From: Conrad Schneiker <schneik@...>
Date: 2001-01-16T11:52:14+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:9355] Re: 101 Misconceptions About Dynamic Languages

Christian wrote:

# This is largely off-topic. Even so, this is a mailing list regarding an
# interpreted language, and the notion of C++ as an interpreted language 
is
# probably of interest to many on this list. That said, if this thread is 
to
# continue it should be moved to private email or another list 
(suggestions?).

Well, you are still within the bounds of the comp.lang.ruby charter. For 
people who want to facilitate the spread of Ruby, it's certainly 
worthwhile understanding the comparative strengths and weakness of C++ and 
Ruby, and the different ways of dealing with them.

# > Christian> What is the practical difference between Managed C++ 
embedded
# in XML and
# > >Ruby?
# >
# > Josh> Managed C++ is apparently a new choice for the interpreted 
domain;
# a
# > choice which looks quite similar to C++.  So it can be evaluated
# > relative to usual set of criteria:
# >
# > a) is it cross platform
[...]
# > I don't know the answers to these questions.  Perhaps you
# > would like to fill in?
# 
# I am no expert on .NET.
# 
# a) No, but it is straight forward to make it so. All you need is a 
virtual
# machine that understands IL (intermediate language). A worthy cause for 
all
# the Penguin hax0rs.

Except that AFAIK (from previous discussions here), there are some pretty 
important C#/.NET libraries that won't be available in source form nor 
will they be an open part of the C# standard. 

# > Templates are cool, but C++ doesn't natively provide much support
# > for meta-programming.  Compare C++ with Ruby or Common Lisp
# > for the  project of listing and/or serializing and later restoring all
# > current system objects.
# 
# There is no direct connection between meta-programming (describing types
# programmatically rather than explicitly) and persistence (object
# serialisation).
# 
# C++ does provide native support for meta-programming -- it's called 
partial
# specialisation. Partial specialisation allows you to do some quite
# remarkable things. I'd love to elaborate but I feel that I have already
# veered enough from Ruby to justifiably invoke the wrath of many on this
# list.

I haven't seen anything that justifies wrath yet. People who are *that* 
fanatical belong on comp.lang.perl.misc. (OK, OK, at least 50% of the 
people on comp.lang.perl.misc are decent, civil, helpful people, but you 
know what I mean. :-)

It's not like some people here aren't interested in writing C/C++ 
extensions to Ruby and might learn a useful trick or two. And it's not 
like some of this information might not one day migrate into a "Migration 
guide from C++" section of an on-line Ruby Cookbook FAQ for those who are 
somewhat less enamored with C++. So feel free to elaborate.

Conrad Schneiker
(This note is unofficial and subject to improvement without notice.)