Hi,

Nikodemus Siivola <tsiivola / cc.hut.fi> wrote:
> 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.

I think I agree with the above statements; I just want flexibility for
things in between, such as:

ruby -type_check_level 0   => invokes the current Ruby interpreter/parser
ruby -type_check_level max => invokes R (statically typed)
ruby -type_check_level k   => somewhere in between (a mix)

Probably this is too much/too complicated?

> 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.

Very interesting idea, and I support you 100%.  Yes, if R maintains some
"source code compatibility" with Ruby (just like my SRuby and Ruby), I
think I prefer to code my C-part in R rather than C.  I am not an expert
in interpreter/compiler/parser (let alone computer languages), but I am
interested to know about "source code maximal compressibility" without
sacrificing human readability.  Is it possible to have R, with syntax
similar to Ruby, but with capability (and execution) like C?

As a start, in R I want to be able to write

    include <stdout.h>
    def main (): Fixnum
        print "hello, world!\n"
        0
    end

which will be translated to our first-program in C :)

Regards,

Bill
- "The speed of C, the simplicity of Ruby" -