From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2008-07-11T21:50:20+09:00
Subject: Re: Why Ruby interpreter is writed in c (not in c++)?

Hi --

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Eleanor McHugh wrote:

> 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 I'm not sure it will be superseded any time soon, objects being a very 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.

I wonder, though. I think I think procedurally. With lots of rescue
clauses :-)


David

-- 
Rails training from David A. Black and Ruby Power and Light:
   Intro to Ruby on Rails  July 21-24      Edison, NJ
   Advancing With Rails    August 18-21    Edison, NJ
See http://www.rubypal.com for details and updates!