From: Dylan Evans <dylan.star@...>
Date: 2009-02-09T10:51:33+09:00
Subject: Re: ruby interpreter written in ruby..

--000e0cd14606b7f3130462729fe1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@zenspider.com> wrote:

>
> On Feb 8, 2009, at 03:40 , Dylan Evans wrote:
>
>  It seems to me that would be pointless, since it would require another
>> interpreter to function. Of course the other alternative would be to write
>> a
>> ruby compiler which would be awkward in a dynamic language. Of course if
>> it
>> wasn't actually compiled then you would have the overhead of interpreting
>> a
>> stack of ruby. Why would you want a ruby interpreter written in ruby?
>>
>
> smalltalk (squeak, at the very least), many lisps/schemes, factor, every
> language designed by wirth... yeah. must be pointless. :P
>
>
> I see that squeak uses a C translator for it's implementation which is
kinda cool, and the lisps use either a bootstrap implementation or a
translator.I was just thinking of a plain ruby interpreter entirely in ruby,
which really would be pointless.
Of course new languages written in interpreted languages can be good
prototypes.


-- 
The UNIX system has a command, nice ... in order to be nice to the other
users. Nobody ever uses it." - Andrew S. Tanenbaum

--000e0cd14606b7f3130462729fe1--