In article <01053009034601.01775 / daibutsu.enabledtechnology.com>,
Glen Starchman <glen / enabledventures.com> wrote:
>
>After doing some digging and (re) discovering Smalltalk, it seems to me
>that one option for creating a JVM version of Ruby might be greatly
>simplified. Turns out that the vast majority of Ruby functionality can
>be duplicated in Smalltalk. Obviously the syntax is radically
>different, but a smart parser should be able to transate Ruby to
>Smalltalk, and then use a Smalltalk to JVM compiler. 

I've recently joined this list, so please forgive me if I've missed
something which has been hashed out before, but it's hard for me to
see how Ruby can fit into how a JVM treats classes.  In a JVM, classes
are static entities, once they are loaded their definitions cannot be
changed.  But Ruby permits continual modifications to the definition
of a class which affect even previously existing object of that class.
How could this limitation in the JVM be dealt with?

--Mirian