Re: Compiled companion language for Ruby?

Alexander Schofield wrote:

> Erik Terpstra wrote:
> 
>>I suppose your concern is how all the components written in different languages
>>can work together? <snip> The components communicate to each
>>other using XML over standard Unix pipes or http. Components written in Ruby
>>receive their data in a REXML DOM, do their thing and write their result back
>>as XML. Most projects use a REST architecture, see:
>>
> 
> So you had never meant to interface their Object Systems directly, but
> only valued their similarities to Ruby and increased speed?  Do I
> understand correctly?


I see the ability to interface directly as an added bonus, because it 
would allow me to implement libraries that could be used directly from 
Ruby. But if a certain language could not be interfaced directly with 
Ruby, I would still consider using it with the method described above 
(that is, if using that language has advantages in terms of speed, 
flexibility, re-usabality (CPAN is a word that comes to mind here), 
domain specific solutions, etc.).

I like the UNIX way of doing things, that 'each program should
do one job and do it really well'. If your projects consist of serveral 
little programs, language boundaries are not a major concern.
The whole thing can eventually be aggregated using a simple bash script 
(or ES for complex workflows).


> > If you did get a Haskell itch ever there's a great way for Ruby
> programmers to learn:
> http://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/loty/


Thanks for the link. It has been a while since the last time I used 
Haskell, but I still like a lot of its features.


 Erik.