Ironruby core - Jan 2008 - Littl' question about the build process

I need some clarifications for my readers: I believe we have three
ways of compiling IronRuby today:
- through the rake compile task (is it the preferred way ?)
- through IronRuby.sln (for 2005)
- through Ruby.sln (for 2008 ?)

Are both the .sln files maintained ? Is my guess correct about 2005/2008 ?

In the long run, are all these intented to be maintained ?

ps: John I wrote you an email a while back but I''m not sure you got it
actually. I was suggesting we could (in a couple of weeks maybe,
unless it''s already done internally at ms ?) grab a couple of the most
widely used ruby gems, focus on those with unit tests or specs (or
write a couple of integration tests ourselves), and setup a continuous
integration server to run those gems tests through rbx.

Is it already done somewhat ? What do you think ?

regards,

-- Thibaut

Thibaut Barr?re:
> I need some clarifications for my readers: I believe we have three
> ways of compiling IronRuby today:
> - through the rake compile task (is it the preferred way ?)
> - through IronRuby.sln (for 2005)
> - through Ruby.sln (for 2008 ?)
>
> Are both the .sln files maintained ? Is my guess correct about
> 2005/2008 ?
The IronRuby.sln file is for external folks to use. Ruby.sln is one that
reflects the legacy source code layout in our internal tree.
> In the long run, are all these intented to be maintained ?
For the forseeable future, yes.
> ps: John I wrote you an email a while back but I''m not sure you
got it
> actually. I was suggesting we could (in a couple of weeks maybe,
> unless it''s already done internally at ms ?) grab a couple of the
most
> widely used ruby gems, focus on those with unit tests or specs (or
> write a couple of integration tests ourselves), and setup a continuous
> integration server to run those gems tests through rbx.
I''m going to forward my reply to you - I sent a reply out yesterday,
but to myself :)

But for the benefit of the list, we''re focusing on doing gap analysis-
there''s a new task that I''ve added to the rakefile that uses
set_trace_func to trace all calls that a target application makes. It also
reflects over the IronRuby libraries and diffs the output for standard library
types. This way we have a complete list of all of the library methods that need
to be implemented to run that app. I''ve completed the analysis for gem
install, which is the first ''real app'' milestone that we want
to get working. We''re about 140 methods short today, with the bulk of
those mapping to regex and YAML and socket-based IO.

-John

Thibaut Barr?re:
> I need some clarifications for my readers: I believe we have three ways
> of compiling IronRuby today:
> - through the rake compile task (is it the preferred way ?)
> - through IronRuby.sln (for 2005)
> - through Ruby.sln (for 2008 ?)
>
> Are both the .sln files maintained ? Is my guess correct about
> 2005/2008 ?
>
> In the long run, are all these intented to be maintained ?
As John said, IronRuby.sln is the one that is correctly transformed to SVN
folder layout. Ruby.sln is against our TFS folder layer. Maybe we could rename
them to make it more obvious which is which.

Also, I''m wondering what VS version we should target with IronRuby.sln.
Are enough people using 2008 to justify upgrading it? Or should we have one for
2005 and one for 2008? Or keep it 2005 for now?

- John

John Messerly:
> As John said, IronRuby.sln is the one that is correctly transformed to
> SVN folder layout. Ruby.sln is against our TFS folder layer. Maybe we
> could rename them to make it more obvious which is which.
>
> Also, I''m wondering what VS version we should target with
IronRuby.sln.
> Are enough people using 2008 to justify upgrading it? Or should we have
> one for 2005 and one for 2008? Or keep it 2005 for now?
To amplify this a bit more:

Is there anyone out there still using VS 2005 to hack on IronRuby?

Thanks,
-John

Hi,

I''m using VS 2005 so far (and my readers will use it next month when
they read their article), I''ve not yet switched to 2008 express.

It seems reasonable to switch to 2008 in a couple of months though
(and maintain only 2008).

-- Thibaut

John,

I am using VS2005 still.  I do have VS2008 installed, is there a technical
reason to move to VS2008 for IronRuby hacking?

