Well in the Squeak-case, the developers started out in smalltalk, writing a 
smalltalk2c-converter and implemented 16 rewriting-rules that made everything 
work...
then they extended it until it just ran on it's own and could be dispatched 
from everything else, continuing to let smalltalk write its own 
implementation.

there are two projects in ruby atm that are trying to achieve that atm, one 
being metaruby, the other one is RubyToC (main-developer is zenspider afaik - 
and it's the thing that makes the obfuscator tick that you might have just 
heard of some days ago on this mailinglist.)

so, given that we already can translate most of ruby to C, what is stopping 
us?
sure, ruby will be painfully slow as an OS - squeak is not the fastest thing 
on earth too, but they have a lot more optimization than i think is possible 
with a system like ruby (i'm ready to get proven wrong on that)

just some thoughts from me :)

more infos about how they went about writing this whole squeak-thing are here:
http://users.ipa.net/~dwighth/squeak/oopsla_squeak.html

~~~~manveru

On Wednesday 14 June 2006 04:00, Son SonOfLilit wrote:
> 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

-- 
Bachelors' wives and old maids' children are always perfect.
		-- Nicolas Chamfort