librelist archives

« back to archive

1.8 or 1.9?

1.8 or 1.9?

From:
Steve Klabnik
Date:
2010-06-27 @ 09:48
Hey guys-

A few more details:

... we are using Ruby 1.9 now, right? At least, the current HEAD of
shoes/shoes is?

I'm having an issue where hacketyhack crashes due to bind():
http://github.com/steveklabnik/hacketyhack/issues#issue/6

Apparently Object#extend doesn't function the same way it used to? Does
anyone have any good resources on this? My googling seems to have failed.
It's 6am here, I've spent the last few hours trying to figure this out, to
no avail. :/

Thanks,
Steve

Re: 1.8 or 1.9?

From:
Steve Klabnik
Date:
2010-06-27 @ 09:53
My question still stands, but ashbb fixed my problem with extend. :)

On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 5:48 AM, Steve Klabnik <steve@steveklabnik.com>wrote:

> Hey guys-
>
> A few more details:
>
> ... we are using Ruby 1.9 now, right? At least, the current HEAD of
> shoes/shoes is?
>
> I'm having an issue where hacketyhack crashes due to bind():
> http://github.com/steveklabnik/hacketyhack/issues#issue/6
>
> Apparently Object#extend doesn't function the same way it used to? Does
> anyone have any good resources on this? My googling seems to have failed.
> It's 6am here, I've spent the last few hours trying to figure this out, to
> no avail. :/
>
> Thanks,
> Steve
>

Re: [shoes] Re: 1.8 or 1.9?

From:
Fela Winkelmolen
Date:
2010-07-01 @ 00:11
> My question still stands, but ashbb fixed my problem with extend. :)
> 
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 5:48 AM, Steve Klabnik 
<steve@steveklabnik.com>wrote:
> > Hey guys-
> > 
> > A few more details:
> > 
> > ... we are using Ruby 1.9 now, right? At least, the current HEAD of
> > shoes/shoes is?
> > 
> > I'm having an issue where hacketyhack crashes due to bind():
> > http://github.com/steveklabnik/hacketyhack/issues#issue/6
> > 
> > Apparently Object#extend doesn't function the same way it used to? Does
> > anyone have any good resources on this? My googling seems to have failed.
> > It's 6am here, I've spent the last few hours trying to figure this out,
> > to no avail. :/
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Steve

Hi!

I would appreciate it if somebody gives me some more info about this. As far 
as I've understood it, shoes has it's own interpreter, which is a fork of the 
official ruby. So that would be either a fork of 1.8 or of 1.9. But I'm not 
really sure... Steve guesses it's 1.9, but typing RUBY_VERSION in the HH 
console gives me "1.8.7", and using ruby-debug (the 1.8 version, not ruby-
debug19) works fine for me. So what about it?

Also I wonder what the exact reasons for shoes having it's own interpreter 
are, as it has quite some drawbacks, and it's good to know in what ways the 
interpreter differs from the "official" ruby.

Thank,

Ciao!

- Fela

Re: [shoes] Re: 1.8 or 1.9?

From:
Steve Klabnik
Date:
2010-07-01 @ 18:08
>
> As far

as I've understood it, shoes has it's own interpreter, which is a fork of
> the
> official ruby.


It's not a fork of Ruby, it's just a copy of it.


> So that would be either a fork of 1.8 or of 1.9. But I'm not
> really sure... Steve guesses it's 1.9,


The current HEAD uses ruby-1.9.1-p378.


> but typing RUBY_VERSION in the HH
> console gives me "1.8.7", and using ruby-debug (the 1.8 version, not ruby-

debug19) works fine for me. So what about it?
>

That is... strange. To say the least. How did you originally compile Shoes?
Or did you download a binary?


