From: Alexander Schofield Date: 2002-02-14T13:15:21+09:00 Subject: Re: Name resolution in Ruby Hmmph, but you do get the last laugh. You have destroyed about two weeks of tinkering on my part. I was actually trying to wrestle together an Object System along the lines of Self, using a prebuilt GC. My intention had been to get that working, I've been using *XML* as source until I could decide on a syntax (which was going to be as Ruby as applicable and I could make it). Vortex appears to actually *be* a very large superset of my project, "a language-independent optimizing compiler infrastructure for object-oriented and other high-level languages". Now if you take away the, "optimizing", the "language-independent", and the "other high-level languages", you have my pathetic foray into the interpreter business down to a tee. If they could write a Cecil frontend for Vortex (which is itself written in Cecil), it will certainly be possible for me (intelligence and time permitting) to write something along the lines of what I had envisioned-- what is to Self what Ruby is to Smalltalk. With Vortex it looks like I might actually be able to throw multi-methods into the mix. My "timetable", such as it was, has been thrown a curve-ball by Vortex, and there's going to be a big-learning curve here (Cecil & Vortex), but sometime in the forseeable future I hope to have a simple interpreter With console and basic file I/O, strings, arrays and hashes, and numbers (whose default behavior will be along the lines of ANSI CL-- 5/2 is 5/2, not 2, since I prefer nice integer arithmetic by default and realistically this project is only going to be used for my self-gratification). Whenever I do get around to adding Regexes I'll probably use something prepackaged like Henry Spencer's implementation, though depending on how adventerous I'm feeling I might go by the Ruby source to preserve as much commonality as possible. So, again thanks for the pointer are probably in order. Anyone want to help? No I imagine not, "Alex does not play well with others". Would be nice to be on the other end of the YPIG (You Push I'll Grunt) system though, makes me see pair programming in a whole new light :). And anyways, I've scared you all off with this ramble. Alexander Schofield wrote: > > Allow me to quote from the "Cecil" link on the page you provided: > "Cecil has a classless object model. Objects have methods attached > directly to them, without needing a separate > class to hold their format & behavior. One-of-a-kind objects with > their own behavior (e.g. true, false, nil, and other enumerated > constants) are easy to define." > also it is a, "simple prototype-based Object Model", which is at least > the same terminology that Self uses. > > "subclasses" are only mentioned once, with the quotes. > > But thank you for the link, I wasn't aware of Cecil's existence and > Vortex in particular looks fascinating. You have given me my, "new > language fix" for the week. :) > > "Chr. Rippel" wrote: > > > > "Alexander Schofield" wrote in > > ... > > > Here here. After reading about Self > > > http://research.sun.com/self/language.html a while back I am in full > > > agreement. No classes at all. The interesting thing about Self is that > > > it could easily simulate any class-based OO lang (multiple or single > > > inheritence, or some other type of mixin facility) without much of a > > ... > > > > Hm, one of the self team member Craig Chambers later became team leader > > of the Cecil project http://www.cs.washington.edu/research/projects/cecil/ > > - a very advanced OO-language and which is extremely class oriented - > > kind of interesting isn't it ... > > > > /Christoph > > -- > Alexander Schofield -- Alexander Schofield