From: Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
Date: 2001-02-13T05:10:39+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:10743] Re: RFC: RubyVM (long)

On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Robert Feldt wrote:
> I agree that the Ruby subset we write RubyVM components in should be a
> real subset of Ruby. However we will need to make some deviations from
> Ruby semantics if we want good performance. Otherwise we are faced with
> writing a full Ruby->C translator (and not like rb2c that (correct me if
> I'm wrong) needs matz Ruby implementation to work)), ie. essentially a
> Ruby compiler. I think this is doable in the long run but it'll not be
> easy and will require tight integration with a VM/run-time.

I prefer not to discuss about RubyVM at all for now, because I feel there
are things that need to be done before and which will give us significant
insight on how to do what you propose.

I think the ArrayMixin stuff I'm writing is a step in the right direction. 
I'm currently taking several other similar steps. I'd like also to have a
Ruby syntax tree library, and to define a subset of Ruby (Ruby--) that is
more like standard SmallTalk/Self syntax, and to have a translator from
Ruby to Ruby--, and from Ruby-- to C (just like current .so modules: 
depending on the Ruby runtime). We could then write a Ruby-- interpreter
in Ruby, and then compile it in C. This is enough to get us working for at
least a year =) 

All of the above will allow to reduce the amount of original C code we
need by significant amounts, and if not, at least it will make Ruby more
useful. And we will still be closer to eliminating C code completely (not
that I see any need for that)

> > Ruby has its Float boxed too, right?
> Yes, I think everything is boxed except Fixnums (and possibly nil and
> false et al?).

nil, false, true, symbols and integers, I think.

matju