On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 04:49:47PM +0900, Rich wrote:
> The problem lies in the fact that these statements are equal:
> 
> can't be compiled == non-trivial

They're not.

can't be compiled == impossible

non-trivial == hard to do, but possible

I think DS' point is that making Ruby fast *is* possible, so we can
consider current performance issues (?) to be caused by implementation,
not by the language per se. However changing the implementation is
certainly hard (non-trivial).

Perhaps once we have Rite (and we're really wanting it quite hardly :-)
something like Psyco could be done.
 
> ...
> 
> I think the original intention was to say 'trivial' instead of 'non-trivial'

I don't think so. If it were trivial it would be done by now :)

> Trivial means easy. Hence... saying "> |DS> This is a *very* non-trivial
> thing to do,", means that it is hard to do.
> 
> I hope I'm on track.

-- 
 _           _                             
| |__   __ _| |_ ___ _ __ ___   __ _ _ __  
| '_ \ / _` | __/ __| '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ 
| |_) | (_| | |_\__ \ | | | | | (_| | | | |
|_.__/ \__,_|\__|___/_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|
	Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com

oh okay. my mistake.

Yafcot:atj(*),

mark

* Yet another fool coming over this: according to joey
	-- mark / mail.novare.net