From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <6387B78A-AB82-4513-8827-E9B804344063@tinker.com> From: Kim Shrier To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: [9fans] Ruby port Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:55:24 -0700 References: Topicbox-Message-UUID: 109d0da0-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Nov 11, 2007, at 1:44 PM, Christopher Nielsen wrote: > Anyone porting ruby? Would anyone besides me use it? > > I have about five months of free time to work on projects. > > -- > Christopher Nielsen > "They who can give up essential liberty for temporary > safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin > Sorry for the late post, I have been busy with other things. Anyway, I am working on a port of Ruby 1.8.6 p111 to Plan 9. I have the miniruby interpreter compiled and linked. It appears to work OK but I have not stressed it very much. I will be working on completing the port of a statically linked Ruby interpreter. One feature I like about Ruby is the ability to add libraries of code that contain C code. Ruby does this through dynamic linking. Since Plan 9 doesn't support dynamic linking, (and I am not suggesting that it be added to Plan 9), what is the general consensus on how to achieve similar functionality without resorting to dynamic linking? Kim Shrier