On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

>
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Erik BéČfors wrote:
>
> > My dream language is almost exactly like ruby but has the option of
> > compiling to jvm, the .Net vm and binary code as well.  I know this is
> > not really possible because some languages (like ruby) will be too
> > dynamic (especially for binary-code).
>
> Most likely (and as I said previously) it'll start off as an interpreter
> written in Java and/or C#.
>
> I maintain the following opinion: writing a good Ruby interpreter inside
> Ruby first, and Ruby in Java second, would be easier than just Ruby in
> Java; *and* results would be more incremental; *and* useful byproducts
> would come out of it.

That makes sense to me.  But it also raises the question (going back
to the matter of a Ruby standard): what *exactly* is a Ruby
interpreter, or an implementation of Ruby?  In the absence of some
kind of formal description, how does one know when such an
implementation is complete, and/or in conformity (and in conformity
with what)?


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack / candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav / shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav