On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 20:40:39 +0900, Alexander Kellett wrote:

> On Feb 2, 2005, at 12:00 PM, Benedikt Huber wrote:
>> I guess the name Ruby2C and its goals are not well choosen...
> for making it *much* easier for ruby coders to write fast extension
> modules without forcing them to code c :)
I understood this point. So RubyC would be a better name (i.e. a high
level description language for C with automatic type inference). If
this is the _main_ goal, i can see some benefits. Also, you would
have to supply some low-level IO mechanism if you want to write e.g.
hardware related extensions. 

>> In Smalltalk, altough most things are written in Smalltalk itself, they
>> rely on a VM, which is able to interpret all kinds of smalltalk code. I
>> think this approach, which maybe YARV may realize, is much more
>> appropriate for a dynamic language like ruby.
> 
> maybe the paragraph is just confusing me :), but just in case, the
> smalltalk vm doesn't directly execute smalltalk but instead a fairly low
> level (though certainly not processor level) bytecode, the smalltalk
> execution still requires compilation. much as with yarv.
I apologize. I was talking about Smalltalk bytecode - but bytecode can do
the same things as sourcecode (if you have a compiler, of course).