Hello,

At 21:30 20/04/2002 +0900, Stefan Matthias Aust wrote:
>"Sean Middleditch" <elanthis / awesomeplay.com> schrieb
>
> > Ruby does offer advantages, just not in the areas C# is strong.  For
> > example, it's been stated here before that RUby can't be JIT'd like C#
> > cn, for various reasons.
>
>I haven't seen those arguments, but I'm pretty sure that Ruby of course
>could be JIT'd (while that would be a little bit more difficult that a JIT
>for Java or C#).  Languages like Smalltalk or SELF are typically JIT'd and
>both could be used to efficiently implement Ruby.  So the statement should
>be, Ruby isn't JIT'd (at the moment).

I tend to think that Ruby and Smalltalk are very similar (at least at the 
language level). A JIT translator could translate Ruby into Smalltalk and 
then benefit from Smalltalk fast implementations. Unfortunately I don't 
think there is any efficient Smalltalk implementation in open source... 
However I think there is at least one basic GNU implementation. Maybe the 
VM can be reused ?

Yours,

Jean-Hugues



>bye
>--
>Stefan Matthias Aust   //
>www.3plus4software.de // Inter Deum Et Diabolum Semper Musica Est

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Web:  http://hdl.handle.net/1030.37/1.1
Phone: +33 (0) 4 92 27 74 17