From: "Larry J. Elmore" <ljelmore@...>
Date: 2001-01-22T06:10:02+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:9679] Re: 101 Misconceptions About Dynamic Languages

In article <022701c0839e$246b3110$2e03280a@puma>, "Christian"
<christians@syd.microforte.com.au> wrote:
> Slightly off-topic (hey, it hasn't stopped me before): why can we not
> have an interpreted language that is based on C++, not C? Python is C,
> Ruby is C, Perl is C. What about a language that is built using C++
> and C++ principals, where we can extend and enhance in C++? Is there
> one?

Not that I'm aware of. C is used because it is _far_ more portable than
C++. 

Larry