On 10/7/11 2:24 PM, Steve Klabnik wrote:
>> If performance weren't affected at all, what would you think about
>> refinements? Would the concern about proliferation of core class
>> modifications be enough to be against the change? (I'm asking because I'm
>> curious to know, I'm not trying to make a point here!)
>
> Yep. I think it's a bad feature in general, the performance thing is
> just an additional great reason not to put it in the language.
>

I'm hoping that Ruby will actually become smaller language with simpler 
and more consistent semantics, while keeping an eye on making a language 
extension a 1st-class feature.

Simplify core semantics and create a smaller language to create new, 
more powerful languages out of smaller, simpler building blocks. 
Perhaps this is what MRuby is/can be?

For example: small, simple language features, like AnonSymbols/AnonMethods:

  * are easy to understand.
  * are easy to use or *not* use.
  * do not change established core semantics/syntax, very much.
  * are generalizations of current and established semantics/syntax.
  * can be used to create more complex behaviors.
  * don't have a performance cost when *not* used.
  * don't have a major performance cost *when* used.
  * are easy to implement efficiently (in both interpreters and compilers).

Can refinements be written in pure Ruby?

-- KAS