From: Conrad Schneiker <schneiker@...>
Date: 2001-12-08T04:15:15+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:27839] Re: Table: Ruby versus Smalltalk, Objective-C, C++, Java;

Hi,

"David Simmons" <david.simmons@smallscript.com> wrote:
> "Pixel" <pixel@mandrakesoft.com> wrote:

[Lots of stuff snipped.]

> > Java, C#... are in the same category
>
> I agree, they are broken. But <g> you are preaching to the choir; I am a
> dynamic language advocate, it is where I have spent my time over the last
> ten years pioneering new facilities and advancing the state of the art.
> Note: I include scripting languages into the dynamic language category.
>
> That's one reason why Microsoft asked me to get involved with the .NET
> architecture and its support for dynamic languages. It is an activity that
I
> will be continuing to interact with Microsoft in evolving over the coming
> years.

Hey, this guy really deserves mention on the "Ruby Who's Who" page
(http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/whos.html), not to mention a BIG THANKS! for
steering the .NET VM in the direction needed for good support of Ruby (and
Python and Smalltalk and so on, and maybe even Perl6).

Even though the .NET VM is obviously not there yet dynamically speaking,
AFAIK it's still a significant step beyon the Java VM in that respect, and I
think 5 years from now lots of us will be very grateful to David for
forthcoming improvements in .NET VM dynamic language support.

[Lots of stuff snipped.]

> Similar issues occur with static language notions of sealed and final as
> well as interfaces.  And closely related is the need for selector
> namespaces, which I invented in 1996. Which, to my great satisfaction, are
> now going to be a part of the ECMAScript (JavaScript 2.0) standard. The
> ECMAScript selector namespace design, as far as I known, is unrelated to
my
> work -- which is what makes it so satisfying because it means that
> independent parties trying to solve similar problems came to the same
> fundamental conclusions about its importance.

Well, since no one else seems to be able to bring themselves to say it, yet
someone should, Congratulations.

Conrad