    So, again, my agreement with the author is limited to basic premise surrounding the demise of Iron languages, not the platform politic$....

    You know my stance on this $tuff by now, right? I shouldn't have to defend myself. Smiley

     

    C

    Obviously, I don't think about Linux as being a better server OS than Windows Server

     

    It doesn't say Linux is a better server OS than Windows Server. It says the Ruby experience is better on it than it is on Windows. Subtle, but vastly different.

  • User profile image
    Charles

    Bas said:
    Charles said:
    *snip*

     

    It doesn't say Linux is a better server OS than Windows Server. It says the Ruby experience is better on it than it is on Windows. Subtle, but vastly different.

    Will this always be the case?

     

    ...

    C

  • User profile image
    Bass

    Charles said:
    Bas said:
    *snip*

    Will this always be the case?

     

    ...

    C

    It sure will if Microsoft doesn't give a crap about improving the Python and Ruby experience on Windows. Case in point.

  • User profile image
    exoteric

    Charles said:
    vesuvius said:
    *snip*

    I don't understand the relationship here. F# is a strongly-typed hybrid (functional and imperative) language that is a thin skin around CLI.  It is not a dynamically typed language and therefore is not the right tool when you need/want dynamic capabilities (like Python and Ruby afford...). Dynamic languages are dynamic at the type system level. F# targets a static type system, which is baked into the CLR (this is why the DLR was invented...).


    What do you mean, exactly?
    C

    He's reflecting on the fact that F# has a dynamic feel to it due to its strong support for type-inference.

  • User profile image
    rhm

    What was the audience for IronRuby anyway? Ruby programmers out of all groups of programmers are the least likely to be using Windows now and most unlikely to consider it in the future. Plus, for deployment you're asking them to switch to Windows Server just to do what they can already do for free on Linux.

     

    And would any interest come from the .NET side of things? I don't think so. C# prorgammers are more than happy with C# - lambdas, generics and the var keyword give you what you need. I think a lot of Ruby people when proclaiming the benefits of Ruby assume that C# is like Java was in 1995 when it's far more progressive. Add to the fact that Ruby is a pretty oddball looking language, I don't see many C# programmers being attracted to it.

  • User profile image
    exoteric

    Charles said:
    Bas said:
    *snip*

    Will this always be the case?

     

    ...

    C

    The reasoning of the article escapes me. The point you make about the suitability of the CLR for truly dynamic languages seems fair and applies equally well to the JVM. Still, even as a static typist, I don't hope this signals Microsoft's dying belief in dynamic languages. It can be dangerous to neglect a whole class of developers.

  • User profile image
    DouglasH

    exoteric said:
    Charles said:
    *snip*

    He's reflecting on the fact that F# has a dynamic feel to it due to its strong support for type-inference.

    And there are strong hints that we may see this in C# in the future.

     

    I personally believe it is a huge waste of time to repeat twice when setting up a variable when Compilers have long

    be efficient at inferring type in 90% of the cases.

     

    Douglas

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.