From: MikkelFJ <mikkelfj-anti-spam@...>
Date: 2002-08-09T18:43:50+09:00
Subject: Re: Compiling Ruby to Native Code?


"Tord Kallqvist Romstad" <romstad@math.uio.no> wrote in message
news:gqk1y99en66.fsf@nereids.uio.no...
> llothar@web.de (Lothar Scholz) writes:

> Even with dynamic typing, the compiled code would probably perform
> much better than interpreted Ruby.  Add optional type declarations
> (like in Lisp), and it should be possible to achieve the same speed as
> with optimized Lisp code.
>
> Do you disagree?  If so, what properties of Ruby make it harder to
> compile than Lisp?

Ruby is a mutating monster so you have to look up functions in a hash.
You can optimize this by building a virtual table that gets invalidated when
a class is modified, but it can be tricky to know when this is worthwile.

To support efficient compilation, a modified version would be needed that
optionally allows type annotations and which disallows modifying the type of
an object the has been created (either prevent class modification, or make
it a new type internally).
> > Never written a compiler - right ?
>
> Of course I have.

Obviously, who hasn't ;-)

Mikkel