From: Rich Kilmer <rich@...>
Date: 2002-09-26T23:26:27+09:00
Subject: RE: call for commentary: review of Ruby for a magazine (long, sorry!)



> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Djaja Tjokroaminata [mailto:billtj@y.glue.umd.edu] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 9:03 AM
> To: ruby-talk ML
> Subject: Re: call for commentary: review of Ruby for a 
> magazine (long, sorry!)
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Edward Wilson <web2ed@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > When I was flamed off the Python group for asking what I felt were 
> > legitimate questions about Python's obvious weaknesses 
> (every language 
> > has at least one weakness..let's be honest) and I began to 
> ask simular 
> > questions about Ruby and wasn't flamed but welcomed; I knew I had 
> > found a language that was destined for greatness and long life.
> 
> Really?  That did happen in a technical discussion group such 
> as Python?  I am glad I have switched to Ruby.
> 
> > What bugs me about Ruby, or what keeps me `searching' for the ideal 
> > contemporary language is that Ruby doesn't have a complier 
> to either 
> > native code or even byte code like Python, Ocaml, Java, and 
> Lisp.  If 
> > Ruby had a native compiler, and this is a tall order given 
> the dynamic 
> > nature of Ruby, I don't think I would voluntarily use anything else.
> 
> Do you have any experience with rb2c, as suggested by Bulat?  
> I haven't tried it myself.

You also may want to look at this project:

http://exerb.sourceforge.jp/index.en.html

It compiles EVERYTHING (interpreter, extensions, source) into a single
EXE.