Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> It's important not to think of JRuby in terms of Java, especially if 
> you're a Rubyist or someone who dislikes Java. JRuby is Ruby, just on 
> another VM and implemented under the covers in a different language. 
> Don't equate JRuby and Java.
 > ...
> The motivations for JRuby go well beyond those for a SmallRuby, largely 
> because not only could it potentially be a "better Ruby" in some ways, 
> but it would be a Ruby that could leverage the entire Java platform, now 
> GPL and freely available. So there's two ways to think about JRuby: as 
> an alternative implementation of Ruby and as an alternative language for 
> the Java platform.
But you just told him not to think of the second, a paragraph earlier! 
Sure, there are valid motivations for JRuby (duh), but does your 
motivation inequality apply equally to M. Dober, professed Java-disliker?

> It's also very important to remember that the technologies in Strongtalk 
> and Self live on in HotSpot; so it's not far off to say that Smalltalk 
> technology is in play today to make Java run faster. If we can find good 
> ways to leverage that technology from JRuby (and other dynlang impls) we 
> may achieve what Parrot is still working on: a world-class VM for many 
> dynamic languages.
I think what the smalltalkers are arguing is that it'd be much easier to 
leverage those fun things in a Ruby-Smalltalk implementation, because 
the two languages have much more in common than do Ruby and Java. Mind 
you, I'm relatively clueless in all things language-implementation, so 
consider me a messenger. Well, a curious messenger.

Devin
... who, by the way, isn't knocking JRuby on any account.