From: Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
Date: 2004-08-28T00:34:59+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby implemented in C and not C++?

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 00:19:21 +0900, Chris Pine <cpine@hellotree.com>
wrote:
> I was just wondering idly if anyone knows why matz chose C rather
> than C++ to implement Ruby in? Aside from trashing C++, I was
> wondering what technical issues (if any) were at the heart of this
> decision.

Well, remember that Ruby was first written just over ten years ago
(almost eleven now I, I think). At that point, C++ portability was a
pipe dream. Now, it's just wishful thinking, especially if you use
the STL.

Also, it's apparently much easier to implement an OO language in a
non-OO language, because then you don't confuse yourself with
conflicting object models, or find yourself tempted to make the
language work with the different object model.

But, as always, IANM, so those are my best guesses and that's it.

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca