> Ya, that's why a Ruby interpreter could never be developed in a language
> like C, right?  ^,^

I said "very good". Have you read the CLR article ?

> Not necessarily.  So long as Ruby compiles and runs in .NET, it serves
> the major purpose.  Attributes would only be needed to deal with .NET
> extension libraries.

Whats the purpose of compiling Ruby to .NET and then not use .NET
libraries ? I can't see one. 

> 
> Well, Ruby in .NET Framework would still be faster than normal Ruby,
> because it will be run thru a JIT... granted, the methods necessary to
> make Ruby work with .NET would make it still slower than straight C, I'd
> imagine it'd be a lot faster than just the Ruby interpreter as it stands
> now.
> 

We will see that. My opinion, and the opinion of the CLR article writer
is that a Ruby JIT (not the Ruby interpreter) would be faster than the
CLR.

> 
> Ya, a Parrot backend would be great for Ruby.  But that's no reason to
> not even bother with .NET.

Yeah. If you have enougth time for both, go for both. But 50% ports of
Ruby to Parrot and .NET are not as good as a 100% port to Parrot imho.

bye
-stephan