Re: Is mruby the future of Ruby language?

	Subject: Re: Is mruby the future of Ruby language?
	Date: gio 27 giu 19 07:07:37 +0000

Quoting Jason Long ([email protected]):

>    You and your team using "mruby" because it is lightweight? Can Ruby
>    embedded in other languages? I mean is that can Ruby offer the mruby
>    features? 

I add here my datapoint. I use both Ruby and Mruby. The kind of Ruby
code I write can be fed to both interpreters practically without
changes. Mruby is a little less performing than Ruby - but when I need
performance I code in C...

Writing C extensions requires different, although similar, syntaxes.

What I like of Mruby is that it and its gems are self-contained. As a
result of compilation, you obtain a mruby (plus mirb, and mrbc to
compile bytecode) command, and a libmruby.a to link into your
executable that allows you to start the interpreter from C with one
line of code, and feed it ruby code.

All the classes belonging to the gems you required in the
configuration file are directly available. You do not use 'include' in
your mruby code: what is available is present already in the
interpreter.

You can maintain several mruby source code directories, with different
configuration files, on the same machine, and they will refer to
possibly different versions of libraries or have/not have libraries or
gems.

(that means I never install the mruby and mirb commands in /usr/bin or
the like - I always specify the complete path, also in shebangs if
needed).

Carlo

-- 
  *         Se la Strada e la sua Virtu' non fossero state messe da parte,
* K * Carlo E. Prelz - [email protected]             che bisogno ci sarebbe
  *               di parlare tanto di amore e di rettitudine? (Chuang-Tzu)

Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-talk>