> Also I wonder what the exact reasons for shoes having it's own interpreter
> are, as it has quite some drawbacks, and it's good to know in what ways the
> interpreter differs from the "official" ruby.
>

The closest thing we have to _why explaining it directly is this:
http://wiki.github.com/shoes/shoes/clearing-up-the-whole-shoes-and-rubygems-deal

Personally,  I agree with what Cecil says here:

The reason is related to the target audience which is non developers
> or beginners who don't want to install all the development tools, libraries,
> gems and such to get a full blown Ruby. When the packaging system and the
> download website are in sync. Developers can write little GUI scripts and
> not have to worry if there is a full blown properly setup Ruby installed by
> a knowledgeable system admin.


This is the same reason that Bundler is being used for the next version of
Rails. When you're distributing an application, relying on system-dependant
stuff can be a nightmare... the current setup of Shoes gives us a bubble in
which to make sure that everything works, and works correctly.

Cecil...

1.9.1/Policeman is not, last I looked, the "official"


I remember having some big discussion about it, but I don't remember why we
considered not switching to 1.9.... wasn't it something to do with
binject.c? Or something? In any case, I have it working on Snow Leopard, and
Ash has it working on Windows... so I wouldn't mind seeing 1.9 christened as
the 'official' choice.

Re: [shoes] Re: 1.8 or 1.9?

From:
Cecil Coupe
Date:
2010-07-02 @ 01:46
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 14:08 -0400, Steve Klabnik wrote:

> 
> Cecil...
> 
> 
>         1.9.1/Policeman is not, last I looked, the "official"
> 
> 
> I remember having some big discussion about it, but I don't remember
> why we considered not switching to 1.9.... wasn't it something to do
> with binject.c? Or something? In any case, I have it working on Snow
> Leopard, and Ash has it working on Windows... so I wouldn't mind
> seeing 1.9 christened as the 'official' choice.

If there was an OSX policemen-novideo binary at the website and a
Linux-novideo policeman binary at the website, then the packager would
work. And Policeman (using Ruby 1.9.1) would be effectively released and
working. We should probably remove the 'with-video' choice in pack.rb
until someone sorts out the VLC issues. 

Unless someone is using the Shoes sqlite bundled gem and can verify it
works with 1.9.1, I'd vote to leave it out of Policeman. I suspect it's
a old version of sqlite with known 1.9.1 issues. Note that I said
'suspect'.

Re: [shoes] Re: 1.8 or 1.9?

From:
Steve Klabnik
Date:
2010-07-02 @ 14:15
>
> If there was an OSX policemen-novideo binary at the website and a
> Linux-novideo policeman binary at the website, then the packager would
> work. And Policeman (using Ruby 1.9.1) would be effectively released and
> working. We should probably remove the 'with-video' choice in pack.rb
> until someone sorts out the VLC issues.
>

That would be okay with me. I couldn't even get VLC to build on Snow
Leopard...


> Unless someone is using the Shoes sqlite bundled gem and can verify it
> works with 1.9.1, I'd vote to leave it out of Policeman. I suspect it's
> a old version of sqlite with known 1.9.1 issues. Note that I said
> 'suspect'.
>

I haven't, but maybe we could just update the gem rather than kill it? I'll
end up using sqlite for Hackety, and I think it'd be really useful for many
Shoes apps.

Re: [shoes] Re: 1.8 or 1.9?

From:
ashbb
Date:
2010-07-02 @ 15:55
Cecil, Steve et al,

The latest build (0.r1462) includes sqlite3-ruby 1.2.5:
http://rubyforge.org/frs/?group_id=254&release_id=43811

Yeah, it's not latest but not so old...

> a old version of sqlite with known 1.9.1 issues
Oh, I didn't know that. Do we have to update to 1.3.0?

> Unless someone is using the Shoes sqlite bundled gem....
> I'd vote to leave it out of Policeman.
Shoes uses sqlite3 for caching image files.
So, I think it's difficult to rewrite the code without sqlite3.

I've not read the code around sqlite3 in detail, though. :-P

ashbb

Re: [shoes] Re: 1.8 or 1.9?

