From: William Djaja Tjokroaminata <billtj@...>
Date: 2002-09-29T08:10:08+09:00
Subject: Re: R

Hi,

In general I agree with the layout.  The only sticky point is the "have no
GC" item.  I prefer your other option, "have one separated from Ruby's
main one", as that is what I want to do with the current Ruby. :)

(Actually for my network simulator, a reference counting gc will serve the
purpose better, as I will have hundreds of thousands of 
"static" object.  But no, no, I am not going back to Python...)

Regards,

Bill
===========================================================================
Mauricio Fern?ndez <batsman.geo@yahoo.com> wrote:
> OK, I'll toy a little with the nature of the R language.

> Were R to exist, I think it would be sensible that it should
>  * be compiled: at the beginning simple translation to C would make it 
>  * be less dynamic than Ruby: closed classes. 
>    That way method lookup would be faster.
>  * have no GC, or at least have one separed from Ruby's main one.
>    Important as the object model would be different.
>  * have lower-level classes (perhaps as literal values) for low-level
>    arrays and such stuff, thus having C-like types wrapped in real
>    classes (otherwise we end up with C w/ different syntax)
>  * perhaps be statically typed? (but types could be inferred so it feels
>    more like Ruby, by not having to declare them always)