-Rob Bazinet

On Jan 16, 2008 9:30 AM, John Lam (DLR) <jflam at microsoft.com> wrote:
> John Messerly:
>
> > As John said, IronRuby.sln is the one that is correctly transformed to
> > SVN folder layout. Ruby.sln is against our TFS folder layer. Maybe we
> > could rename them to make it more obvious which is which.
> >
> > Also, I''m wondering what VS version we should target with
IronRuby.sln.
> > Are enough people using 2008 to justify upgrading it? Or should we
have
> > one for 2005 and one for 2008? Or keep it 2005 for now?
>
> To amplify this a bit more:
>
> Is there anyone out there still using VS 2005 to hack on IronRuby?
>
> Thanks,
> -John
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>


-- 
Rob Bazinet
http://www.accidentaltechnologist.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20080116/cab7e13b/attachment.html

Hey,

On 1/15/08, John Messerly <jomes at microsoft.com>
wrote:
> Also, I''m wondering what VS version we should target with
IronRuby.sln. Are enough people using 2008 to justify upgrading it? Or should we
have one for 2005 and one for 2008? Or keep it 2005 for now?
That''s probably the best way to reach and ease most people. I tend to
simply suffix the filename with the VS version it targets, ex:
IronRuby-2008.csproj.
Along with a script to update the csprojs to keep them in sync :)

-- 
Jb Evain  <jb at nurv.fr>

Jb Evain:
> That''s probably the best way to reach and ease most people. I tend
to
> simply suffix the filename with the VS version it targets, ex:
> IronRuby-2008.csproj.
> Along with a script to update the csprojs to keep them in sync :)
It''s not VS that we''re concerned about, it''s C#. It
would be so nice to be able to type:

var greaterThanSharedSite = DynamicSite<object, object,
object>.Create(InstanceCallAction(">", ArgumentKind.Simple));

DynamicSite<object, object, object> greaterThanSharedSite =
DynamicSite<object, object,
object>.Create(InstanceCallAction(">", ArgumentKind.Simple));

But we can''t move to the new compiler until we get enough folks
agreeing to switch over ...

-John

Has the goal of IronRuby to require .NET 3.5 all this time?  If so, I guess
I missed it but it makes sense and makes the technology better.

-Rob

On Jan 16, 2008 10:04 AM, John Lam (DLR) <jflam at microsoft.com> wrote:
> Jb Evain:
>
> > That''s probably the best way to reach and ease most people. I
tend to
> > simply suffix the filename with the VS version it targets, ex:
> > IronRuby-2008.csproj.
> > Along with a script to update the csprojs to keep them in sync :)
>
> It''s not VS that we''re concerned about, it''s C#.
It would be so nice to be
> able to type:
>
> var greaterThanSharedSite = DynamicSite<object, object,
> object>.Create(InstanceCallAction(">",
ArgumentKind.Simple));
>
> DynamicSite<object, object, object> greaterThanSharedSite >
DynamicSite<object, object,
object>.Create(InstanceCallAction(">",
> ArgumentKind.Simple));
>
> But we can''t move to the new compiler until we get enough folks
agreeing
> to switch over ...
>
> -John
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>


-- 
Rob Bazinet
http://www.accidentaltechnologist.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20080116/39a37368/attachment.html

Hey John,
> It''s not VS that we''re concerned about, it''s C#.
It would be so nice to be able to type:
>
> var greaterThanSharedSite = DynamicSite<object, object,
object>.Create(InstanceCallAction(">", ArgumentKind.Simple));
>
> DynamicSite<object, object, object> greaterThanSharedSite =
DynamicSite<object, object,
object>.Create(InstanceCallAction(">", ArgumentKind.Simple));
>
> But we can''t move to the new compiler until we get enough folks
agreeing to switch over ...
Personally, I''m building with VS2008 for now, and wouldn''t
mind being
forced to use VS2008 to develop. The more interesting question is
whether .NET 3.5 would become the minimum requirement for the DLR and
IronRuby *at runtime*. If the idea is to still be targeting plain .NET
2.0 for runtime, I think that would be a lot better and more palatable
for many people.

-- 
Tomas Restrepo
http://www.winterdom.com/weblog/

> If the idea is to still be targeting plain .NET
> 2.0 for runtime, I think that would be a lot better and more palatable
> for many people.
+1 on this.

-- Thibaut

Hey John,

On 1/16/08, John Lam (DLR) <jflam at microsoft.com>
wrote:
> It''s not VS that we''re concerned about, it''s C#.
It would be so nice to be able to type:
It wasn''t clear to me that this discussion was about the language
version, and not about the VS version.
> var greaterThanSharedSite = DynamicSite<object, object,
object>.Create(InstanceCallAction(">", ArgumentKind.Simple));
>
> DynamicSite<object, object, object> greaterThanSharedSite =
DynamicSite<object, object,
object>.Create(InstanceCallAction(">", ArgumentKind.Simple));
That would be nice indeed. And if we''re talking about C#, I would not
mind seeing IronRuby focusing on C#3, as the project itself is
?relatively? new.

