------art_76181_6126697.1150225221470
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Indeed, I'm talking of a Squeak-alike... Or an Oberon-alike.

I just think Ruby would work much better for it.

On 6/13/06, Simen Edvardsen <toalett / gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/13/06, Dick Davies <rasputnik / gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 13/06/06, Son SonOfLilit <sonoflilit / gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Development time of apps for an OS who's native API is ruby dinamic
> objects
> > > would go drastically down.
> Apart from higher level of abstraction, the fact that it's all Ruby
> idioms, with no dependencies on C or other low level stuff. You could
> do that by simply changing extensions to be more Ruby-like, though.
> > > Such an OS would be naturally reflective, a feature that would make
> the
> > > world (and especially the business world) a far better and more
> productive
> > > place.
> >
> > I can't think of anything useful that would give you. Can you?
> >
> > Ruby is *interpreted*. A lot of it's beauty is a wrapper around system
> > calls. I can't begin to think what benefits a high-level dynamic
> language
> > gives you in kernel space
> > (where things like memory allocation can't be taken for granted).
> >
> > --
> > Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
> > http://number9.hellooperator.net/
> >
> >
> I think it sounds a lot like Squeak/SqueakNOS (standalone Squeak, with
> no external OS). I'm not going to try to sound like I know more than I
> do, but aren't those written in a Smalltalk subset and minimal custom
> C? Such systems are fun and productive, but I'm not sure whether it'll
> become practical anytime soon.
>
> --
> - Simen
>
>

------art_76181_6126697.1150225221470--