From: Luis Lavena <luislavena@...>
Date: 2008-12-27T12:10:00+09:00
Subject: Re: ruby -> python

On Dec 26, 11:11 pm, Roger Pack <rogerpack2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I'd imagine that most Ruby constructs have their Python equivalent.
>
> > Why introduce Python, when on many platforms, you have the ability to
> > use inline C, C++ or assembler? IIRC it works on Cygwin, all *Nix
> > platforms and probably MacOS X as well.
>
> Because I don't want to rewrite my bottlenecks to C--I want to leave
> them as ruby and have them "automagically translated"
>
> Main advantage: Python and Ruby are pretty similar, so a translator
> shouldn't be as hard to write as, say, a ruby to c JIT translator [psyco
> is a Python->bytecode JIT translator, so the work has been done there].
>
> Obviously a translator to C would be the best, I just think it would be
> pretty  hard, and if one could translate to Python, a lot of the
> optimization exists. A fit of python envy, you could call it.
> Thoughts?
> -=r

What about _why experiments on Ruby to Python front (only YARV):

http://hackety.org/2008/05/05/sneakingRubyThroughGoogleAppEngine.html

I know, is silly, but is bytecode translated ;-)

Another option is look at ParseTree for the AST and generate C code
from it (ruby2c)

--
Luis Lavena