On Oct 4, 2011, at 16:45 , Eric Wong wrote:

> Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz / ruby-lang.org> wrote:
>> In message "Re: [ruby-core:39822] Re: 2.0 feature questionnaire"
>>    on Sun, 2 Oct 2011 15:45:29 +0900, Jeremy Kemper <jeremy / bitsweat.net=
> writes:
>> |3. MVM, with inter-vm message passing.
>>=20
>> I have not decided yet, but since MVM requires incompatible changes to
>> C API, so we might pend it to Ruby 3.0.
>=20
> What about focusing on DRb improvements instead of MVM?
>=20
> DRb works across machines (and processes), won't break current C APIs,
> and has fewer issues with non-thread-safe C libraries.
>=20
> MVM overhead is less on the same machine, of course.
>=20

That doesn't seem to count, since Thread overhead is less than MVM.=