-- 
Jb Evain  <jb at nurv.fr>

Tomas Restrepo:
> Personally, I''m building with VS2008 for now, and
wouldn''t mind being
> forced to use VS2008 to develop. The more interesting question is
> whether .NET 3.5 would become the minimum requirement for the DLR and
> IronRuby *at runtime*. If the idea is to still be targeting plain .NET
> 2.0 for runtime, I think that would be a lot better and more palatable
> for many people.
We''re targeting CLR v2.0 which is the version of the CLR that ships in
.NET 3.5 (confusing, yes :)).

C# 3.0 doesn''t require new features from the CLR, just some new
libraries (System.Core and friends).

-John

Jb Evain:
> That would be nice indeed. And if we''re talking about C#, I would
not
> mind seeing IronRuby focusing on C#3, as the project itself is
> <relatively> new.
Me too. But we don''t want to slow down folks who are working on
libraries as well. There are plenty on our team that want to switch, but we
haven''t made a call on that yet. But if y''all make enough
noise it will help us advance our cause inside :)

-John

+1 for C# 3.0

I''m assuming you''d update the Rakefile? This would involve a
little
work since it currently uses a single constant for both the location
of Framework libraries and the compiler (csc). We''d have to split
those but that''s not too much work. (The alternative to changing the
Rakefile is to instruct everyone to run it from the VS or SDK command
prompt, which seems less desirable to me.)

- Jason Langston
http://rubydoes.net

> C# 3.0 doesn''t require new features from the CLR, just some new
libraries (System.Core and friends).
Thanks for the clarification. Then yes, I''ll vote for the switch to C#
3.0. Like Jb said, it''s a new project, let''s move on!

If the target is going to be CLR 2.0 anyway, why not just do it now?

Does the RakeFile even work for us externally?  I have tried it a few times
and it always blows up.  Apparently there needs to be something fed to it I
am not doing.

-Rob

On Jan 16, 2008 10:30 AM, Jason Langston <jason.langston at gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1 for C# 3.0
>
> I''m assuming you''d update the Rakefile? This would
involve a little
> work since it currently uses a single constant for both the location
> of Framework libraries and the compiler (csc). We''d have to split
> those but that''s not too much work. (The alternative to changing
the
> Rakefile is to instruct everyone to run it from the VS or SDK command
> prompt, which seems less desirable to me.)
>
> - Jason Langston
> http://rubydoes.net
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>


-- 
Rob Bazinet
http://www.accidentaltechnologist.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20080116/5105dae6/attachment.html

> Does the RakeFile even work for us externally?  I have tried it a few times
> and it always blows up.  Apparently there needs to be something fed to it I
> am not doing.
"rake compile" works for me. In case you want to compare,
here''s my
configuration:

ruby 1.8.5 (2006-12-25 patchlevel 12) [i386-mswin32]
rake, version 0.8.1

cheers

-- Thibaut

> Does the RakeFile even work for us externally?  I have tried it a few times
and it always blows up.
> Apparently there needs to be something fed to it I am not doing.
Did you try running the "rake happy" task to see if your environment
is ok ? (PATH must include folders with csc.exe and resgen.exe)

-- Thibaut

Note the ruby version.  If you use the Windows installer then the latest one
(Ruby-186-26) crashes inside Pathname2.  Drop back to Ruby-186-25 and you
should be fine.
Pete

-----Original Message-----
From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org
[mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Thibaut Barr?re
Sent: Wednesday,16 January 16, 2008 16:20
To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Littl'' question about the build process
> Does the RakeFile even work for us externally?  I have tried it a few
times
> and it always blows up.  Apparently there needs to be something fed to it
I
> am not doing.
"rake compile" works for me. In case you want to compare,
here''s my
configuration:

ruby 1.8.5 (2006-12-25 patchlevel 12) [i386-mswin32]
rake, version 0.8.1

cheers

-- Thibaut
_______________________________________________
Ironruby-core mailing list
Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core

Ah yes, I think that is my problem.

Thanks Pete.

