ruby-x/ruby-x.github.io
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

convert to haml

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Torsten Ruger
2018-04-10 18:39:03 +03:00
parent 53c7ab4f40
commit 2b00be8443
36 changed files with 15778 additions and 191 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

117
project/history.html.haml Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
\---
layout: project
title: RubyX, where it started
\---
.row.vspace10
.span12.center
%h1
%span
%p
.row
.span1  
.span10
%p
Torsten Ruger started this on 10.04.2014 after having read the Blue Book 20 years earlier.
The main ideas were:
%p
%b> Mikrokernel
\: The microkernel idea: anything that can be left out, should, puts a nice upper limit
on things and at the same time provides a great cooking pot for everyone else to try out their ideas.
%br/
Given gems and bundler this also seems an obvious choice. I really hope to see things i hadn't even thought of.
%br/
= succeed ":" do
%b Layers represent an interface, not an implementation
%br/
= succeed ":" do
%b Empowerment
%br/
But ruby itself has not benefited from this in the same way (ie by ruby developers), because it is not in ruby.
%br/
= succeed ":" do
%b To get it done
%br/
.row
.span12.center
%h1
%span Thanks
%p This would not have happened without:
/ About Us
.row
.tripple
%h2.center Smalltalk
%p
Smalltalk is the mother of OO for me. Adele Goldberg has written down the details of early implementations in the
Blue Book, which made a great impression on me. Having read it, mri code is quite easy to understand.
%br/
Unfortunately Smalltalk was too far ahead of it's time and used the image, the implications of which are still
not understood imho.
%br/
Additional bad luck struck when, in Steven Jobs great heist of the PARC UI, he did not recognise the value of it's
implementation language and so pure OO did not get the same boost as the gui. Instead we got difficult c dialects.
.tripple
%h2.center Ruby and Rails
%p
After years of coding Java, Ruby was a very fresh wind. Smalltalk reborn without the funny syntax or image.
Instead of the image we now have gems, git and bundler, so code exchange has never been easier.
%p
Rails has sort of given Ruby it's purpose and made it grow from a perl like scripting language to a server programming
environment with all the whistles and bells. Rails maturity and code quality make it not only a joy to use,
but an excellent source for good ruby practises.
%p
.tripple
%h2.center Synthesis
%p
Synthesis is a microkernel OS written
in the 80's by Alexia Massalin which not only proves the validity of the microkernel idea, but also
introduces self modifying code into, of all places, the OS.
%p
Alexia has raised questions about the nature of code and ways of programming which are still unresolved.
I regularly reread the thesis and especially the chapter on
%a{:href => "http://valerieaurora.org/synthesis/SynthesisOS/ch4.html"} Quajects
in the endeavour to understand what
they are in any higher language terms.
.row
.span12.center
%p Many other steps on the way that have left their mark:
.row
.span1  
.span10
%p
%b
%a{:href => "http://judy.sourceforge.net/"} Judy
has been a major source of inspiration and opened new
ways of thinking about data structures and indeed coding. It has been the basis of two databases i wrote and together
with Synthesis redefined the meaning of speed for me.
%p
%b
%a{:href => "http://metasm.cr0.org/"} Metasm
finally confirmed what i had suspected for a while.
Namely that you don't need C to generate machine code. Metasm has be been assembling, deassembling and
compiling for several cpu's since 2007, in 100% ruby.
A great feat, and the only reason i don't use it is because it is too big (for me to understand).
%p
%b
%a{:href => "https://github.com/cyndis/as"} As
ended up being the starting point for the assembly layer.
It was nice and small and produced working ARM code, which is what i wanted, as raspberry is arm.
= succeed "got" do
%b
%a{:href => "https://github.com/seattlerb/wilson"} Wilson
%p
%b
%a{:href => "http://kschiess.github.io/parslet/"} Parslet
is great, thanks Kasper!
Parslet makes parsing possible for everyone.
%p
%b
%a{:href => "http://bundler.io/"} Bundler
just makes you wonder how we managed before.
Thanks to Yahuda, for starting it and Andre for making it fantastic.
.row
.span12.center
%p
Lastly, but most importantly there is a siritual side to this too. Actually to anything i have done for at
least 15 years, and i just mention it
= succeed "," do
%a{:href => "spiritual.html"} here

