From: Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
Date: 2004-04-23T16:40:58+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby on .NET (was Re: A Ruby WishList)

> //|Don't get me wrong, all I am saying is that the .net is geared to go
> //|places and it already is in the enterprise spehere. The merits of
> //|platform that provides a true level playing field across
> //languages is
> //|slowing showing its strenght in the enterprise.
> //
> //Ow ow ow. The concept of a Microsoft platform providing a
> //"true level playing field" for anything just made by brain hurt.

> Hey, backoff.

What's the big deal?  It's a fair point substantiated by several courts of
law.

> Yes I figured that Matz's reasons would be those. Which is good. But I
> would always argue for the Ruby being on the CLI - I might even do
> something about it, had I been a good enough programmer, but that will
> have to wait. Today the CLI/CLR let you write a class in C++ and inherit
> and extend that in Visual Basic. Being on the CLI simply makes avilable
> to Ruby everything the .Net community has done and thats awesome.

I won't stand behind or attempt to justify these claims, but I'm told that
the CLI doesn't really support multiple languages; rather the languages
have changed to support the CLI.  It's probably an exaggeration to say
that the languages are now the same but with different keywords, but it's
also an exaggeration that the CLI supports C++ and VB in their original
spirits.  Do you have an opinion on this?

> I must say that the CLR is not ready for true dynamic languages, I
> cannot imagine how a closure or a continuation would be implemented on
> the CLR. The present C# implementation of yield (Whidbey release - VS
> 2005) is a 'hack', for want for a better word.
>
> But if Matz (or anyone knowledgible enough) were to put out reasons for
> why the CLR is inadequate, the .net community might be able to respond
> and do something about it.

Forgive my ignorance, but what can the community do about it?  Do they
have any influence over the spec?

Cheers,
Gavin