From: Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
Date: 2002-12-18T19:20:06+09:00
Subject: Re: help -- persuade my boss to adopt ruby

From: "Simon Cozens" <simon@simon-cozens.org>


> "Gavin Sinclair" <gsinclair@soyabean.com.au> writes:
> > Interesting.  How would the following code be compiled?
> >
> >   code = gets
>
> This is compiled normally.
>
> >   eval code
>
> The compiler is linked in, and now outputs some assembly JIT...


OK, so eval would be quite slow, wouldn't it?  And eval is hidden in a fair bit
of Ruby code.

I'm not knocking anyone who wants compiled Ruby - not at all.  I'm just getting
my head around it.

The linking, I guess, would be dynamic, so the first (but only first) eval
would suffer load time.  The alternative: linking the compiler with every
executable, seems a bit harsh.

Are there precedents for this approach?

Final question: is it possible for compiled Ruby and interpreted Ruby to be the
same Ruby?  i.e. can we use the same program as both with 100%
inter-reliability?

Thanks for the answer,
Gavin