Re: Ruby and .NET

On Sat, 2002-02-16 at 08:01, Sean Russell wrote:
> Sean Middleditch wrote:
> 
> > I've read up quite a bit on .NET, yes.  I am *really* looking forward to
> > a usable Linux version.
> 
> Ugh.  No thanks.  We get Microsoft .NET on Linux, we'll get Microsoft-style 
> security, Microsoft-style standards, Microsoft-style "innovation"...

Security is all based on the implementation... Mono *is* Open Source, so
it will be no more inherently insecure than Ruby, Apache, the BSD
kernels, or anything else.  Just the average bugs that *all* programmers
make from time to time.  IIS isn't insecure because it uses HTTP, it's
insecure because the implementation is bad; the standard protocol it's
based on is the same one that Apache uses.

The standards *are* based on MS, yes.  But, if MS decides to break the
standards, all that does is make it so Mono can't communicate with some
of MS's .NET.  That makes it absolutely no worse than if we didn't have
Mono/.NET at all; it would actually make it better, since at least we'd
have a technology that does what Mono does, plus we'd still be able to
communicate with the Least Common Denomitor among other .NET vendors.

And, so far as innovation, .NET *is* innovation.  Yes, it is similar to
Java's VM, but realize that Java wasn't designed for that; neither can
Java _efficiently_ do everything that .NET tools can do... it can't do
some of those things at all (tail recursion, for example).

Besides, in the future, we will need .NET, because unfortunately
Microsoft has the power to make many companies use .NET to work with
Windows clients, who will admittedly be the majority of their
customers.  Without a .NET implementation, the Open Source operating
systems would be entirely locked out from those services - and there
just might be a service or two on .NET you'll actually want to use. 
(Hell, I'm waiting for Windows Media Player on .NET running in Linux -
nothing of that caliber exists on Linux; and don't even try to compare
RealPlayer...)

Ruby itself can only benefit from .NET, whether we port Ruby to .NET or
just give it an interface to Mono or whatnot; Ruby will then be able to
make use of and communicate with .NET services.  Locking Ruby out of
that when most other popular languages are or are planning to interface
with .NET will mostly kill off Ruby, without a doubt.

I seriously suggest you read up on the .NET Framework and, for a Linux
implementation, Mono (http://go-mono.com) before you start spreading
FUD, just like the oh-so-terrible Microsoft does.  .NET isn't the
end-all of programming environments, but it's certainly not the fiend
people make it out to be.

I have yet to see *one* good reason not to have .NET on Linux (or other
Open Source operating systems, for that matter) other than "I don't like
Microsoft, and their engineers couldn't possibly be as bright as my dog,
so I don't want .NET, even tho I don't really know what it is!"

Please, if you can actually think of a good reason, enlighten me - I'd
much rather be proven wrong than to continue being wrong.  ^,^

> 
> No thank you, sir.
> 
> -- 
>  |..  "Why do Windows users remind me of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers?"
> <|>   -- anon
> /|\   
> /|    
>  |         
>