| > JRuby as a gateway drug to the Land of Ruby; _could_ end up being VM winner too. I don't get the "could". JRuby is among the fastest, gives you access to a massive amount of OSS and infrastructure, and fixes Ruby's threading. It's done these for years at this point. In my mind the question is more along the lines of "why should I use anything _but_ JRuby on a new project?". It's blasphemy I'm sure, but I just don't see the point in C-Ruby for new development at this point. It's legacy. JRuby, as the last-man-standing among the major Ruby VM implementations now that IronRuby is dead and everything else is vapor (Maglev) or niche (MacRuby) is the default modern Ruby implementation to my mind. So let's assume Rubinius is great, and the GIL is clearly a major step forward. Is EngineYard's intent really to supplant YARV with Rubinius? Because that sounds great to me. I've never seen EY say that though (they might have and I just missed it). If that's the vision, I'd rather see them come out and say it. Having developers guess, and having any ambiguity at all around the future of these projects and the messaging surrounding them doesn't inspire confidence. |
Native c/c++ ruby isn't legacy in everyone's environments, just perhaps yours. Why does EngineYard need to justify both implementations? I don't use JRuby at all outside of occasional curiosity. But I'm also not calling it useless in the same way you're basically attacking any non JRuby ruby implementation, which apparently includes MRI. Which is arguably the "default" implementation. Language implementations aren't a zero sum game. Work on one doesn't mean we can't have another. I don't see the Python people complaining about PyPy and vice-versa, they both serve their purposes.
Anyway off to bed.