From: Eleanor McHugh <eleanor@...>
Date: 2008-07-11T21:39:23+09:00
Subject: Re: Why Ruby interpreter is writed in c (not in c++)?

On 11 Jul 2008, at 12:12, Dave Bass wrote:
> phlip wrote:
>> All system-level engines are written in C, not C++.
>> ...
>> It compiles for everything from wristwatches to Mars Rovers.
>
> This is because object-orientation is unnecessary. Any job you can do
> with it, you can do without it.
>
> Those of us who have worked on large programs in Fortran, C and
> assembler know that it's easy to write excellent software in an
> imperative style, as you long as you have the discipline to structure
> your data and program code sensibly.

Very true, although a large program in assembler is often a much  
smaller program when rephrased in C and likewise when the C is  
rephrased in C++. That's the primary win with OO - it reduces the  
volume of code and hence eases the strain of remembering that code in  
detail.

> OO is the latest fashion, but something else will come along soon, and
> we'll all be deprecating OO.

I'm not sure it will be superseded any time soon, objects being a very  
natural way for people to think about real-world problems.


Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
http://slides.games-with-brains.net
----
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason