From: David Simmons Date: 2002-02-14T14:15:46+09:00 Subject: Re: Name resolution in Ruby Have you looked at SmallScript? It is a no-cost (free) superset of Smalltalk. It is fast, modular (capable of building 3-10k apps/components), and the core system has small footprint. It has instance-specific behavior for any non-virtual object (which means anything other than and ). It has multi-methods. It is a hi-performance jitted language. It has multiple-inheritance of behavior and mixin-agregation of structure/fields. It provides first-class instantiatable interfaces on both the class and per/instance level. It offers a rich range of syntax including numerous forms for "self" like usage. This includes a variety of intrinsic VM supported delegation mechanisms that include virtual fields, AOP services (like around, before, inner, after) methods, and a generalized facility for enabling per/instance managed behavior to controlling all aspects of access/message-managed to an object. -- Dave S. [www.smallscript.org] "Alexander Schofield" wrote in message news:3C6B38E7.A5274B8F@mailhost.njit.edu... > 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