From: olczyk@... (Thaddeus L. Olczyk)
Date: 2002-08-19T07:44:38+09:00
Subject: Re: What Ruby needs.

On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 15:39:31 -0500, "Shashank Date" <ADATE@kc.rr.com>
wrote:

>I do not have any problem with item 1) on your wish list as long as I don't
>loose the dynamic nature of  Ruby.
Both OCaml and Lisp are very dynamic. Some might argue that these are
the most dynamic languages around yet they are able to compile down to
very tight code.

ST is also dynamic but does not compile down as tightly. However I am
not convinced that this is a necessity, but rather that STers for the
most part don't care enough to exert the effort to get code that
tight.

>But with 2) I am afraid, I have to disagree. For me the  "Ruby attraction"
>is stronger  * because of * (and not inspite of )
>its independence from the image/core. Again, that is just me !
>
And what is the objection to a core?
A core is just a snapshot of the runtime.
It is pretty handy when it takes you a half hour to start up ruby
and get it to the point where you were last time.
>Wonder what other  *** infuential  **** Rubyists think ...
>
>-- Shanko
>
>"Thaddeus L. Olczyk" <olczyk@interaccess.com> wrote in message
>news:3d61fe91.348210671@nntp.interaccess.com...
>> I use Ruby quite often for scripting and what use it more often for
>> general stuff except that it has two things missing:
>>
>> 1) A compiler. Something that takes Ruby code down to as fast as it
>>    can  go ( something like the compilers that come with some Lisps
>>    and with OCaml).
>> 2) An image/core like Smalltalk and Lisp where I can define things
>>     then save core and pick up where I left off later.
>