You should, however, check out the propaganda document if you haven't
already, it gives a much better idea of our goals:
I had read it, but I missed that page at the end. Sorry for that.
But inlining a method, and converting a whole program to plain C (w.o.
the overhead from dynamic method dispatch etc.) are two different
things. For my defense: the latter is what you promote in the first 25
slides.
Yes, inlining and full translation of an application are two different beasts. Luckily, we aren't limited to just one of them, and we can use both goals to supplement each other's efforts with about 2/3 overlap.
You could write all of the code in Ruby's core, even the VM, in Ruby.
Then you translate the absolute minimum to C you need automatically with
Ruby2C (eventually, just the VM).
Ok, this sounds very ambitious. The ruby core is well written and it's
hard to write an equivalent substitution.
I totally totally agree. Babysteps. Or, as an excellent boss of mine often said: big alligators, small alligators, swamp.
And the VM part: It think it is very hard to write a fast VM in C. A
Ruby2C translator which generates a fast VM sounds like a miracle.
As I've pointed out before, this isn't as hard as you make it out to be. Granted, we have a much different road to travel than squeak. But it has been demonstrated as not only possible, but beneficial.
Anyway, good luck - I'm sure it is a lot of fun.
At least you do not have to write in C[1] 
[1] http://gnu.de.uu.net/wic.html
I'm on a bus right now, but I'll check that out as soon as I can.
···
On Feb 2, 2005, at 12:55 PM, Benedikt Huber wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 03:52:11 +0900, Eric Hodel wrote:
--
ryand-ruby@zenspider.com - http://blog.zenspider.com/
http://rubyforge.org/projects/ruby2c/
http://rubyforge.org/projects/parsetree/
