Ironruby core - May 2008 - Is IronRuby avoided in .Net 3.5 SP1... No Mention at all

Hi,

I was keen to read the great support for Dynamic languages in the New
and Most discussed .Net 3.5 SP1.

It was strange to see that there was no discussion at all about Dynamic
Languages.
It was avoided in such a manner that IronRuby does not exist at all.

When everything was discussed about... MVC Preview 3, Dynamic
Scaffolding, Routing etc.. it was strange to see that How come IronRuby
is not considered or discussed at all when all this Inspirations have
started with Ruby and Rails and

Just my views.
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Web Reservoir:
> I was keen to read the great support for Dynamic languages in the New
> and Most discussed .Net 3.5 SP1.
>
> It was strange to see that there was no discussion at all about Dynamic
> Languages.
> It was avoided in such a manner that IronRuby does not exist at all.
IronRuby will be part of the next major release of Visual Studio. It
won''t be part of the Service Pack.

-John

John Lam (IRONRUBY) wrote:

> IronRuby will be part of the next major release of Visual Studio. It 
> won''t be part of the Service Pack.
> 
> -John
Hi,

Visual Studio is updated every three years as per my knowledge.
for example...
(1) Visual Studio .net ---- (2001)
(2) Visual Studio 2005 -----(2005)
(3) Visual Studio 2008------(2008)

You mean to say that IronRuby support with VS shall come now in 2011...?


-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

What''s happened to ModuleOps::extended in revision 103?
(it appears to have been removed)

Kernel::extend calls "extended", so modules need a default
implementation.

Cheers, Wayne.

I have no idea why ... maybe I screwed something up in a merge. In any event,
I''ve put it back in the next release.

Thanks,
-John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core-
> bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Wayne Kelly
> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 10:54 PM
> To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> Subject: [Ironruby-core] ModuleOps::extended
>
>
> What''s happened to ModuleOps::extended in revision 103?
> (it appears to have been removed)
>
> Kernel::extend calls "extended", so modules need a default
> implementation.
>
> Cheers, Wayne.
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core

This is really something that the specs should pick up, no?

-----Original Message-----
From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org
[mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of John Lam
(IRONRUBY)
Sent: Tuesday,13 May 13, 2008 14:25
To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] ModuleOps::extended

I have no idea why ... maybe I screwed something up in a merge. In any
event, I''ve put it back in the next release.

Thanks,
-John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core-
> bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Wayne Kelly
> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 10:54 PM
> To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> Subject: [Ironruby-core] ModuleOps::extended
>
>
> What''s happened to ModuleOps::extended in revision 103?
> (it appears to have been removed)
>
> Kernel::extend calls "extended", so modules need a default
> implementation.
>
> Cheers, Wayne.
> _______________________________________________
> 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

We don''t comment on future release dates. IronRuby 1.0 will ship before
the next version of VS, but an updated version will ship in the next version of
VS.

Thanks,
-John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core-
> bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Web Reservoir
> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 10:24 PM
> To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Is IronRuby avoided in .Net 3.5 SP1... No
> Mention at all
>
> John Lam (IRONRUBY) wrote:
>
>
> > IronRuby will be part of the next major release of Visual Studio. It
> > won''t be part of the Service Pack.
> >
> > -John
>
> Hi,
>
> Visual Studio is updated every three years as per my knowledge.
> for example...
> (1) Visual Studio .net ---- (2001)
> (2) Visual Studio 2005 -----(2005)
> (3) Visual Studio 2008------(2008)
>
> You mean to say that IronRuby support with VS shall come now in
> 2011...?
>
>
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core

Today we use the specs as a regression test mechanism. We generate a baseline
''clean'' (all specs pass), and we use that to detect
regressions. I suspect that we didn''t enable the specs for #extend when
they were checked in, so it didn''t get picked up our baseline clean
test pass.

Thanks,
-John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core-
> bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Peter Bacon Darwin
> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 6:33 AM
> To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] ModuleOps::extended
>
> This is really something that the specs should pick up, no?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org
> [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of John Lam
> (IRONRUBY)
> Sent: Tuesday,13 May 13, 2008 14:25
> To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] ModuleOps::extended
>
> I have no idea why ... maybe I screwed something up in a merge. In any
> event, I''ve put it back in the next release.
>
> Thanks,
> -John
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core-
> > bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Wayne Kelly
> > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 10:54 PM
> > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> > Subject: [Ironruby-core] ModuleOps::extended
> >
> >
> > What''s happened to ModuleOps::extended in revision 103?
> > (it appears to have been removed)
> >
> > Kernel::extend calls "extended", so modules need a default
> > implementation.
> >
> > Cheers, Wayne.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core

On Mon, 12 May 2008 23:23:32 -0600, Web Reservoir <lists at
ruby-forum.com> wrote:
> (1) Visual Studio .net ---- (2001)
+= Visual Studio 2003 (the original was Visual Studio 2002, if not
mistaken)
> (2) Visual Studio 2005 -----(2005)
Released in November of 2005, so really should have been called Visual Studio
2006
> (3) Visual Studio 2008------(2008)
Released in November of 2007, so was accurately called Visual Studio 2008,
though the release came two years after Visual Studio 2005, not three, so from
what I can tell the .NET series of Visual Studio is on a two year release cycle.
Of course, no one at MSFT will comment on such things, but history seems to back
it up.

-- 
/M:D

M. David Peterson
Co-Founder & Chief Architect, 3rd&Urban, LLC
Email: m.david at xmlhacker.com | m.david at amp.fm | Mobile: (206) 418-9027
Web: http://amp.fm/ | http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2354