[#1816] Ruby 1.5.3 under Tru64 (Alpha)? — Clemens Hintze <clemens.hintze@...>

Hi all,

17 messages 2000/03/14

[#1989] English Ruby/Gtk Tutorial? — schneik@...

18 messages 2000/03/17

[#2241] setter() for local variables — ts <decoux@...>

18 messages 2000/03/29

[ruby-talk:02175] Re: The evolution of Ruby

From: "Dat Nguyen" <thucdat@...>
Date: 2000-03-26 17:11:11 UTC
List: ruby-talk #2175

>From: Dave Thomas <Dave@thomases.com>
>Reply-To: ruby-talk@netlab.co.jp
>To: ruby-talk@netlab.co.jp (ruby-talk ML)
>Subject: [ruby-talk:02174] Re: The evolution of Ruby
>Date: 26 Mar 2000 10:31:44 -0600
>
>"Dat Nguyen" <thucdat@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > They all are implemented in C and have to deal with the same
> > language design problems.
>
>I'm not sure I see your point.
>
>Are you saying things should evolve, or shouldn't evolve?

Things will evolve until they reach similar level of complexity.

>
>Is the underlying implementation language significant?

It looks that way, unless you have a totally different kind of tool.
I saw kludges being done in C to achieve an impression of having another 
kind of language. Trade-off will have to be made.
Mastering C is still essential to complement the scripting language when it 
comes to performance.

Check out the following URL how I introduced OO features into a non OO 
interpreted language:
http://www.columbia.edu/kermit/ckscripts.html#oops
I virtually faked OO syntax using the very scripting language, and I went 
through the same pain & pleasure of putting an OO interface on top of a non 
OO language.

Guido was doing the same with C to create Python, ditto Matz created Ruby.

Dat

>
>Dave

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

In This Thread

Prev Next