From:
Steve Klabnik
Date:
2010-07-02 @ 16:13
What about video, ashbb? Does that work on Windows?

Re: [shoes] Re: 1.8 or 1.9?

From:
ashbb
Date:
2010-07-03 @ 00:18
Video doesn't work on Policeman (Ruby 1.9) for Windows so far.
_why said that there would be a lot of work for video support with Ruby 1.9.

I've never tried to do anything about video....

ashbb

Re: [shoes] Re: 1.8 or 1.9?

From:
Steve Klabnik
Date:
2010-07-03 @ 18:57
>
> Video doesn't work on Policeman (Ruby 1.9) for Windows so far.
> _why said that there would be a lot of work for video support with Ruby
> 1.9.
>
> I've never tried to do anything about video....


Ah, I see.

The other issue is that 1.9.2 will be out in August:
http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2010/07/02/ruby-1-9-2-rc1-is-released/

It fixes some threading issues that were pretty serious in 1.9.1. So maybe
we should even shoot for that? I hate to keep moving stuff forward, but if
we're going to use 1.9 for sure, then it would seem to make sense...

Re: [shoes] Re: 1.8 or 1.9?

From:
Cecil Coupe
Date:
2010-07-04 @ 02:54
On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 14:57 -0400, Steve Klabnik wrote:
> The other issue is that 1.9.2 will be out in August:
> http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2010/07/02/ruby-1-9-2-rc1-is-released/ 
> 
> It fixes some threading issues that were pretty serious in 1.9.1. So
> maybe we should even shoot for that? I hate to keep moving stuff
> forward, but if we're going to use 1.9 for sure, then it would seem to
> make sense...  

With all due respect to the cutting edge developers on the list, it will
be months, perhaps many, many months after the 1.9.2 release for the
linux distributions include it (or Apple or the macports folks) and the
Windows packagers get to it. Not to mention the months (years?) for the
gem developers to adopt 1.9.2. 

If Shoes(Policeman) works with 1.9.1, without major errors on all three
platforms, release it ASAP (without video/VLC) and deal with any bugs as
they get found and reported. Or release with 1.8.7 (with video). Let's
not move the fricking goal posts one more time or we'll never get
there. 

Then we can consider what features should be in the release after
Policeman, after a long discussion of what to name it, of course.

Just MHO,
--Cecil

Re: [shoes] Re: 1.8 or 1.9?

From:
ashbb
Date:
2010-07-04 @ 03:51
I'd like to release new Shoes on WhyDay (Aug 19).
http://whyday.org/

This year (2010): Shoes 3 - Ruby 1.9.1 without video
Next year (2011): Shoes 4 - Ruby 1.9.2 with video

ashbb

ps. A question to Cecil.
    Does video work on Policeman (with 1.8.7) for Linux?
    I've never attemted on Windows.

Re: [shoes] Re: 1.8 or 1.9?

From:
Cecil Coupe
Date:
2010-07-04 @ 04:46
On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 12:51 +0900, ashbb wrote:
> I'd like to release new Shoes on WhyDay (Aug 19).
> http://whyday.org/

_why not? 
> 
> This year (2010): Shoes 3 - Ruby 1.9.1 without video
> Next year (2011): Shoes 4 - Ruby 1.9.2 with video

That seems like a reasonable goal (but see below), if 1.9.2 gets some
embedding API documentation.
> 
> ashbb
> 
> ps. A question to Cecil.
>     Does video work on Policeman (with 1.8.7) for Linux?
>     I've never attemted on Windows.
There is a fragility in the video force. It used to work in
raisins/1,8.7 but a Linux or two upgrade later and the shared libraries
that aren't included in Shoes changed. Shoes doesn't contain VLC/ffmpeg
versions of it's own (for good reasons). Linux doesn't have a dependable
API for audio or video to hook into. Bloopsaphone doesn't work for me
because it uses ancient sound drivers that exist but only in for
compiling. in some linux. It's even worse when you deal with Adobe Flash
which just barely works and never for very long. 

