<story><title>Rubinius 2.0 Preview Release</title><url>http://rubini.us/2011/06/07/inside-rubinius-20-preview/</url><text></text></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>fijal</author><text>According to my very unscientific measurements (I didn&apos;t bother looking which files are potentially auto generated), I got:&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  182kloc of C (.c files)
  110kloc of c++ (.h + .cpp files)
  558kloc of ruby (.rb files)
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
That puts C/C++ at roughly 40% of total. Unless proven otherwise I would say &quot;ruby written in ruby&quot; is a bit untrue.</text></comment>
<story><title>Rubinius 2.0 Preview Release</title><url>http://rubini.us/2011/06/07/inside-rubinius-20-preview/</url><text></text></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>ssmoot</author><text>Obviously great news. It dampens my enthusiasm a bit to know the same company funds development of JRuby however.&lt;p&gt;EngineYard really should clarify their vision behind maintaining two VMs. Going beyond the obvious &quot;JRuby is for integration with existing J2EE infrastructure&quot; angle would be nice.&lt;p&gt;Under what circumstances would they actually stand behind Rubinius as the better choice? Is the MRI C extension API compatibility an official feature now? Is it that I could switch from REE to Rubinius without having to worry about finding alternatives for all the libs I&apos;m using that carry C-extension baggage?</text></comment>