Josh Charles <josh.charles / gmail.com> writes:

>> JC> Very interesting.  But you'll still need C ;)  I'm interested to know
>> JC> how this will effect performance, thoug.
>> 
>> No, you need C to implement a virtual machine, but not for the
>> language parser/bytecode compiler/runtime.
>> 
>> But i'm still convinced that ruby in ruby will got give us any real
>> benefits.
>
> My Point was that you still need to use C (a _strongly_ typed
> language) at some point, or else you can't do what you want to do.

How ironic. :-)  Did you ever look into the Ruby implementation?
With a proper, *strongly* typed language, it would look a lot different.

-- 
Christian Neukirchen  <chneukirchen / gmail.com>  http://chneukirchen.org