Re: [shoes] Re: 1.8 or 1.9?

From:
Steve Klabnik
Date:
2010-07-04 @ 04:48
>
> I'd like to release new Shoes on WhyDay (Aug 19).
> http://whyday.org/
>

Absolutely. I'm shooting for Hackety 1.0 at the same time. It'd be awesome.


> This year (2010): Shoes 3 - Ruby 1.9.1 without video
> Next year (2011): Shoes 4 - Ruby 1.9.2 with video


Sounds good to me. Let's call that official.

Re: [shoes] Re: 1.8 or 1.9?

From:
Devyn Cairns
Date:
2010-07-04 @ 05:02
Okay, so, we're going to need some publicity for this to be successful.

On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Steve Klabnik <steve@steveklabnik.com>wrote:

> I'd like to release new Shoes on WhyDay (Aug 19).
>> http://whyday.org/
>>
>
> Absolutely. I'm shooting for Hackety 1.0 at the same time. It'd be awesome.
>
>
>> This year (2010): Shoes 3 - Ruby 1.9.1 without video
>> Next year (2011): Shoes 4 - Ruby 1.9.2 with video
>
>
> Sounds good to me. Let's call that official.
>



-- 
   ~devyn

Re: [shoes] Re: 1.8 or 1.9?

From:
Cecil Coupe
Date:
2010-07-04 @ 06:27
On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 22:02 -0700, Devyn Cairns wrote:
> Okay, so, we're going to need some publicity for this to be
> successful.

Respectfully, we need coders, aka doers, a viable open source community
that lives past the release date.  Not that there is anything wrong with
publicity but there better be something there,

Re: [shoes] Re: 1.8 or 1.9?

From:
Devyn Cairns
Date:
2010-07-04 @ 07:19
true ;] ah, if only I had more Shoes-time.

I'm still webadmin though, so, if anything needs changing there, I'm the
guy.

On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Cecil Coupe <ccoupe@cableone.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 22:02 -0700, Devyn Cairns wrote:
> > Okay, so, we're going to need some publicity for this to be
> > successful.
>
> Respectfully, we need coders, aka doers, a viable open source community
> that lives past the release date.  Not that there is anything wrong with
> publicity but there better be something there,
>
>
>


-- 
   ~devyn

Re: [shoes] Re: 1.8 or 1.9?

From:
Steve Klabnik
Date:
2010-07-04 @ 05:03
Already been thinking about it.

I can drum up enough publicity when we're sure we're actually going to be
ready.

Re: [shoes] Re: 1.8 or 1.9?

From:
Devyn Cairns
Date:
2010-07-04 @ 05:04
Cool. Let's do this, guys!

On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Steve Klabnik <steve@steveklabnik.com>wrote:

> Already been thinking about it.
>
> I can drum up enough publicity when we're sure we're actually going to be
> ready.
>



-- 
   ~devyn

Re: [shoes] Re: 1.8 or 1.9?

From:
Cecil Coupe
Date:
2010-07-03 @ 00:49
I briefly looked into it. The VLC api changed in later versions of the
library and then theres the lurking threading issues to be discovered.

On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 09:18 +0900, ashbb wrote:
> Video doesn't work on Policeman (Ruby 1.9) for Windows so far.
> _why said that there would be a lot of work for video support with
> Ruby 1.9.
> 
> I've never tried to do anything about video....
> 
> ashbb

Re: [shoes] Re: 1.8 or 1.9?

From:
Cecil Coupe
Date:
2010-07-03 @ 02:08
Clearly, we need to test the sqlite that we have in Ruby 1.9.1 and see
if it works. There are blogsphere hints that 1.9.1/UTF-8 handling
requires a later version of sqlite and/or the rubygem that is builtin to
shoes.  

