On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, William Djaja Tjokroaminata wrote:

> designed more like a "superset" of Ruby, the addition being some hints on
> type checking.  How strong the type checking is can be controlled by a
> parameter, in which case type_check_level == 0 reduces "R" to Ruby.  Sure,
> it will not be as fast and efficient as Ruby, but for experimentation I

Actually the idea is almost the opposite: Ruby should be dynamic. R Should
be a statically typed _subset_ of Ruby. Ruby should be the flexible human
oriented language, while R would be it's faster, but less flexible cousin.

> C/C++/Java programmers to learn this new language.  Here I am just trying

Nonononono -- R should be a statically typed compiled language that is easy
for _Ruby_ programmers to learn.

For example, from what I have understood of your network simulator, if R
existed, you would keep the Ruby part in Ruby, and replace the C-part with
R. Ruby for people, R for speed.

  -- Nikodemus