On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 22:15:47 +0900, Benedikt Huber <benjovi / gmx.net> wrote:
> 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.
How about PreRuby? [1] :-)

Winking to welcome everyone-ly yours,
Michael

[1]  "The PreScheme compiler makes use of type inference, partial
evaluation and Scheme and Lisp compiler technology to compile the
problematic features of Scheme, such as closures, into C code without
significant run-time overhead."