On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:

> of course. so we give anyone choice - write efficiently compiled or
> easily extensible dynamic code. it is right thing (IMHO)

What I'd *love* would be to keep ruby dynamic as it is, and have a
statically typed language, call it R, with a ruby-like syntax for extension
writing:  the two should be easily interoperable and have equivalent
builtin classes.

Now that Ruby >= (Smalltalk+Perl)/2, we need R >= (C+(C++)+Java)/3.
A better C is what I want, I guess.

Still Wishing,

  -- Nikodemus