On Jun 19, 11:47 am, MenTaLguY <men... / rydia.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 02:37:39 +0900, Daniel Berger <djber... / gmail.com> wrote:
> > Maybe we should just rewrite the interpreter in C++ then. Think of all
> > the STL and Boost stuff we could then integrate "for free". I can only
> > guess what other advantages this might bring in the long run.
>
> It should be nearly sufficient to replace the setjmp/longjump bits
> with C++ exceptions and build the interpreter with a C++ compiler.
>
> However, that just exchanges one problem for another since the bulk of Ruby
> extensions are written in C, and embedding Ruby becomes even more
> difficult.

I'd make that trade. The potential benefits far exceed the pain of
reworking extensions IMHO, especially when you consider that *most*
people using Ruby don't do embedding or extending.

And this is coming from a guy who has written quite a few extensions.

Regards,

Dan