If someone wrote a quick shoes script to create, populate, and retrieve
from the db. I personally hate SQL and I'm busy trying to get up to
speed on git and github so I won't write it any time soon. 

--Cecil

On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 00:55 +0900, ashbb wrote:
> Cecil, Steve et al,
> 
> The latest build (0.r1462) includes sqlite3-ruby 1.2.5:
> http://rubyforge.org/frs/?group_id=254&release_id=43811
> 
> Yeah, it's not latest but not so old...
> 
> > a old version of sqlite with known 1.9.1 issues
> Oh, I didn't know that. Do we have to update to 1.3.0?
> 
> > Unless someone is using the Shoes sqlite bundled gem....
> > I'd vote to leave it out of Policeman.
> Shoes uses sqlite3 for caching image files.
> So, I think it's difficult to rewrite the code without sqlite3.
> 
> I've not read the code around sqlite3 in detail, though. :-P
> 
> ashbb
> 

Re: [shoes] Re: 1.8 or 1.9?

From:
ashbb
Date:
2010-07-03 @ 02:25
I have a tiny snippet on my Shoes Tutorial Note.
Look at this:

http://shoes-tutorial-note.heroku.com/html/00541_Shoes_comes_with_sqlite3_ruby.html

I confirmed it worked with Shoes-0.r1462 for Windows.

This snippet doesn't confirm UTF-8 handling, though...

ashbb

Re: [shoes] Re: 1.8 or 1.9?

From:
Cecil Coupe
Date:
2010-07-03 @ 03:04
I updated that script with some UTF-8 (see attachment). Works fine for
me. The accented characters came from this post
http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/11/29/Telex-Digraph-Mappings for
comparison.

Perhaps I lead us astray with web rumor, my apologies. The script could
be modified to test all the sql/ruby data types and then be part of the
samples.  


On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 11:25 +0900, ashbb wrote:
> I have a tiny snippet on my Shoes Tutorial Note.
> Look at this:
> 
http://shoes-tutorial-note.heroku.com/html/00541_Shoes_comes_with_sqlite3_ruby.html
> 
> I confirmed it worked with Shoes-0.r1462 for Windows.
> 
> This snippet doesn't confirm UTF-8 handling, though...
> 
> ashbb
> 

Re: [shoes] Re: 1.8 or 1.9?

From:
Cecil Coupe
Date:
2010-07-01 @ 02:40
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 02:11 +0200, Fela Winkelmolen wrote:
> I would appreciate it if somebody gives me some more info about this.
> As far 
> as I've understood it, shoes has it's own interpreter, which is a fork
> of the 
> official ruby. So that would be either a fork of 1.8 or of 1.9. But
> I'm not 
> really sure... Steve guesses it's 1.9, but typing RUBY_VERSION in the
> HH 
> console gives me "1.8.7", and using ruby-debug (the 1.8 version, not
> ruby-
> debug19) works fine for me. So what about it?

The ruby version is the one in the Shoes you downloaded. 1.8.7. At the
moment there are many of use that have a version of shoes that runs in
1.9.1 that we downloaded from somewhere or built from source.
1.9.1/Policeman is not, last I looked, the "official" 
> 
> Also I wonder what the exact reasons for shoes having it's own
> interpreter 
> are, as it has quite some drawbacks, and it's good to know in what
> ways the 
> interpreter differs from the "official" ruby.

The differences from standard ruby can be very important for developers.
For example, Shoe's gems are different from the gems on an installed
ruby system. That confuses a lot of developers if they need a gem that
needs to be compiled in order to install.  Some gems are built in to
shoes. Others need special handling for the shoes script writer. Think
of shoes (and hackety) as a languages that only **looks** like Ruby. The
wiki has some articles about the differences. 

The reason is related to the target audience which is non developers or
beginners who don't want to install all the development tools,
libraries, gems and such to get a full blown Ruby. When the packaging
system and the download website are in sync. Developers can write little
GUI scripts and not have to worry if there is a full blown properly
setup Ruby installed by a knowledgeable system admin.  

