From: Benoit Cerrina <benoit.cerrina@...>
Date: 2001-10-03T16:33:18+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:21986] Re: Let's work on Windows support

> The CLR component of .NET is no more than a common virtual machine for
> different languages -- think of it as a high-level, architecture neutral
> Windows API.  If a Ruby interpreter can be written for the JVM it can be
> written for the CLR.  It won't affect the language definition, or give
Definitely since the CLR (.NET VM) is meant to support several distinct
language
semantic it would be easier than for the JVM (remember the class model in
java
is very different from the ruby one and in particular once loaded a class
isn't supposed
to change)
Still the .NET class model is also very different from the ruby one.
the danger is to rewrite a ruby interpreter port in C# or VB.NET or
VC.NET or whatever instead of C, this would not be much of a gain
if the ruby construct cannot be mapped natively to the .NET constructs.
(it might be easier than for java once again in particular since .NET
supports
a type of function pointers)
Benoit
PS:
still looking into jRuby but I also still have a day job and can't spend as
much time
as I want on it