From: Austin Ziegler <austin@...>
Date: 2002-12-17T21:53:36+09:00
Subject: Re: help -- persuade my boss to adopt ruby

On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 16:49:47 +0900, Rich wrote:
> The problem lies in the fact that these statements are equal:
> 
> can't be compiled == non-trivial

They're not equivalent, though. Bulat is saying:

  Ruby currently can't be compiled. Ruby needs to become a
  statically typed language in order to be able to be compiled. The
  corporate world won't accept Ruby until it is a statically typed
  language.

This is patently crap, as both Perl and Python have been well
accepted in the corporate world (although both initially through the
back-door) and neither of these are compiled or statically typed
(but neither is as dynamic as Ruby so far as I can tell).

Dan, however, is saying:

  Ruby could be turned into a compiling language without losing its
  dynamicity -- which provides advantages that statically typed
  languages can't provide -- but it would take a lot of work to do.
  It would take a year and four or five scary smart people to work
  with Matz and do nothing else during that time.

-austin
-- Austin Ziegler, austin@halostatue.ca on 2002.12.17 at 07.49.38