

Ideas for Improving Ruby During Google Summer of Code 2015 - MrBra
https://github.com/rubygsoc/rubygsoc/wiki/Ideas-List

======
tinco
In a recent talk in Amsterdam Koichi said that Matz has very high ambitions
for Ruby 3. They will focus on concurrency and it is expected that the
concurrency interface might dramatically change.

With that in mind I'd say that removing the GIL is a rather useless effort. It
would probably not do much for performance and most likely result in many very
buggy releases of Ruby possibly tarnishing its reputation for reliability.

Imagine instead if Ruby 3 had an actor system like celluloid integrated to the
core, and it would require any globally defined objects (I.e. most classes and
modules) to be actors. (Perhaps by making the default class parent be
ActorObject, instead of Object or something) That would in one fell swoop deal
with concurrency, while retaining the clean feel of Ruby.

~~~
ksec
I read Ruby 3.0 is coming in earlier then expected. Likely with concurrency,
some sort of types, JIT or AOT for easier deployment.

But Just when should we expect Ruby 3.0? 2020?

------
asb
While we're sharing GSoC project ideas, I'd like to highlight the list we have
at lowRISC - covering a wide range of languages and just about every part of
the hardware/software stack.
[http://www.lowrisc.org/docs/gsoc-2015-ideas/](http://www.lowrisc.org/docs/gsoc-2015-ideas/)

------
namidark
Is it just me or is it odd that Sidekiq is in there when it has a corporate
side to it?

------
unknownian
>MRI executes Ruby via an interpreted stack-machine bytecode language known as
YARV

On Wikipedia: >Since YARV has become the official Ruby interpreter for Ruby
1.9, it is also named KRI (Koichi's Ruby Interpreter), in the same vein as the
original Ruby MRI, named for Ruby's creator Yukihiro Matsumoto.

So is one of them wrong? I'm confused.

~~~
krylon
AFAIK, technically, ruby 1.9 and later are no longer MRI, but KRI. So, yeah, I
would say that technically speaking, refererring to current versions of ruby
as "MRI" is not terribly correct.

On the other hand, to tell the "default" ruby apart from jruby and rubinius,
one might still refer to it as "MRI". Also, Robert Metcalfe once said
something to the effect that "Ethernet cannot die - if something comes along
to replace it, it will just be called Ethernet" or something along those
lines. Maybe something similar is at work here? (Sloppiness is more likely,
though.)

~~~
tinco
I am not 100% sure, but wasn't KRI a fork of MRI that at some point simply was
merged? It would be a bit strange if the whole interpreter would be called KRI
when most code was still written by Matz. Though Ko1 is the main developer
currently Matz is still the visionary and decision maker.

~~~
riffraff
you are correct. A lot of the code is still the same from the original (1.8)
matz' interpreter.

