From: Bill Plummer <bplummer@...>
Date: 2007-10-24T21:01:30+09:00
Subject: Re: IronRuby...will it be like J++?


> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:48:08 +0900, John Lam (DLR) wrote:
> 
> >> I think the biggest risk to IronRuby is the CLR, not the IronRuby
> >> implementation itself. As noted, that's in a reasonably open license.
> > 
> > I'm interested in why you think that the CLR is a risk? We've
> > standardized CLR via the CLI and there is an open-source implementation
> > of the CLR in Mono. DLR / IronRuby should just run on Mono in binary
> > form.
> 
> 
> Very cool to hear from someone at Microsoft.  My concern, on reading the 
> above, is that Mono apps work great when going from Microsoft to Linux, 
> but not all Mono apps work great when going from Linux to Microsoft.

My two cents on this thread...

Ruby has a lot of momentum and it's hard for me to believe that anything
MS or Sun or whoever does will cause some terrible problem with
developing Ruby applications or cause Ruby to die.

All that said, we have all seen language implementations that were not
compatible across all operating systems and code that worked fine with
the one compiler, but not with another companies compiler.  I'm thinking
of some of the C++ inconsistencies here, not recent history:-) 

So, will all the implementations of Ruby be kept pure and compatible?  I
would guess not, if the future is like the past.  However, in this arena
everyone seems to be trying to accomplish just that, keep every
implementation pure and compatible.

I wish them Godspeed...  

Bill