Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- > Why? Because I can.
Always the best reason.
by jsrcout - I find I have to specify this for some of these projects, because rewriting basic stuff like this often has a lot of people asking what the point is...
But I love small rewrites (this is <3k lines of code for the terminal itself; the font renderer is 600-700 lines or so; the X11 bindings a bit larger) as a means to explore what is really actually needed for the things I do...
by vidarh - I just connected the dots. You're the guy who constructed a direct Ruby-to-assembly compiler some time ago, right?by kunley
- Yeah, it's languished for years. I did a stint last autumn to get it to start passing more of Rubyspec, but haven't had time to take it further.
github.com/vidarh/writing-a-compiler-in-ruby
It's self-hosting apart from the GC (which is a sore spot - I really want to rewrite the GC in Ruby too), glibc for a handful of functions and syscalls, and using gas/ld to assemble and link.
by vidarh - by a96
- Languages evolve. Nobody I know goes around bothering saying "terminal emulator". The last time I touched an X terminal was 30 years ago - I have no intention of bothering with the distinction.by vidarh
- > This shows Rubyterm running on my Ruby based WM, running Rubyterm with a text-based-backend that renders a a terminal to text (so it can run in any terminal), running my editor Re editing the Rubyterm example. The text is rendered using the pure-Ruby TrueType font renderer Skrift, and connected to my X11 server using the Pure-X11 Ruby X11 bindings
Cool
- Thanks. I just re-targeted my editor to use this code to render using the text-based-backend or optionally using the X11 backend, so now I can layer the same renderer even more times...by vidarh