On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 03:36:38AM +0900, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> Ya, well, still - the point is, it's possible, whereas in Ruby (assuming
> no C extensions, which is similar to assuming a C program doesn't
> include kernel extensions) you are forced to play by the rules Ruby lays
> down.  You can't, or shouldn't be able to, play dirty tricks on the
> interpreter.
> 
> With C/C++, assuming I know what compiler/OS the code will be compiled
> on, I can very easily figure out what the byte locations will be, and
> access those; even using some funky type-casting if I have to (depending
> on compiler).

The difference is that a C extension for Ruby has well-defined behavior.
Bypassing the C++ compiler does not.

This is not a drawback for Ruby.  It means that Ruby is more flexible
than C++.

Paul