[ruby-talk:13734] Re: Ruby on a JVM - good or bad idea?

Bill Kelly wrote:

# From: "ts" <[e-mail]>
# >
# > >>>>> "M" == Mathieu Bouchard <[e-mail]> writes:
# > 
# > M> I think the most difficult part of writing a "Ruby for Java" 
interpreter
# > M> is getting the parser right.
# > 
# >  I don't agree with you. The most difficult part is to have a j*v*
# >  implementation which do *exactly* the same thing that the C
# >  implementation. 
# > 
# >  I don't think that it's a good idea to have multiple implementations 
with
# >  subtle difference between these implementations, like a P language 
...
# 
# Sounds like a job for a C-to-Java translator?  ;-)
# 
# Seriously, though - anyone think that could be workable?  Ruby's VM
# running on Java's VM?  Brute-force-like?

Of course there are others who think it would be workable. ("Of
course", that is, if you have looked up past discussions in the
various Ruby NG/ML archives. :-) But a major problem is finding one or
more suitable wizards with sufficient interest and time. It took a lot
of work and a lot of time to produce a reasonably good version of
JPython. 

There are a number of other J<language>s, but I don't know that they
have proven very useful beyond a comparatively small community of
people who probably were good enough to pretty much do what they
wanted to do almost as easily in Java to begin with. Given that
(AFAIK) you still have to attain a reasonable mastery of Java to make
effective use of J<language>s, this doesn't seem all that wonderful. 

Granted that JRuby could be extremely cool (but still not wonderful),
maybe most Ruby people who think that they need some sort of bridge to
the Java world would be better off with other bridges such as
(reaching for buzzwords here) SOAP, XML, or something. 

Maybe (or likely) I'm overlooking something here, but past discussions
have not so far enlightened me any about such J<language> issues.

Conrad Schneiker
(This note is unofficial and subject to improvement without notice.)