Thomas You state ...a new language implementation platform.
and then I strongly believe that Truffle is the best currently available vehicle to make Ruby competitive in terms of performance with node.js. If the goal is to create a 'new language' platform then why not create a new language with it? What drove first the PYPY group and now you in deciding to make a faster Ruby rather than a better language? Probably because the first 80% of a port is easy and you get good press. After that it looks like the interest fades. While the first 20% of a new language is hard and the critics are brutal. There seems to be a lot of new language work these days. If your goal is not a new Java+jvm, and I say this because I have not see an effort to reinvent these in Truffle, then why not make it your goal to enable the creation of great new languages? Instead the interest seems to be in showing that extreme personal effort can conquer the corner cases ( or not ) of popular ancient languages. A look at the history of PYPY could give quite some insight into the barriers. It appears that with the advent of co-processors ( gpus and custom fpga addons ) and value types that the need for customized method compilation will be necessary to take full advantage. Being able to make intrinsic methods dynamically rather than via jni or jdk customization seems appealing. But forcing a complete change away from what in in use today is a lot to ask. I see the Sumatra project seems to be going this way but it looks like they have to move to Graal to do it. In the end all code starts with a single method send. That one method could be the only method and could be compiled using Truffle. If that were to happen you could declare victory. regards mark
_______________________________________________ mlvm-dev mailing list mlvm-dev@openjdk.java.net http://mail.openjdk.java.net/mailman/listinfo/mlvm-dev