Hi --

On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, William Djaja Tjokroaminata wrote:

> Oh yes, in fact, this is one of our selling points, right?  We show the
> world how much simpler to code in Ruby as compared to C, C++, or Java
> (ugh, Java is the worst to write the simple hello, world program).
>
> But I think the objective or the reasoning behind R is that, is the
> current C syntax "the best" in terms of representing of what we can
> achieve in terms of generating the resulting assembly/object code?  Can we
> create some syntax that is similar to Ruby, with result of probably 80% of
> the capability of C and probably 70% the speed of C, but that makes it
> easier for the programmer to code?  Maybe such research will conclude that
> such a thing is impossible, and that we just let C be C and Ruby be
> Ruby.  But I guess we don't know until we try, right? :)   (Hey, where are
> all those language experts...)

I hope Ruby will continue to be Ruby even if you write this third
language :-)  But as for the question, I don't know.  I guess most
languages represent an attempt to find that balance -- not
specifically between Ruby-ish syntax and speed, but between ease of
life for programmer and speed.


David

-- 
David Alan Black                      | Register for RubyConf 2002!
home: dblack / candle.superlink.net     | November 1-3
work: blackdav / shu.edu                | Seattle, WA, USA
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav | http://www.rubyconf.com