Kurt M. Dresner wrote:

>> IIRC the "interpreter" (AST based) will be dumped.
> 
> I like the interpreter.
> 
> Does this mean we're going to have to run some compiler on our code to
> compile it to bytecode?  That would be annoying.

Not sure, but I suspect that what batsman meant is that the current 
AST-based interpreter will be replaced with a 'ruby' that first compiles 
your Ruby source code to bytecode and then feeds that to a virtual 
machine (VM) for interpretation. But no explicit compilation step on 
your part (unlike traditionally compiled languages like C/C++).