On Jan 16, 2008 11:23 AM, Peter Bacon Darwin <bacondarwin at
googlemail.com>
wrote:
> Note the ruby version.  If you use the Windows installer then the latest
> one
> (Ruby-186-26) crashes inside Pathname2.  Drop back to Ruby-186-25 and you
> should be fine.
> Pete
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org
> [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Thibaut
Barr?re
> Sent: Wednesday,16 January 16, 2008 16:20
> To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Littl'' question about the build
process
>
> > Does the RakeFile even work for us externally?  I have tried it a few
> times
> > and it always blows up.  Apparently there needs to be something fed to
> it
> I
> > am not doing.
>
> "rake compile" works for me. In case you want to compare,
here''s my
> configuration:
>
> ruby 1.8.5 (2006-12-25 patchlevel 12) [i386-mswin32]
> rake, version 0.8.1
>
> cheers
>
> -- Thibaut
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>


-- 
Rob Bazinet
http://www.accidentaltechnologist.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20080116/730ef441/attachment.html

Sorry to beat this to death, but IronRuby would still run on a .NET 2.0 only
system?  I''d say this is pretty important because some of us still have
to
support Windows 2000 as a runtime environment...

On Jan 16, 2008 10:25 AM, John Lam (DLR) <jflam at microsoft.com> wrote:
> Tomas Restrepo:
>
> > Personally, I''m building with VS2008 for now, and
wouldn''t mind being
> > forced to use VS2008 to develop. The more interesting question is
> > whether .NET 3.5 would become the minimum requirement for the DLR and
> > IronRuby *at runtime*. If the idea is to still be targeting plain .NET
> > 2.0 for runtime, I think that would be a lot better and more palatable
> > for many people.
>
> We''re targeting CLR v2.0 which is the version of the CLR that
ships in
> .NET 3.5 (confusing, yes :)).
>
> C# 3.0 doesn''t require new features from the CLR, just some new
libraries
> (System.Core and friends).
>
> -John
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20080116/9450cf83/attachment.html

John,
 
> There are plenty on our team that want to switch, but we haven''t
made a call on that yet. But if y''all make enough noise it will help us
advance our cause inside :)
Consider this some noise! :)
 
Jeff


> From: jflam at microsoft.com> To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 07:27:13 -0800> Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core]
Littl'' question about the build process> > Jb Evain:> >
> That would be nice indeed. And if we''re talking about C#, I would
not> > mind seeing IronRuby focusing on C#3, as the project itself is>
> <relatively> new.> > Me too. But we don''t want to slow
down folks who are working on libraries as well. There are plenty on our team
that want to switch, but we haven''t made a call on that yet. But if
y''all make enough noise it will help us advance our cause inside :)>
> -John> > _______________________________________________>
Ironruby-core mailing list> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org>
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
_________________________________________________________________
Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_powerofwindows_012008
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20080116/78dc0add/attachment.html

John Lam (DLR):
> Tomas Restrepo:
>
> > Personally, I''m building with VS2008 for now, and
wouldn''t mind being
> > forced to use VS2008 to develop. The more interesting question is
> > whether .NET 3.5 would become the minimum requirement for the DLR and
> > IronRuby *at runtime*. If the idea is to still be targeting plain
> .NET
> > 2.0 for runtime, I think that would be a lot better and more
> palatable
> > for many people.
>
> We''re targeting CLR v2.0 which is the version of the CLR that
ships in
> .NET 3.5 (confusing, yes :)).
>
> C# 3.0 doesn''t require new features from the CLR, just some new
> libraries (System.Core and friends).
Don''t you still need to install the .NET 3.5 runtime though, if we
start using System.Core features?
I think if we just use compiler features (like "var" & the new
closure syntax), we can still target .NET 2.0 runtime.

- John

John Messerly:
> Don''t you still need to install the .NET 3.5 runtime though, if we
> start using System.Core features?
> I think if we just use compiler features (like "var" & the
new closure
> syntax), we can still target .NET 2.0 runtime.
Sure, but I didn''t think that we were planning on using LINQ anytime
soon (modulo my IronRuby.Libraries.Scanner project which is more of a plaything
than anything else).

-John

Would this impact moonlight?

On Jan 16, 2008 9:41 PM, John Lam (DLR) <jflam at microsoft.com>
wrote:
> John Messerly:
>
> > Don''t you still need to install the .NET 3.5 runtime though,
if we
> > start using System.Core features?
> > I think if we just use compiler features (like "var" &
the new closure
> > syntax), we can still target .NET 2.0 runtime.
>
> Sure, but I didn''t think that we were planning on using LINQ
anytime soon (modulo my IronRuby.Libraries.Scanner project which is more of a
plaything than anything else).
>
> -John
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>

Hey,

On 1/16/08, Terence Lewis <lewistm at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Would this impact moonlight?
No, it should not. Our compiler is mostly C#3 ready.

-- 
Jb Evain  <jb at nurv.fr>