From: Pete McBreen <petemcbreen@...>
Date: 2001-10-08T03:23:08+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:22206] Re: Let's work on Windows support

Furio R. Filoseta (tlf.) wrote
>As far as I can see, Ruby as a language is untouched. It can still be
>compiled by "free" tools and, at least under windows, you will not take
>care of runtime module issues. Then again, if you didn't want .NET say,
>because you want to deploy Windows 95, you could still use standard
>Ruby.
>
>I don't know Eiffel very much, but Betrand Meyer finds the .NET CLR
>quite compatible with it (in terms of language semantics that may not
>have proper support in the IL, as some have suggested).


The eiffel# paper differs slightly with this statement

http://www.eiffel.com/doc/manuals/technology/eiffelsharp/white_paper.htm
l

Eiffel# is not quite the same as Eiffel.

You might also want to look at Dave Winer's ideas

http://davenet.userland.com/2001/08/31/microsoftsScriptingStrategy

Personally I think that Ruby.NET would be a very bad idea due to the
difficulty it would create with all of the extensions that have been
written in C. How would they get into the .NET world. XML-RPC and SOAP4R
should be enough for interoperability with any .NET stuff that we need.

Pete
----
Pete McBreen, McBreen.Consulting , Cochrane, AB
email: petemcbreen@acm.org    http://www.mcbreen.ab.ca/

Author, "Software Craftsmanship The New Imperative"
Addison-Wesley (C) 2002
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201733862