[ruby-talk:03722] Re: Why it's quiet

"NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" wrote:

> ...
> Compilation to exe!
> Supports (Win32) native call!
>
> ...
>
> It is not worth Ruby, isn't it?
>
> // NaHi

I don't really think that OS dependent features
should be a part of a language.  An add on library
if needed, or perhaps a post-processor.  And even
for the libraries I feel that they should be
minimized.  (E.g., tc/tkl and gtk are to be
preferred over QT because the Win32 version of QT is
expensive, but DirectX is to be TOTALLY avoided,
because it only exists on Win32.)

Perhaps if they are libraries that aren't
distributed with the core language they would do no
harm, or at least minimal harm.

In fairness, I really only feel this way about
non-Open Source libraries, as I feel that if the
libraries are open, then they can be ported if there
is sufficient interest (though by this definition QT
is only partially open).

OTOH one should also remember that the "trivial" way
to build an exe file is to package the interpreter
and the code together with just enough shell to tell
the interpreter to run the code and then
exit...essentially a fancy ZIP program.  If this is
what you want ... well, I can see uses for it, but I
feel that it should be done by a postprocessor.

OTOH (gee! how many?) a true compiler for Ruby is
probably at least as difficult as a LISP compiler.
So though that would be nice, one shouldn't expect
it for a few years (though perhaps some of the work
on LISP compilers could be transferred, so .....).
If so, and if Ruby could be interfaced to gcc, then
there would be an immediate transfer to many
platforms.  Nice!  But probably a few years off.
(Would gcc 3 have the necessary hooks?  That's under
heavy development right now, so if any hooks are
needed, they'd probably better find out quickly!)