From: Pete McBreen <petemcbreen@...>
Date: 2001-10-08T09:40:50+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:22214] Re: Let's work on Windows support

David Alan Black wrote in message ...
>Personally, my concern is not with there being multiple
>implementations of Ruby (though I'm stil intrigued by/not clear on
>exactly what that would mean), but rather with the possibility of .NET
>versions of languages becoming de facto standards, in a situation
>where those .NET versions are *not* drop-in replacements for the real
>versions of the languages.  Your scenario, in which there's no
>difference, would be fine, but I can't imagine that's why Micros**t is
>throwing its .NET over the world of non-MS programming languages.


And even if the language is a "drop in replacement" the real problem is
with the libraries. As soon as you use a .NET library you lock the
application into the .NET platform. It is a relatively sure bet that the
libraries will not be compatible between the MS.NEt platform and
anyother versions of the CLR that run on other boxes/operating systems.

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