From: "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@...>
Date: 2008-07-11T14:57:21+09:00
Subject: Re: Why Ruby interpreter is writed in c (not in c++)?

--------------050904020701060400010001
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

phlip wrote:
> 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.

There are actually starting to be some decent "system-level engines" 
written in C++, and their authors have, IMHO, made compelling arguments 
in favor of C++ over C. Two that stand out in my mind are the L4/OKL4 
microkernels, and the Low Level Virtual Machine (LLVM) projects. Both 
are open source, and if you're interested, you can hunt down their web 
sites and see why they chose C++ over C.

> 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.

I'm not sure C++ is any less portable than C, especially if you consider 
the widespread use of the Gnu Compiler Collection.
-- 
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
http://ruby-perspectives.blogspot.com/

"A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems." -- 
Alfr��d R��nyi via Paul Erd��s

--------------050904020701060400010001
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8;
 name="znmeb.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="znmeb.vcf"

YmVnaW46dmNhcmQNCmZuOk0uIEVkd2FyZCAoRWQpIEJvcmFza3kNCm46O00uIEVkd2FyZCAo
RWQpIEJvcmFza3kNCmVtYWlsO2ludGVybmV0OnpubWViQGNlc21haWwubmV0DQp4LW1vemls
bGEtaHRtbDpGQUxTRQ0KdmVyc2lvbjoyLjENCmVuZDp2Y2FyZA0KDQo=
--------------050904020701060400010001--