I do not have any problem with item 1) on your wish list as long as I don't
loose the dynamic nature of  Ruby.
But with 2) I am afraid, I have to disagree. For me the  "Ruby attraction"
is stronger  * because of * (and not inspite of )
its independence from the image/core. Again, that is just me !

Wonder what other  *** infuential  **** Rubyists think ...

-- Shanko

"Thaddeus L. Olczyk" <olczyk / interaccess.com> wrote in message
news:3d61fe91.348210671 / nntp.interaccess.com...
> I use Ruby quite often for scripting and what use it more often for
> general stuff except that it has two things missing:
>
> 1) A compiler. Something that takes Ruby code down to as fast as it
>    can  go ( something like the compilers that come with some Lisps
>    and with OCaml).
> 2) An image/core like Smalltalk and Lisp where I can define things
>     then save core and pick up where I left off later.