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 <Character> and <SmallInteger>).

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" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> 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" <[e-mail]> 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