From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3e1162e60711120619l58734b56qd569d1ca6056ce5f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:19:48 -0800 From: "David Leimbach" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Ruby port In-Reply-To: <13426df10711112128g3da54d0au6bff4ddcfa76234b@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <13426df10711112128g3da54d0au6bff4ddcfa76234b@mail.gmail.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: f3d75c2a-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Nov 11, 2007 9:28 PM, ron minnich wrote: > On 11/11/07, Christopher Nielsen wrote: > > Anyone porting ruby? Would anyone besides me use it? > > > > depends on how far you want to dig. I think Ruby might be neat, but if > there is any one thing that a number of us think is desperately > needed, it is a blessed gcc port for plan 9 -- a gcc port that is > integrated back into the gcc tree. Anyone looked into LLVM with the gcc front end? There's a non-gcc front-end for it as well. > > Or, same thing for python. Or, sure, ruby. But what's most needed is > the port, plus, integration back into mainline. At least I think so. > > ron >