From: Sean Middleditch <elanthis@...>
Date: 2002-02-14T23:56:42+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby and .NET

As far as which parts of .NET are open, remember there are really two
.NETs: the .NET Framework (the open part), and the rest of what
Microsoft calls .NET (Hailstorm, Passport, all that crap).

The MS .NET is more or less just for web services.  The .NET Framework
is for developers, whether they are working on the Internet or not.

On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 09:49, Stephan J. Schmidt wrote:
> Sorry, the difference between a Ruby interpreter in Java and a Java byte
> code compiler blurs. I used jPython which can compile to .class, so I
> might be wrong with jRuby.
> 
> 
> Is Java more open than .NET ? I believe so.
> 
> Cons: 
> 
> * .NET is a ECMA standard. Hmm, CLR/CLS and some libs are ECMA
> standards, the biggest part of .NET is not and under MS control. How MS
> controls the standard parts of .NET is not clear.
> 
> * There are other implementations of .NET (Halycon, GNUDOT, Mono). Not
> really, they implement only a subset and are way behind. So you can't
> port a .NET application from Windows to e.g. Linux. It's hard to go
> after MS. And MS admits that there might lurk some patents in the dark
> it can/will use if people do not obey.
> 
> * There is no multilanguage support fom Sun. Hmm, partly right. But
> there is a JSR to support debugging multi-language byte code. MS has no
> real multilanguage support in .NET either. The CLR supports all
> languages that are equal to C#, other have to loose their individuality
> and become C# clones (Eifel#)
> 
> Pros:
> * The source code for Java is open which is sometimes very useful. 
> 
> * There are othere implementations of the JDK. 
> 
> * The JSR gives people the opportunity to define Java APIs which can
> become standars and sometimes part of the standard JDKs. Sun does not
> use or invent APIs without a specification and a comunity process
> (compare this to hidden and frequently changing APIs from MS).
> 
> bye
> -stephan
> 
> On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 15:31, Tobias Reif wrote:
> > Javier Fontan wrote:
> > 
> > > Opps, I thought that JRuby was only a ruby interpreter written in Java,
> > 
> > 
> > I thought so too. It isn't?
> > 
> > http://jruby.sourceforge.net/new/index.html
> > says
> > " JRuby is a pure Java implementation of the Ruby interpreter,[...]"
> > 
> > 
> > Tobi
> > 
> > -- 
> > 
> > * peace&love.
> > * http://www.pinkjuice.com/
> > 
> 
>