Ruby implemented in C and not C++?

ruby-talk
1

Hello,

I was just wondering idly if anyone knows why matz chose C rather than C++ to implement Ruby in? Aside from trashing C++, I was wondering what technical issues (if any) were at the heart of this decision.

Thanks,

Chris

2

Well, remember that Ruby was first written just over ten years ago
(almost eleven now I, I think). At that point, C++ portability was a
pipe dream. Now, it's just wishful thinking, especially if you use
the STL.

Also, it's apparently much easier to implement an OO language in a
non-OO language, because then you don't confuse yourself with
conflicting object models, or find yourself tempted to make the
language work with the different object model.

But, as always, IANM, so those are my best guesses and that's it.

-austin

···

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 00:19:21 +0900, Chris Pine <cpine@hellotree.com> wrote:

I was just wondering idly if anyone knows why matz chose C rather
than C++ to implement Ruby in? Aside from trashing C++, I was
wondering what technical issues (if any) were at the heart of this
decision.

--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca

3

Austin Ziegler wrote:

Also, it's apparently much easier to implement an OO language in a
non-OO language, because then you don't confuse yourself with
conflicting object models, or find yourself tempted to make the
language work with the different object model.

But, as always, IANM, so those are my best guesses and that's it.

Isn't that pretty much what matz once said, someplace? In some interview, I think.

James

···

-austin