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.

That would be definitely an option.  I'd vote for Squeak as it comes
with full sources, even for the VM.  So you could even modify the VM
if that should be needed (probably for frozen objects).   The
semantics of Ruby and Smalltalk are very similar, so a lot of
internals of the Smalltalk system could be reused.  Especially reusing
the Squeak GC - which is quite good - would be a great time safer.

The disadvantage is that you can simply forget the compatibility to
the existing extension API.  The Smalltalk VM is a stand alone
application which is much more difficult to extend with C code.

>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. 

But... The latter doesn't really exist either.  There's bistro, but
that's more a Java with Smalltalk syntax and I know two companies who
tried to create a Smalltalk VM simulated on a JVM.

So my suggestion would be to use the Smalltalk VM to actually run
Ruby.

bye
-- 
Stefan Matthias Aust \/ Truth Until Paradox