From: "James Britt (rubydev)" <james@...>
Date: 2001-12-31T16:05:52+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:29819] Re: Python and Ruby: a comparison



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ruby-talk-admin@ruby-lang.org
> [mailto:ruby-talk-admin@ruby-lang.org]On Behalf Of Edward Diener
> Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 10:42 PM
> To: ruby-talk ML; undisclosed-recipients:
> Subject: [ruby-talk:29810] Re: Python and Ruby: a comparison
> 
> 
> CLR is a lowest common denominator for language ideas which MS supports. 

Is it the lowest common denominator, or the highest common factor?

I think I understand what point you're trying to make, but it 
sounds as if interoperability is limited to the *least* each 
language has in common, rather than the most. 



> What happens when a language has good ideas which are more advanced than 
> what CLR supports. It is left out of CLR, or included into it with those 
> ideas stripped from the language to accomodate CLR. Sometimes the Holy 
> Grail of language interoperability has serious flaws to it.

It may not be as bad as that.  While different languages allow you
to express things in particular ways, many will map to the same assembly
or byte code, or close enough.  The mismatches may come when one language 
has some aspect that is impossible to duplicate the others, which might not 
be that often.

> 
> Similarly Esperanto may be a nice idea but most countries love their own 
> languages. The same goes for languages which programmers use.

Different natural languages may lend themselves to expressing certain
ideas better than others, and while some expressions may be more elegant
in one language, that's not to say it could not be expressed in another.

French may be more romantic than German, but it's still possible to whisper
sweet nothings in German.  It just takes longer. :)

James