From: Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...>
Date: 2007-07-14T06:52:18+09:00
Subject: Re: Proposal: runtime-modifying Kernel methods should be keywords

Ryan Davis wrote:
> 
> On Jul 12, 2007, at 23:18 , Marcel Molina Jr. wrote:
> 
>> *my* interests and priorities would respond to that problem by
>> wanting to consider how those internals [be] instead be *exposed*.
> 
> I second this.
> 
> I'll go further and state that I don't think there is any reason for 
> keywords (read: reserved word with fixed static connotations).
> 
> We have plenty of opportunities to optimize the language while 
> maintaining all dynamic aspects that we've grown to love (some of us, 
> pre-ruby). I point to smalltalk, self, Ungar's SOAR thesis, dick 
> gabriel's lisp thesis, many articles on ACM via SigPLAN, aspects of 
> java's hotspot (which is redundant given self, SOAR, and others) and I'm 
> sure many other sources as counter-examples.

The languages you list either use keywords or expose runtime structures 
(like variable scopes, call frames, and bindings) as first-class 
entities in the system. Ruby does neither.

And hotspot evolved out of self and strongtalk, so I'm not sure I 
understand that logic.

- Charlie