On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 4:08 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > The creator of virtual_module and ruby2julia transpiler here, just dropped > in to see what's going on now. Thank you for your interest. > > > Is it including startup/compilation time? Did they not "run it twice"? > > Yes, it includes startup/compilation time.(I'm not sure if I understand > "runt it twice" meaning properly though) > > > B. About Classes and > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_over_inheritance > > that is I guess best, but maybe not to helpful for that project.. Should > that be enough, to compile to that, or any other ideas? > > This idea will work as well. Still thinking what's the best, but it's > possible anyway. > > > C. I'm sure Julia has as good decimal support as possible already, with > two different packages. I'm not sure what's in Ruby (so can't comment on > that code), I guess the maker of the project is not aware, only of what is > in Base. > > Thanks to your comment, I have found the solution. Just use base(x, y) > then any conversion could be done. Thank you. > > > That is https://github.com/Ken-B/RoR_julia_eg > > that uses ZMQ.jl (better for IPC)? > > ZMQ sounds promising in order to add more concurrency to virtual_module. > > > And in practice it will probably be slower than the source language > because Julia is not as heavily optimized for interpreting those semantics. > > True. And my experiment is to gain performance improvements in exchange > for giving up completeness of accuracy of Ruby syntax. The project goal is > something like "gain BIG performance improvement with more than 90% Ruby > Syntax coverage", though not sure yet if I can make this happen. Anyways > thank you for your comment. >
This might be doable. Although be aware that 90% of syntax could mean <10% of non-toy code, which might be good enough as a starting point is the goal is to port code to julia but won't if the intent is to run the code in the original language.
