Bass said:

Anyway "back to the original topic".

 

As I said before, I think Microsoft made a mistake regarding this abandonment of IronRuby and possibly other dynamic language technologies. But I've said this before: I don't intend to be a volunteer Microsoft consultant. So why would I make a post like this? I don't really view it as my style.

 

Obviously if I b*tch about something Microsoft has done or is doing (which by all means, is not an uncommon thing here). It's usually some kind of ulterior motive. Not really too different from anyone else. The European niners b*tch about Microsoft's support in Europe. Makes sense when you think about it.

 

So what is my ulterior motive? I guess you can say my ulterior motive is an unmoving passion for beauty in Computer Science.

 

And you might say, what is beautiful about IronRuby? It's not so much about Ruby the language (but arguably, that is beautiful in it's own right - but something I am not positioned to appreciate). What I find beautiful is Ruby running on the CLR. Python on the CLR. L where L is a computer language running on the CLR. Sharing code with other languages.

 

Multiple languages, speaking the same language.

 

This I view as beauitful.

 

I'm very anti-waste in development. I don't like how every language reproduces it's own framework, it's own runtime, it's own libraries. This is unnecessary. They can share a lot of this stuff. And DLR/Iron* was a step in this direction. It was an example that perhaps - someone else out there "got it". That made it one of the very few projects out of Microsoft I had a personal interest in.

 

If I was still a professional .NET developer, I'd care a lot more. But am I realising that .NET is really not the answer to every question. In fact, I'm starting to think .NET is the answer to very few questions. Some might go: "Which technology should I avoid?"

 

It's not quite at that point yet, and in fact C# is in many ways a really awesome language, the .NET framework is awesome in many areas (not so awesome in others). But if Microsoft continues to make .NET less appealing to me, I'm going to start having to answer questions that way.

 

Might not be a big deal, since I'm just one person. But somehow I don't think I'm the only one. Who knows.

Not everything maps equally well to {MS,C}IL. That something can be mapped onto something else does not make it beautiful or even practical, neither by itself nor in terms of smooth integration. It just turns out that it does work nicely in many cases, which is great. I disagree on your assessment that reinventing the wheel is bad (NIH syndrome), I actually think it's great and the way progress is made and this is because the wheel is never the same and the reason it's never the same is because the expression language has changed. New languages necessarily foster new libraries which are reinventions of old libraries. The wheel of reinvention keeps turning.

 

I don't see much evidence to support your disbelief in the future prospects of .NET, except that something else will come along, eventually. That something else is certainly not the Java Platform, it's something else entirely - CLR and JVM are conceptual siblings. Still, I don't like the signal that the news behind this thread sends.

 

edit: Top-voted connect feedback

 

I like the ideas behind Singularity, because it allows much more efficient "managed code" but on the other hand it looks extremely limited in terms of dynamic capabilities. Maybe nested virtualization can solve that.