Well not entirely dead, but Microsoft decided to no longer fund its development.

Personally I've always seen Ruby as a bit of a fad and one whose day seems to have passed, I suspect there are better areas to focus development on.

AndyC said:

Well that's not actually what it says either. Rather that Jimmy is leaving and he was one of the last on the IronRuby team, which Microsoft may now decide to stop funding.

 

Personally I've always seen Ruby as a bit of a fad and one whose day seems to have passed, I suspect there are better areas to focus development on.

Like what? Another rewrite of WF?

I'm just finding it ironic that .NET which seems to have billed as a "multi-language runtime" keeps losing languages. While the JVM (never ment for anything but Java) seems to be where all the language development action is these days. Good work Microsoft. Keep killing your development story.

I'm sure everyone in the world will drink the Kool-Aid and use C#.

AndyC said:

Well that's not actually what it says either. Rather that Jimmy is leaving and he was one of the last on the IronRuby team, which Microsoft may now decide to stop funding.

 

Personally I've always seen Ruby as a bit of a fad and one whose day seems to have passed, I suspect there are better areas to focus development on.

After spending about a year with RoR, I have to say that Rails is nice. I love ActiveRecord and I love how easy it is to scaffold an entire site from the command line. Works as an excellent prototyping tool.

On the other hand, Ruby is crummy. So much effort has gone into making it easy to write stuff like 5.days.ago that it becomes harder to read code or to predict what a certain method will return. Granted, it isn't strongly typed, and that my negative attitude towards Ruby basically stems from not being able to guarantee a variable will be of a certain type and that to handle objects of unknown types, you need to call respond_to?(METHOD_NAME).

I do have other issues with Ruby, which fall far more towards "By design." For example, I don't like how you can very easily modify the behavior of any class in Ruby from anywhere (including your source code). You don't like how the Time class spits out milliseconds...overwrite it in your source code. Yay, now some developer in your open source project who depends on millseconds for database operations will get confused.

I remember spending several hours trying to debug my web application because I had accidentally overriden the *"type" class when I declared it as a field in a class. I had essentially made it do nothing, and any reference to the "*type" class blew up ruby.

I will admit that it is nice using ruby on the command line. But for anything else...nah. It's not for me.

*It wasn't actually the "type" class. I can't remember what it was, but it actually wasn't something you'd expect to be a "reserved" word.

C

Truth be told, F# does a lot of what any scripting langauge can do, very very well for that matter, hence the hammer, coffin and nails.

vesuvius said:

There are 1000 ruby developers that Microsoft choose to not ignore but learn from while procuring super powerful scripting languages like F#.

 

Truth be told, F# does a lot of what any scripting langauge can do, very very well for that matter, hence the hammer, coffin and nails.

I don't understand the relationship here. F# is a strongly-typed hybrid (functional and imperative) language that is a thin skin around CLI.  It is not a dynamically typed language and therefore is not the right tool when you need/want dynamic capabilities (like Python and Ruby afford...). Dynamic languages are dynamic at the type system level. F# targets a static type system, which is baked into the CLR (this is why the DLR was invented...).

What do you mean, exactly?
C

Charles said:

I agree with this assessment: http://openmymind.net/2010/8/7/A-Snowballs-Chance-In-Hell-IronRuby

C

Quote:

Ruby almost exclusively runs on Linux (for the server) and Mac (for the desktop) - both of which are major competitors to Windows. Both of which, with respect to Ruby, are better than Windows. It would be beyond stupid for Microsoft to open the door, ever so slightly, and allow its developers to get a glimpse at this better world.

Interesting that you agree with the assessment.

Bass said:

Charles said:

*snip*

Quote:

Ruby almost exclusively runs on Linux (for the server) and Mac (for the desktop) - both of which are major competitors to Windows. Both of which, with respect to Ruby, are better than Windows. It would be beyond stupid for Microsoft to open the door, ever so slightly, and allow its developers to get a glimpse at this better world.

 

 

Interesting that you agree with the assessment.

Well, I should have been more specific about the assessment (related to this thread and the demise of Iron languages at Microsoft)..... Obviously, I don't think about Linux as being a better server OS than Windows Server (I don't really think about this at all....)

I am focusing only on the notion of the flawed strategy for Iron languages... The CLR is a statically-typed runtime. That's the first obvious problem. Second, it doesn't make a lot of sense to maintain mulitple implementations of the same language. With Azure, the tent will grow (why would you run and Iron version of a language on Azure when you could just use the language itself....).

So, again, my agreement with the author is limited to basic premise surrounding the demise of Iron languages, not the platform politic$....

You know my stance on this $tuff by now, right? I shouldn't have to defend myself.

C

Charles said:

Bass said:

*snip*

Well, I should have been more specific about the assessment (related to this thread and the demise of Iron languages at Microsoft)..... Obviously, I don't think about Linux as being a better server OS than Windows Server (I don't really think about this at all....)

