From: Eric Hodel Date: 2006-06-14T17:14:45+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby as a kernel? On Jun 13, 2006, at 11:04 PM, Michael Fellinger wrote: > Well in the Squeak-case, the developers started out in smalltalk, > writing a > smalltalk2c-converter and implemented 16 rewriting-rules that made > everything > work... > then they extended it until it just ran on it's own and could be > dispatched > from everything else, continuing to let smalltalk write its own > implementation. > > there are two projects in ruby atm that are trying to achieve that > atm, one > being metaruby, the other one is RubyToC (main-developer is > zenspider afaik - > and it's the thing that makes the obfuscator tick that you might > have just > heard of some days ago on this mailinglist.) MetaRuby depends upon RubyToC to make a bootstrapping Ruby. We might be able to build a stripped-down Ruby that uses the MetaRuby implementation for most methods. Ryan and I are the primary developers. > so, given that we already can translate most of ruby to C, what is > stopping > us? 1) Lack of a complete test suite for Ruby's C libraries 2) Incomplete implementation of MetaRuby (partially dependent upon 1) 3) Incomplete implementation of RubyToC 4) Lack of developers to help with 1, 2 and 3 1 is easy, 2 is slightly more difficult (we've already completed the easy parts of 2), 3 is hard. > sure, ruby will be painfully slow as an OS - squeak is not the > fastest thing > on earth too, but they have a lot more optimization than i think is > possible > with a system like ruby (i'm ready to get proven wrong on that) -- Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://blog.segment7.net This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant http://trackmap.robotcoop.com