The Raisins packager can fail. Actually, It will 100% fail for certain
settings. Policeman is almost ready for prime time testing. [Note to
self, I need to clone and test in Ubuntu].


Re: [shoes] Re: 1.8 or 1.9?

From:
ashbb
Date:
2010-07-01 @ 14:37
Hi Fela and Cecil,

Ah,.. what does `official` mean? ;-)

I've downloaded ruby-1.9.1-p378.tar.gz from official Ruby site:
http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/downloads/

And built from source and built Shoes with that.

Look at Rakefile line 149:
http://github.com/ashbb/shoes/blob/master/Rakefile#L149

Just copy all files from "#{ext_ruby}/lib/ruby/#{ruby_v}" to
"dist/ruby/lib".

So, I think it's not so bad to say `Shoes includes official Ruby
interpreter`. No? ;-)

Cheers,
ashbb

Re: [shoes] Re: 1.8 or 1.9?

From:
Fela Winkelmolen
Date:
2010-07-01 @ 19:19
> Hi Fela and Cecil,
> 
> Ah,.. what does `official` mean? ;-)
> 
> I've downloaded ruby-1.9.1-p378.tar.gz from official Ruby site:
> http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/downloads/
> 
> And built from source and built Shoes with that.
> 
> Look at Rakefile line 149:
> http://github.com/ashbb/shoes/blob/master/Rakefile#L149
> 
> Just copy all files from "#{ext_ruby}/lib/ruby/#{ruby_v}" to
> "dist/ruby/lib".
> 
> So, I think it's not so bad to say `Shoes includes official Ruby
> interpreter`. No? ;-)
> 
> Cheers,
> ashbb

Okay, so if I understand it correctly a copy of currently installed ruby gets 
packaged with shoes when build? That would explain why my shoes seems to be 
using 1.8. I think I tried to build with 1.9.1 but then shoes would SEGFAULT 
on start, that being the reason I fell back to 1.8.7. I will try again soon..

What I mean by drawbacks when using shoes is that for example it might be hard 
or impossible to run and debug a shoes app in an IDE, because it doesn't know 
about shoes. I understand the fact that having a selfcontained environment is 
usefull in a lot of cases, but I'm just wondering if there isn't a way to use 
shoes in a more conventional way and still be able to build selfcontained apps 
and also have a selfcontained shoes package.

Maybe it would be an idea to at a certain point separate shoes in two:
- shoes graphical library, a conventional gem
- shoes the environment, includes the library, basically what we have now..

Just sharing my thoughts..

Cheers,

- Fela 

Re: [shoes] Re: 1.8 or 1.9?

From:
Cecil Coupe
Date:
2010-07-01 @ 19:38
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 21:19 +0200, Fela Winkelmolen wrote:
> Okay, so if I understand it correctly a copy of currently installed
> ruby gets 
> packaged with shoes when build? That would explain why my shoes seems
> to be 
> using 1.8. I think I tried to build with 1.9.1 but then shoes would
> SEGFAULT 
> on start, that being the reason I fell back to 1.8.7. I will try again
> soon..

The segfault should be corrected in the latest source code. 
> 
> What I mean by drawbacks when using shoes is that for example it might
> be hard 
> or impossible to run and debug a shoes app in an IDE, because it
> doesn't know 
> about shoes. I understand the fact that having a selfcontained
> environment is 
> usefull in a lot of cases, but I'm just wondering if there isn't a way
> to use 
> shoes in a more conventional way and still be able to build
> selfcontained apps 
> and also have a selfcontained shoes package.
> 
> Maybe it would be an idea to at a certain point separate shoes in two:
> - shoes graphical library, a conventional gem
> - shoes the environment, includes the library, basically what we have
> now..

I once had the same thought until I looked at the code. A huge effort
would be involved. It might be easier to to port the shoes 'language' to
WxRuby - also not a simple task.
> 
>