 

I am focusing only on the notion of the flawed strategy for Iron languages... The CLR is a statically-typed runtime. That's the first obvious problem. Second, it doesn't make a lot of sense to maintain mulitple implementations of the same language. With Azure, the tent will grow (why would you run and Iron version of a language on Azure when you could just use the language itself....).

So, again, my agreement with the author is limited to basic premise surrounding the demise of Iron languages, not the platform politic$....

You know my stance on this $tuff by now, right? I shouldn't have to defend myself.

 

C

The Iron* languages allowed strong interoperability with .NET, just like JRuby allows interoperability with Java. You can't do that with CPython, for instance.

I always thought IronPython/IronRuby was a way to get Python/Ruby programmers to write on and for the Windows and .NET platform. I guess Python/Ruby was so good it was stealing away .NET programmers instead of vise versa. 

Charles said:

Bass said:

*snip*

Well, I should have been more specific about the assessment (related to this thread and the demise of Iron languages at Microsoft)..... Obviously, I don't think about Linux as being a better server OS than Windows Server (I don't really think about this at all....)

 

I am focusing only on the notion of the flawed strategy for Iron languages... The CLR is a statically-typed runtime. That's the first obvious problem. Second, it doesn't make a lot of sense to maintain mulitple implementations of the same language. With Azure, the tent will grow (why would you run and Iron version of a language on Azure when you could just use the language itself....).

So, again, my agreement with the author is limited to basic premise surrounding the demise of Iron languages, not the platform politic$....

You know my stance on this $tuff by now, right? I shouldn't have to defend myself.

 

C

Obviously, I don't think about Linux as being a better server OS than Windows Server

It doesn't say Linux is a better server OS than Windows Server. It says the Ruby experience is better on it than it is on Windows. Subtle, but vastly different.

Bas said:

Charles said:

*snip*

 

It doesn't say Linux is a better server OS than Windows Server. It says the Ruby experience is better on it than it is on Windows. Subtle, but vastly different.

Will this always be the case?

...

C

Charles said:

Bas said:

*snip*

Will this always be the case?

 

...

C

It sure will if Microsoft doesn't give a crap about improving the Python and Ruby experience on Windows. Case in point.

Charles said:

vesuvius said:

*snip*

I don't understand the relationship here. F# is a strongly-typed hybrid (functional and imperative) language that is a thin skin around CLI.  It is not a dynamically typed language and therefore is not the right tool when you need/want dynamic capabilities (like Python and Ruby afford...). Dynamic languages are dynamic at the type system level. F# targets a static type system, which is baked into the CLR (this is why the DLR was invented...).

What do you mean, exactly?
C

He's reflecting on the fact that F# has a dynamic feel to it due to its strong support for type-inference.

And would any interest come from the .NET side of things? I don't think so. C# prorgammers are more than happy with C# - lambdas, generics and the var keyword give you what you need. I think a lot of Ruby people when proclaiming the benefits of Ruby assume that C# is like Java was in 1995 when it's far more progressive. Add to the fact that Ruby is a pretty oddball looking language, I don't see many C# programmers being attracted to it.

Charles said:

Bas said:

*snip*

Will this always be the case?

 

...

C

The reasoning of the article escapes me. The point you make about the suitability of the CLR for truly dynamic languages seems fair and applies equally well to the JVM. Still, even as a static typist, I don't hope this signals Microsoft's dying belief in dynamic languages. It can be dangerous to neglect a whole class of developers.

exoteric said:

Charles said:

*snip*

He's reflecting on the fact that F# has a dynamic feel to it due to its strong support for type-inference.

And there are strong hints that we may see this in C# in the future.

I personally believe it is a huge waste of time to repeat twice when setting up a variable when Compilers have long

be efficient at inferring type in 90% of the cases.

Douglas

exoteric said:

Charles said:

*snip*

The reasoning of the article escapes me. The point you make about the suitability of the CLR for truly dynamic languages seems fair and applies equally well to the JVM. Still, even as a static typist, I don't hope this signals Microsoft's dying belief in dynamic languages. It can be dangerous to neglect a whole class of developers.

It probably doesn't signal the end of Microsoft's commitment to supporting dynamic languages as much as it may signal the end of spending time and resources trying to make the CLR do what it is not intended to do... That said, these are my opinions and not those of Microsoft. DevDiv is well equipped to communicate their thinking - I am not doing it for them as that is not my place (since I don't work in DevDiv and I have absolutely nothing to do with designing or explaining their strategies).

In my opinion, Windows should just run any language/runtime incredibly well. This would make it easier for developers to target our platform with the tools they know and love. But, again, I am just speaking my mind, sharing my perspectives which are, by the way, often incorrect and not representative of reality.

