5 years ago one of our smart guys suggested we throw away our home grown "Basic" which glues our\nmany software actions into a seeming whole. We had over the years created many verbs that are\nactivated by special names. The "Basic" glue became more and more important and it was pointed out\nthat our specialties should be the verbs NOT the "Basic". At that time Python was suggested as a\nreplacement for our proprietary "Basic".\n\nHere it is 5 years later and our programming staff is very small and the ancientness of our "Basic"\nMUST be dealt with. I am giving some consideration to Ruby, though I *know* that Python would do\nOK. I have programmed in many languages and I now include Python as one I know well enough.\n\nI am initially attracted to Ruby because it promises more fewer special cases in syntax and its\nmore purely object orientation. Not the least is it has not exploded (yet) to the point of being\nnearly impossible for a programmer to walk all the way round language.\n\nHere is my question: Embedding our OLD code into Ruby is how big a chore? A lot of this code dates\nfrom the late 1980's and is in NO WAY object oriented. Python seems like it might let me get away\nwith embedding old code without make major complaints. Have any of you attempted to incorporate\nprocedural code (tied together with global variables) into Ruby? I would understand if\nknowledgeable programmers plead with me to not sully Ruby's name by attempting this Frankenstein.\nHowever, I want the power of new life for our "specialty verbs" that a modern, supported\n"scripting" language would provide.\n\nWatching eagerly for enlightenment,\nGeorge Wyche\nCITA Systems, Inc.