# Rubinius interview with Evan Phoenix **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [December 7, 2006, 9:08pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubinius-interview-with-evan-phoenix/78686 "2006-12-07T21:08:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![pat\_eyler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/858c86/32.png) [@pat\_eyler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/pat_eyler)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2006, 9:08pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubinius-interview-with-evan-phoenix/78686/1 "2006-12-07T21:08:51Z")
With all the recent buzz around rubinius, it was serendipitous that Evan and I had nearly finished an interview. We wrapped it up over lunch, and it’s posted at: [On Ruby: Rubinius Interview](http://on-ruby.blogspot.com/2006/12/rubinius-interview.html) Happy reading. ---
**Author:** ![pat\_eyler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/858c86/32.png) [@pat\_eyler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/pat_eyler)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2006, 5:05am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubinius-interview-with-evan-phoenix/78686/2 "2006-12-08T05:05:47Z")
pat eyler wrote: > With all the recent buzz around rubinius, it was serendipitous that > Evan and I had nearly finished an interview. We wrapped it up over > lunch, and it’s posted at: > > [On Ruby: Rubinius Interview](http://on-ruby.blogspot.com/2006/12/rubinius-interview.html) > > Happy reading. From the interview: | Q: What facets of the other alternative Ruby implementations do you | envy? | | A: I envy the jruby developers for not having to debug segfaults, | thats a biggy. Then why use C? Why not translate to, say, Eiffel, OCaml, Oberon, Java, C#? People have written operating system kernels in most of those (Oberon, Java, C#; not sure about Eiffel, OCaml), surely one could write a language kernel? Just wondering … Probably the answer is “I can write C but not Eiffel” (-; jwm ---
**Author:** ![pat\_eyler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/858c86/32.png) [@pat\_eyler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/pat_eyler)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2006, 5:23am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubinius-interview-with-evan-phoenix/78686/3 "2006-12-08T05:23:49Z")
On 12/7/06, Jörg W Mittag [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Just wondering … > > Probably the answer is “I can write C but not Eiffel” (-; At the risk of putting words in Evan’s mouth, one of Rubinius’s goals is to make the core of Ruby’s runtime accessible to a much, much wider group of people what we’ve got currently. Using something less common than C would work against that, even though personally I’m a big OCaml fan. Rubinius wants to be mainstream, and the wide availability of C knowledge and C compilers will assist in that. ---
**Author:** ![pat\_eyler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/858c86/32.png) [@pat\_eyler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/pat_eyler)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2006, 3:52pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubinius-interview-with-evan-phoenix/78686/4 "2006-12-08T15:52:51Z")
Since we’re kinda on the topic of implementation I’ve got a question: Avi Bryant’s article in response to JoelOnSoftware said you could get method calls down to a jump and compare. My impression is that MRI basically uses hashtables for method lookup. Is it in the cards for Rubinius to receive the sort of optimizations Avi was talking about? Is it reasonable to expect that an optimized version of Rubinius could get method calls into the same performance realm as c# or Java? This way I suppose C-Extensions would be used more as bridges to leverage existing libraries, and not for performance reasons. Any thoughts? ---
**Author:** ![pat\_eyler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/858c86/32.png) [@pat\_eyler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/pat_eyler)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2006, 5:25pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubinius-interview-with-evan-phoenix/78686/5 "2006-12-08T17:25:13Z")
On 12/8/06, Sam S. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > realm as c# or Java? > > This way I suppose C-Extensions would be used more as bridges to > leverage existing libraries, and not for performance reasons. Yes. One way to do this is to make the common case as fast as possible, even if that assumption ‘breaks’ some of the dynamic features of Ruby. At runtime, you then detect when you’ve violated that assumption, trap the error, and re-evaluate the code in a slower mode. If you pick targets for that that don’t trap very often, you can supposedly gain back quite a lot of speed. I believe the JVM has something like this for dynamic invocations, but I haven’t looked at that code, so I might be making a fool out of myself by saying it. ---
**Author:** ![pat\_eyler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/858c86/32.png) [@pat\_eyler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/pat_eyler)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2006, 6:29pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubinius-interview-with-evan-phoenix/78686/6 "2006-12-08T18:29:28Z")
On 12/7/06, Wilson B. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > From the interview: > > could write a language kernel? > > Using something less common than C would work against that, even > > though personally I’m a big OCaml fan. Rubinius wants to be > > mainstream, and the wide availability of C knowledge and C compilers > > will assist in that. Arguably, I think Java is more accessible then c, especially as Ruby gains a wider audience. - Rob ---
**Author:** ![pat\_eyler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/858c86/32.png) [@pat\_eyler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/pat_eyler)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2006, 10:18pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubinius-interview-with-evan-phoenix/78686/7 "2006-12-08T22:18:09Z")
On 12/8/06, Wilson B. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Startup time for small scripts is a core requirement for Ruby, and > that’s a problem for the JVM. JRuby is targeting long-running > processes for that reason. > Also, there’s a pretty bad impedance mismatch between the Java opcodes > and what Ruby needs. The JRuby team is working around that by being > really smart and dedicated, but it’s not easy. Agreed, I didn’t say there weren’t good implementation reasons that you don’t want to use java. > If you combine the stats for C and C++, it is still the most > widely-used language on Earth. Also, I never want to program in Java > again, if I can avoid it. Heh. Hm, well obviously I prefer Ruby over Java, but I think I’d take Java over c or c++ any day if all else is equal. I’ll take NPE’s and Intellij IDEA over dangling pointers and buffer overruns. 🙂 That said, I’m rooting for rubinius. I saw Evan’s presentation at rubyconf and I really hope he can rally other core hackers around the “simpler is better” rallying cry. - Rob ---
**Author:** ![pat\_eyler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/858c86/32.png) [@pat\_eyler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/pat_eyler)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2006, 7:45pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubinius-interview-with-evan-phoenix/78686/8 "2006-12-08T19:45:46Z")
On 12/8/06, Rob S. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > those (Oberon, Java, C#; not sure about Eiffel, OCaml), surely one > > > > Using something less common than C would work against that, even > > though personally I’m a big OCaml fan. Rubinius wants to be > > mainstream, and the wide availability of C knowledge and C compilers > > will assist in that. > > Arguably, I think Java is more accessible then c, especially as Ruby > gains a wider audience. Startup time for small scripts is a core requirement for Ruby, and that’s a problem for the JVM. JRuby is targeting long-running processes for that reason. Also, there’s a pretty bad impedance mismatch between the Java opcodes and what Ruby needs. The JRuby team is working around that by being really smart and dedicated, but it’s not easy. If you combine the stats for C and C++, it is still the most widely-used language on Earth. Also, I never want to program in Java again, if I can avoid it. Heh. We’re doing Rubinius to make ourselves happier, along with all the other goals. ---
**Author:** ![pat\_eyler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/858c86/32.png) [@pat\_eyler](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/pat_eyler)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2006, 1:14am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubinius-interview-with-evan-phoenix/78686/9 "2006-12-09T01:14:33Z")
On Sat, 2006-12-09 at 06:17 +0900, Rob S. wrote: > > If you combine the stats for C and C++, it is still the most > > widely-used language on Earth. Also, I never want to program in Java > > again, if I can avoid it. Heh. > > Hm, well obviously I prefer Ruby over Java, but I think I’d take Java > over c or c++ any day if all else is equal. I’ll take NPE’s and > Intellij IDEA over dangling pointers and buffer overruns. 🙂 Until Java was opened, I’d definitely have chosen C above Java any day. (and in general, still do.) Definitely a bit more optimistic for Java than I used to be though.