Hello William,

Saturday, September 28, 2002, 5:27:46 PM, you wrote:

WDT> Hi,

WDT> 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.

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

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

WDT> 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.

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

main ruby speed problem - dynamic method dispatching, which don't
needed for 99% of calls in low-level code (such as matrix
multiplication or string searching). so static typing of all variables
and methods must solve the problem

anyone disagree with above?

-- 
Best regards,
 Bulat                            mailto:bulatz / integ.ru