Topaz as a name? Seriously? ( http://topaz.sourceforge.net/ )
It's impossible and immoral to have two projects with the same name. How dare they.
Announcing Topaz: A New Ruby
31–40 of 190 posts
Re: Announcing Topaz: A New Ruby
#32Why not implemented on Erlang OTP? Ruby and Python share the same scaling issues, so I don't see a benefit it combining them or migrate from one to the other. I also dislike the "high performance" claims without showing a single performance comparison. Not to mention the state of implementation completeness of the language.
It's not quite Ruby on top of Erlang, but you might be interested in Elixir (http://elixir-lang.org/). Elixir has some of the syntax of Ruby but is built on the Erlang VM.
Re: Announcing Topaz: A New Ruby
#33Topaz as a name? Seriously? ( http://topaz.sourceforge.net/ )
Last modified in April of 2000. Y'know, back when we used Perl willingly.
Re: Announcing Topaz: A New Ruby
#34I'm all for new Ruby implementations, but be very careful about judging performance of an incomplete implementation.
It's "trivial" to make a fast language that looks quite a bit like Ruby. It is a lot harder that make a language that remains fast in the face of handling all the quirks of the full Ruby semantics, though, such as selectively handling the risk of someone going bananas with monkey-patching core classes that could happen at any "eval()" point.
Re: Announcing Topaz: A New Ruby
#35Sweet, I'm very interested in this. I assume this implementation has a GIL? Any word on how threads will be implemented?
No GIL. Also no threads yet :) We're going to wait to see how Armin's work on STM support pans out.
Re: Announcing Topaz: A New Ruby
#36Topaz as a name? Seriously? ( http://topaz.sourceforge.net/ )
The link goes to a project last committed to in 2000. You surely can't be objecting for that reason.
Re: Announcing Topaz: A New Ruby
#37Topaz as a name? Seriously? ( http://topaz.sourceforge.net/ )
I find it odd that you link to a project that hasn't seen an update in the last 12 years. How old does a project have to be before it is considered "dead"?
Re: Announcing Topaz: A New Ruby
#38RPython is the new C?
Re: Announcing Topaz: A New Ruby
#39Why not implemented on Erlang OTP? Ruby and Python share the same scaling issues, so I don't see a benefit it combining them or migrate from one to the other. I also dislike the "high performance" claims without showing a single performance comparison. Not to mention the state of implementation completeness of the language.
I think you're missing the point. It's not written in Python . It's written i RPython, which is vastly different. Technology behind this and PyPy is the same, however there is no Python usage here. Additionally, erlang has avoided scaling issues by being functional. This might be good or bad, depending on your viewpoint, but just implementing a ruby interpreter in erlang won't cut, because you're not answering any of…
"Topaz is written in Python on top of the RPython translation toolchain (the same one that powers PyPy)." [1]
"Topaz - An implementation of the Ruby programming language, in Python, using the RPython VM toolchain." [2]
[1] http://docs.topazruby.com/en/latest/blog/announcing-topaz/ [2] https://github.com/topazproject/topaz/blob/master/README.rst