C

exoteric said:

Charles said:

*snip*

He's reflecting on the fact that F# has a dynamic feel to it due to its strong support for type-inference.

I don't agree. Type inference and dynamic typing are not the same thing, obviously. The point of all of this is dynamic runtime behavior and programming languages that support dynamic type systems. I don't want to go down the static versus dynamic rabbit hole. It's too deep and generally doesn't lead anywhere. As far as C#'s dynamic, it requires the DLR to produce expression trees and what not that the CLR can actually do something with...

At any rate, we're just having a conversation. I don't want you to think that I am right - you're smarter than I am, gentlemen. Remember that.

C

Charles said:

exoteric said:

*snip*

I don't agree. Type inference and dynamic typing are not the same thing, obviously. The point of all of this is dynamic runtime behavior and programming languages that support dynamic type systems. I don't want to go down the static versus dynamic rabbit hole. It's too deep and generally doesn't lead anywhere. As far as C#'s dynamic, it requires the DLR to produce expression trees and what not that the CLR can actually do something with...

 

At any rate, we're just having a conversation. I don't want you to think that I am right - you're smarter than I am, gentlemen. Remember that.

C

No worries Charles.

The static types are still there but as a programmer you don't have to "type them down", which is what gives F# the dynamic feel. That doesn't account for the full expresiveness of dynamic languages but it does fool some programmers into thinking that the language is dynamic, at least newbies.

exoteric said:

Charles said:

*snip*

No worries Charles.

 

The static types are still there but as a programmer you don't have to "type them down", which is what gives F# the dynamic feel. That doesn't account for the full expresiveness of dynamic languages but it does fool some programmers into thinking that the language is dynamic, at least newbies.

"That doesn't account for the full expresiveness of dynamic languages"

What expressiveness?

Bass said:

AndyC said:

*snip*

Like what? Another rewrite of WF?

 

I'm just finding it ironic that .NET which seems to have billed as a "multi-language runtime" keeps losing languages. While the JVM (never ment for anything but Java) seems to be where all the language development action is these days. Good work Microsoft. Keep killing your development story.

 

I'm sure everyone in the world will drink the Kool-Aid and use C#.

FUnny ...

Eh Bass:

1) why must microsoft support more than say 2 languages?  the .net runtime and framework allow anyone to create or port a compiler to do whatever languuges they want.

2) i recall that in programming we have seen dozens of languages over the years but folks focus most of the time on working with just one or two of them .... so with C# and the C/C++ trends this seems rather to be expected

Things change and yet they stay the same....

figuerres said:

Bass said:

*snip*

FUnny ...

 

Eh Bass:

 

1) why must microsoft support more than say 2 languages?  the .net runtime and framework allow anyone to create or port a compiler to do whatever languuges they want.

 

2) i recall that in programming we have seen dozens of languages over the years but folks focus most of the time on working with just one or two of them .... so with C# and the C/C++ trends this seems rather to be expected

 

Things change and yet they stay the same....

Because people use more then two languages. Personally I think everyone should STFU and use Java.

Oh wait.

Do you get what I mean though?

You might be a C# programmer and you probably think everyone is using just "one or two of them". But that's because you are pigeon holed into that niche. IE. Oracle DBA will think everyone uses Oracle, because he is pigeon holed by his own Resume into a career as an Oracle DBA. So all he will ever see is Oracle this Oracle that. But that is a false idea. 

figuerres said:

Bass said:

*snip*

FUnny ...

 

Eh Bass:

 

1) why must microsoft support more than say 2 languages?  the .net runtime and framework allow anyone to create or port a compiler to do whatever languuges they want.

 

2) i recall that in programming we have seen dozens of languages over the years but folks focus most of the time on working with just one or two of them .... so with C# and the C/C++ trends this seems rather to be expected

 

Things change and yet they stay the same....

"Things change and yet they stay the same."

True story,

C

Charles said:

exoteric said:

*snip*

It probably doesn't signal the end of Microsoft's commitment to supporting dynamic languages as much as it may signal the end of spending time and resources trying to make the CLR do what it is not intended to do... That said, these are my opinions and not those of Microsoft. DevDiv is well equipped to communicate their thinking - I am not doing it for them as that is not my place (since I don't work in DevDiv and I have absolutely nothing to do with designing or explaining their strategies).

 

In my opinion, Windows should just run any language/runtime incredibly well. This would make it easier for developers to target our platform with the tools they know and love. But, again, I am just speaking my mind, sharing my perspectives which are, by the way, often incorrect and not representative of reality.

 

C

So you think the CLR is made worse by running a dynamic language?

Minh said:

Charles said:

*snip*

So you think the CLR is made worse by running a dynamic language?

Of course not. What makes you assume this? I said the CLR, today, is a static runtime, through and through.

