From: "Mauricio Fernández" <batsman.geo@...>
Date: 2003-08-22T06:44:23+09:00
Subject: Re: Rite/Ruby2.0 & Ruby vs OCaml

On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 06:32:55AM +0900, Hal E. Fulton wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Kurt M. Dresner" <kdresner@cs.utexas.edu>
> To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 4:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Rite/Ruby2.0 & Ruby vs OCaml
> 
> 
> > > think it this way: you code in the usual way, cause your code can be
> > > interpreted.
> > 
> > But I thought that the interpreter was being dumped...
> 
> Not sure. I'd like to think bytecode compilation will
> be optional.

It wouldn't make sense to keep an AST walker, since that would
mean duplicating the amount of code for no benefit. Indeed, bytecode
compilation could happen internally so you wouldn't notice the difference
externally (except for the speed increase :)

-- 
 _           _                             
| |__   __ _| |_ ___ _ __ ___   __ _ _ __  
| '_ \ / _` | __/ __| '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ 
| |_) | (_| | |_\__ \ | | | | | (_| | | | |
|_.__/ \__,_|\__|___/_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|
	Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com

We come to bury DOS, not to praise it.
	-- Paul Vojta, vojta@math.berkeley.edu