Paul Brannan wrote:
> It uses a bytecode representation internally, but doesn't currently
> write the bytecode to disk like python does.
> 
> The VM::InstructionSequence class gives some access to the bytecode.
> You can get the individual elements of the sequence by calling #to_a.
> 
> There is support in Nodewrap for saving/restoring instruction sequences,
> but needs to be updated for the latest 1.9.
> 
> Paul

Thanks for the reply.  There would be some startup-time savings if it 
just converted to bytecode once, saved it to disk, and then could be 
loaded straight from bytecode, right?  Does anyone know if that 
functionality is on the horizon? Of course there is a finite amount of 
time in a day for the developers to work on ruby, so I have no problem 
being patient.  I just think ruby may get more business backing if it 
can hide it's source code (for those who write closed-source software) 
and would also keep people from making a "quick change" to production 
code (ie introduce breakage to production code).

I would guess if it is already converting to bytecode internally than it 
is getting some runtime performance benefits from it, and that's where I 
personally would rather see the biggest speed improvements anyway.

James
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.