From: David Simmons <david.simmons@...>
Date: 2002-02-15T02:59:17+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby and .NET

"Peter Hickman" <peter@semantico.com> wrote in message
news:3C6BCBB1.8020205@semantico.com...
> Erik B�gfors wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 15:22, Stephan J. Schmidt wrote:
> > in the first place.
> >
> >>I think integrating Ruby into Parrot might be a much better idea, or at
> >>least jRuby and jPython should throw some resources together and make it
> >>easier for other languages to compile to java bytecode. At least Java is
> >>more open then .NET.
> >>
> >In what sence?
> >
> >/Erik
> >
> The Java bytecode has a published spec, .NET bytecode has been largely
> reverse engineered and MS makes no commitment other than to themselves.
> Just like those undocumented API issues that used to plague Windows
> developers.
>

Like many misleading statements in the JavaLobby article
[http://www.javalobby.org/clr.html] in which I am liberally quoted with
regard to Smalltalk/SmallScript on .NET, the above statement regarding the
..NET CLR is not accurate. The .NET IL (opcodes) and related metadata are not
only public, they are being standardized by ECMA.

The standards group:

    http://www.ecma.ch/

    http://www.ecma.ch/ecma1/MEMENTO/tc39.htm

    http://www.ecma.ch/ecma1/STAND/standard.htm

IL and metadata definitions can be found here:

    http://www.ecma.ch/ecma1/STAND/ecma-335.htm

Having done the work for SmallScript (an extended Smalltalk) for .NET, I can
tell you that it has crucial features for making this job easier and the
resulting implementation more efficient and flexible than an equivalent
Java/JVM effort. Noting that two Smalltalk implementation for JVM projects
have been done.

I hardly think most of the world views Sun's latest versions of the "java"
language system as being open and publicly implementable as such -- I'm sure
Sun legal would have comments to say regarding IP, licensing and trademark
violations.

-- Dave S. [www.smallscript.org]

>
>