gabriele renzi wrote: >il 19 May 2004 04:37:41 GMT, ptkwt / aracnet.com (Phil Tomson) ha >scritto:: > > > >>A Pithy quote: >> >>"Unfortunately, as I carried out my experiments I found the CLR to be a >>surprisingly good target for dynamic languages, or at least for the highly >>dynamic specific case of Python. This was unfortunate because it meant >>that instead of writing a short pithy paper I had to build a full Python >>implementation for this new platform to see if there would be any hidden >>traps along the way. " >> >> > >still, python uses less magic than ruby. >Just consider the enormous use of eval in any form, callcc, and proc >objects that we do. > > > I'm not very much into Python but I agree that it seems to have less magic which makes Ruby harder to compile for the CLR. >IIRC one of the students of robert feldt is working on a ruby .net >compiler and there is the rubydotnet bridge that works kinda good. > > > That is correct. He is finishing up a paper about it that we hope to make available in 1-2 weeks. The prototype compiler he built is not ready for public consumption but we hope to start an open-source project around it this summer. As you can imagine we are far from supporting callcc, in fact I think it is a hard one to support on the CLR without going through major hoops (actually we are far from supporting several things but you gotta start somewhere ;)). There are several scheme-for-clr compilers out there though and they seem to support a limited form of continuations so there might be at least a partial way forward there. Proc and eval we have high hopes of being able to solve although it is not in the prototype. Proc is the easiest and there are several possibilities for how to compile them (new class for each unique one or using delegates in CIL). Eval is hairier since the compiler itself needs to be in there for that but the dynamic update of methods seems doable so in principle it could work. I'm sure there are many problems we have yet to encounter though... ;) Regards, Robert