You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
Multi-language virtual machines have a number of advantages. They allow software developers to use software libraries that were written for different programming languages. Furthermore, language implementors do not have to bother with low-level VM functionality and their implementation can benefit from optimizations in existing virtual machines. MagLev is an implementation of the Ruby programming language on top of the GemStone S virtual machine for the Smalltalk programming language. In this work, we present how software components written in both languages can interact. We show how MagLev unifies the Smalltalk and the Ruby object model, taking into account Smalltalk meta classes, Ruby singleton classes, and Ruby modules. Besides, we show how we can call Ruby methods from Smalltalk and vice versa. We also present MagLev's concept of bridge methods for implementing Ruby method calling conventions. Finally, we compare our solution to other language implementations and virtual machines.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: The implementation of statically typed programming languages on the .NET Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) is by now well understood (Gough 2002). However, the situation with dynamic languages is not so clear. Typically such languages have objects that are dynamically typed, while the CLI is statically typed at the instruction code level. Nevertheless there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that the CLI can be a suitable target for such languages (Hugunin 2006). In order to better understand the issues involved we set out to create a full implementation of the Ruby language on the CLI. This paper describes the challenges faced and design decisions made in creating Ruby.NET -- a Ruby compiler for the CLI.
When an instance of a CLI class is accessed in Ruby for the first time, Ruby .NET dynamically create[s] a special Ruby.Class object to represent the foreign CLI type.'' [1] . These Ruby classes use CLI reflection instead the Ruby method dictionary during method lookup. Ruby .NET retains a dictionary that maps CLI classes to already generated Ruby classes.