On Feb 8, 2009, at 03:40 , Dylan Evans wrote:

> It seems to me that would be pointless, since it would require another
> interpreter to function. Of course the other alternative would be to  
> write a
> ruby compiler which would be awkward in a dynamic language. Of  
> course if it
> wasn't actually compiled then you would have the overhead of  
> interpreting a
> stack of ruby. Why would you want a ruby interpreter written in ruby?

smalltalk (squeak, at the very least), many lisps/schemes, factor,  
every language designed by wirth... yeah. must be pointless. :P