From: Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
Date: 2011-10-05T08:45:14+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:39954] Re: 2.0 feature questionnaire

Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> In message "Re: [ruby-core:39822] Re: 2.0 feature questionnaire"
>     on Sun, 2 Oct 2011 15:45:29 +0900, Jeremy Kemper <jeremy@bitsweat.net> writes:
> |3. MVM, with inter-vm message passing.
> 
> I have not decided yet, but since MVM requires incompatible changes to
> C API, so we might pend it to Ruby 3.0.

What about focusing on DRb improvements instead of MVM?

DRb works across machines (and processes), won't break current C APIs,
and has fewer issues with non-thread-safe C libraries.

MVM overhead is less on the same machine, of course.