I think it might be actually quite interesting for the original poster =
to take some of FONC's work such as OMeta, and then the Rubinius =
project... and use it to build Ruby in OMeta, which could then be used =
quite easily to plug this Ruby implementation in OMeta into the =
JavaScript implementation OMeta which is already existing...

For an example of SmallTalk already written in OMeta/JS (ie SmallTalk =
running inside Javascript, through OMeta), please see:

http://tinlizzie.org/ometa/ometa-js-old/

Given that JavaScript is pretty much the *only* fully realised =
cross-browser cross-platform implemented programming language that we =
have available to us (ie guaranteed to be on EVERY machine for the last =
10 years), and also given that so much work is continually put into =
making these interpreters fast and small, I think writing things on top =
of JavaScript is a brilliant idea.

The other interesting thing about targeting OMeta as an implementation =
language for a VM in Ruby, while incredibly technically challenging, is =
that it would be infinitely rewarding, as there are versions of OMeta =
written in most common programming languages already (which means the =
target language base of the Ruby implementation in OMeta would grow =
without any additional effort on the part of the programmers)... people =
are writing OMeta implementations in various languages, and there are =
already ones written in:

OMeta itself, C#, SmallTalk, Scheme, Lisp, Python and Ruby (I'm fairly =
sure there are some written in id.st (or Cola, whatever you want to call =
it) as well ;-))

Just my two cents.

"You are now able to program any browser in the world with any language =
you want"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DYEx4jfdFp1k

Julian.

----------------------------------------------
Buy my new album! 16 Sep 2010:
http://itunes.apple.com/au/album/erste-zeit/id393326346







On 08/04/2011, at 12:01 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 05:37:49AM +0900, Peter Zotov wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 01:48:58 +0900, Chad Perrin wrote:
>>>=20
>>> I don't see any license listed.  Did I overlook it?
>>=20
>> The Ruby license, of course. It is implicit.
>> (Indeed, I just forgot to add it to git. Fixed already.)
>=20
> I haven't looked closely enough to know which way this goes, but one =
of
> two sets of conditions are likely to apply here:
>=20
> 1. It's "implicit" because it incorporates Ruby Licensed code in a way
> that requires the Ruby License to be applied to the whole project.  In
> this case, you violate the terms of the license if you do not include =
the
> license text with the code.
>=20
> 2. It's not "implicit", and needs license notification.
>=20
> I'm not a lawyer, but I spend a lot of time trying to avoid giving
> lawyers reason to contact me with bad news.
>=20
> --=20
> Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]