From: John Joyce <dangerwillrobinsondanger@...>
Date: 2008-07-11T11:46:09+09:00
Subject: Re: Why Ruby interpreter is writed in c (not in c++)?


On Jul 10, 2008, at 8:31 PM, phlip wrote:

> Ranieri Teixeira wrote:
>
>> I've downloaded the sources of Ruby 1.8.7-p22 and compiled it with  
>> MS CL
>> compiler.
>
> What a pain! Next time, get CygWin, and compile with GNU C.
>
> > Ok, very well. But, the code is in structured C, not in object
>> oriented C++. Why? C++ doesn't provides the sabe low level  
>> facilities as C
>> and the powerful abstractions, and good practices from the OOP  
>> paradigm?
>
> All system-level engines are written in C, not C++. C has been a  
> Standard for much longer, and has more compliant compilers. So any  
> engine that wants to run on the widest number of platforms must use  
> C. It compiles for everything from wristwatches to Mars Rovers.
>
> The point of OOP is rapid code changes. That contradicts the goal of
> super-widespread portability. No matter what your language, you must
> chose one or the other, not both. And Ruby is indeed coded in Object
> Oriented C. The ++ does not magically make every program OO.
>
> C++ would not necessarily make Ruby easier to code; C++ objects can  
> never map directly onto Ruby objects.
>
> -- 
>  Phlip
>
But Objective-C may soon.... MacRuby....