From: Bulat Ziganshin Date: 2002-09-30T14:30:07+09:00 Subject: Re: R Hello William, Saturday, September 28, 2002, 5:27:46 PM, you wrote: WDT> Hi, WDT> Nikodemus Siivola wrote: >> Actually the idea is almost the opposite: Ruby should be dynamic. R Should >> be a statically typed _subset_ of Ruby. Ruby should be the flexible human >> oriented language, while R would be it's faster, but less flexible cousin. WDT> I think I agree with the above statements; I just want flexibility for WDT> things in between, such as: WDT> ruby -type_check_level 0 => invokes the current Ruby interpreter/parser WDT> ruby -type_check_level max => invokes R (statically typed) WDT> ruby -type_check_level k => somewhere in between (a mix) WDT> Probably this is too much/too complicated? >> Nonononono -- R should be a statically typed compiled language that is easy >> for _Ruby_ programmers to learn. >> For example, from what I have understood of your network simulator, if R >> existed, you would keep the Ruby part in Ruby, and replace the C-part with >> R. Ruby for people, R for speed. WDT> Very interesting idea, and I support you 100%. Yes, if R maintains some WDT> "source code compatibility" with Ruby (just like my SRuby and Ruby), I WDT> think I prefer to code my C-part in R rather than C. I am not an expert WDT> in interpreter/compiler/parser (let alone computer languages), but I am WDT> interested to know about "source code maximal compressibility" without WDT> sacrificing human readability. Is it possible to have R, with syntax WDT> similar to Ruby, but with capability (and execution) like C? main ruby speed problem - dynamic method dispatching, which don't needed for 99% of calls in low-level code (such as matrix multiplication or string searching). so static typing of all variables and methods must solve the problem anyone disagree with above? -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:bulatz@integ.ru