61
project/ideas.html.haml Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
\---
layout: project
title: Effectiveness, not efficiency
sub-title: By way of a new look at programming.
\---
.row
.tripple
%h2.center Where to go
%p
When making the distinction between effectiveness and efficiency i like to think of transport.
%p
Efficiency is going fast, like an airplane is much more efficient than a car and that is more so than walking.
%p
Effectiveness on the other hand is how straight your route is. Say you're in Hamburg and want to go to Berlin, then
it is not effective to go to Rome first.
%p
Ruby, like python and mother smalltalk, let us be more effective at programming. We accept that they are not efficient,
but i think that can be changed.
%p
But even while ruby has blossomed we have seen noticeable increase in effectiveness with so called dsl's and
what is generally called meta-programming.
%p
But meta-programming is just a way to say that we manipulate the program just as we manipulate data. Off course! But
to do that effectively we need a better model of what an object oriented program actually is.
.tripple
%h2.center Understandability
%p
The way i see it is that it is the understandibility that makes ruby or python more effective. As we read much more
code than write (even it's our own), focusing on descriptive programs helps.
%p
But you only have to look at even rubies basic blocks, to see how misleadingly language is used.
We use Strings to represent words and text, while we store data in Arrays or Hashes.
If you look these up in a dictionary you may find: a thread used for tying,
a military force, or a dish of diced meat and vegetables. So we have a way to go there.
%p
But even more disconcerting is that we have no model of how an object oriented system actually works. We know what it
does off course, as we programm using it all the time. But how it does it is not clear.
%p
At least not clear in the sense that i could go and read it's code. Ruby like python are written in c and that just
is not easily understandable code.
.tripple
%h2.center Playing computer
%p
When programming, we fly blind. We have no visual idea of what the system that we write will do and the only way
to get feedback is to have the final version run. Bret Victor has put this
= succeed "." do
%a{:href => "http://vimeo.com/36579366"} into words well
%p
So when we program, it's actually mostly in our head. By playing computer, ie simulating in the head what the computer
will do when it runs the programm.
%p
And so what we consider good programmers, are people who are good at playing computer in their head.
%p
But off course we have the computer right there before us. Really the computr should do it rather than
us having to simulate it.
%p
What will come out of that line when we actually manage to put it into practise is unclear, though it is certain it
will be easier to do and result in hugely more powerful programs
%p
Yet to get there we need better tools. Better tools that let us understand what we are doing better. Better models of
what we call programming, and by better i mean easier to understand by normal people (not the computer simluators).

91
project/motivation.html.haml Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
\---
layout: project
title: Ruby in Ruby
sub-title: RubyX hopes make the the mysterious more accessible, shed light in the farthest (ruby) corners, and above all,
%b empower you
\---
.row
.tripple
%h2.center A better tool, a better job
%p
Ruby is the better tool to do the job. Any software job that is.
We, who use ruby daily do so because it is more productive,
better in almost every way.
The only downside is speed and we argue that with cheap resources.
%p
Why it has taken this long to even seriously attempt a ruby implementation in ruby is due to the overwhelming
influence of C (folks), especially at the time.
%p
Just a short and subjective list of why ruby is the better tool:
%ul
%li More fun. Ask anyone :-)
%li Lets you focus on the task
%li Elegant, both in syntax and solution
%li Understandable
%li Much faster to code
.tripple
%h2.center Boys and toys
%p
Rails has evolved tremendously from what was already a good start. All the development
%em around
it has nurtured
ruby developement in all areas. Rails and all those parts make up a most mature and advanced software system.
%p The "rails effect" is due to the accessibility of the system, imho. Ie it is written in ruby.
%p
Ruby itself has not enjoyed this rails effect, and that is because it is written in C
Crystal, Rust, Go Julia etc, have, for the exact same reason.
%p
It is my firm belief that given a vm in ruby, ruby development will "take off" too. In other words, given an
easy way to improve his tools, a developer will do so. Easy means understandable and that means ruby for a
ruby developer
.tripple
%h2.center Step to Indepencance
%p
The first thing any decent compiler does, is compile itself. It is the maturity test of a language to implement
itself in itself, and the time has come for ruby. The mark of growing up is being independant, in ruby's case of C.
%p
Having just learned Assembler, i can attest what a great improvement C is over Assembler.
But that was then and it is not just chance that developemnt has been slow in the last 50 years.
%p
There is this attitude C believers elude and since they are the gatekeepers of the os,
everyone is fooled into believing only c is fast. Whereas what is true is that
= succeed "is" do
%em complied (binary) code
%p
On a very similar note we are lead to believe that os features must be used from c. Whereas system calls
are software interrupts, not really
%em
calls
%em
at all.
Only the c std library makes them look like c functions, but they are not.
.span12
%p.center
%span
%b So what does empowerment mean.
%p
For me it is means owning your tools.
For everyone to really be able to unfold their ideas and potential.
Not to be stuck, rather to be able to change anything one wishes.
We usually own the code we write, and we have seen amazing progress in opening up new ideas.
%p
So it is hard to even think of ruby holding us back, and it isn't off course, only current implementations of it are.
%p
Concretely what does this mean: Well i don't know do i! That's the whole point, that anyone can improve it beyond
the original creators horizon.
%p
But to mention a few things that have crossed my mind (and that i will most certainly not implement)
%ul
%li Efficient vector extensions that use cpu/gpu instructions not supported in the core
%li Efficient graphics extensions
%li New language features, ie real dsl's that extend the parser on the fly
%li Off course there is always new cpu's and os's
%li Better implementation of core datastructures. Did i hear digital trees being mentioned?
%li Better gc's, better memory management.
%li Superoptimization! (heard of that one?)
%p
And the fun thing is off course that all the above can be created as gems. No recompiling, no rvm/rbenv.
Anyone can choose how they want to pimp
their vm in the same way as you can decide what stack/tools you use in a rails project. And we have the essential
tool to do this: the bundler.
%p And off course democracy decides what is good and what will stay. Natural extinction and all.