C

Charles said:

Minh said:

*snip*

Of course not. What makes you assume this? I said the CLR, today, is a static runtime, through and through.

C

it may signal the end of spending time and resources trying to make the CLR do what it is not intended to do...

I think the inclusion of the dynamic libraries in SIlverlight gives it so much potential... and it could not have happened without the work on IronRuby and IronPython. If you count the # of people working on the DLR vs the CLR it's not even funny. It's unfortunate MS decided to cut short term cost and not explore the long-term potential of the DLR.

Minh said:

Charles said:

*snip*

it may signal the end of spending time and resources trying to make the CLR do what it is not intended to do...

 

I think the inclusion of the dynamic libraries in SIlverlight gives it so much potential... and it could not have happened without the work on IronRuby and IronPython. If you count the # of people working on the DLR vs the CLR it's not even funny. It's unfortunate MS decided to cut short term cost and not explore the long-term potential of the DLR.

 

 

Yes. The CLR team was not shrunk in size, remember. One could conclude that if we are committed to supporting dynamic type systems, well, we would add this capability directly to our de facto managed virtual machine. I don't know... Or, to my point, we would just support and executionally enhance dynamic runtimes we don't also create and ship.

C

Charles said:

Minh said:

*snip*

Yes. The CLR team was not shrunk in size, remember. One could conclude that if we are committed to supporting dynamic type systems, well, we would add this capability directly to our de facto managed virtual machine. I don't know... Or, to my point, we would just support and executionally enhance dynamic runtimes we don't also create and ship.

 

C

It's all bits and bytes under the hood, isn't it? Just because the DLR runs on top of the CLR, it doesn't mean it's a 2nd-class citizen, now. VB.net requires an external DLL... and no one considers VB a 2nd-class citizen.

Minh said:

Charles said:

*snip*

It's all bits and bytes under the hood, isn't it? Just because the DLR runs on top of the CLR, it doesn't mean it's a 2nd-class citizen, now. VB.net requires an external DLL... and no one considers VB a 2nd-class citizen.

I'm not going down this rabbit hole, Minh.

C

Charles said:

Minh said:

*snip*

I'm not going down this rabbit hole, Minh.

C

In an alternate reality, Alice went home, became a housewife, and lead a perfectly normal life

1. Microsoft is being EXTREMELY stupid and short sighted if they really are dropping the Iron languages. Without dynamic languages, the .NET world becomes just one giant hammer instead of a toolbox.

2. Charles's comment about dynamic languages not fitting in with the CLR means that Microsoft should also be dropping PowerShell. Nuff said, I think.

3. Master Pie's complaints about Ruby are really complaints about dynamic languages not Ruby. While I share some of the complaints, having written a large desktop application entirely in ECMA Script, I will still turn to dynamic languages for many tasks. Hammer and nail sort of thing, you know?

4. I have to strongly disagree about Ruby/Python mostly running on Linux. I've used many applications on Windows that are widely popular that were written in both languages. I've also done a lot of scripting on Windows using both languages. On Linux, on the other hand, outside of those popular programs I mentioned running on Windows you're far more likely to find things written in Bash, Perl and PHP.

5. I've already disputed rhm's assertion that Ruby developers are unlikely to be using Windows, but I'll now argue about "deploying on Windows". That's hogwash. First, if it's strictly Ruby and no dependency on any .NET libraries, you can deploy to Linux using the standard Ruby runtime. Second, if you're using .NET libraries the IronRuby platform runs on any platform that Mono runs on. And the old "Mono isn't complete" argument, that I've always found lacking anyway, really doesn't matter much here, as the "missing" libraries on Mono are libraries that you're probably not using with IronRuby in the first place.

6. Next rhm questions whether or not .NET devs would be interested in Ruby, and the answer is emphatically YES. The .NET OpenSource folks already use tools like Rake for building, Cucumber etc. for BDD testing and there's a huge movement right now to use Gems for package management. Then there's the whole need to allow your application to be scripted by end users and the benefits of allowing them to use any "Iron" language to do so. I could go on, but the point is made. .NET devs are already dependent on Ruby/"Iron Languages", much less have a desire to use these languages.

All in all, if Microsoft is abandoning dynamic languages on the CLR they are screwing up massively. If they are just dropping the current Iron languages, they are still making a huge mistake, both politically and even for technical reasons.

Minh said:

Charles said:

*snip*

It's all bits and bytes under the hood, isn't it? Just because the DLR runs on top of the CLR, it doesn't mean it's a 2nd-class citizen, now. VB.net requires an external DLL... and no one considers VB a 2nd-class citizen.

The DLR is an excellent tool to add dynamic features to static languages, but maybe - just maybe - it's not the optimal solution for a purely dynamic language.

While this doesn't prove anything, it's at least suggestive that the IE team developed Chakra from scratch instead of basing it on .NET and the DLR.

wkempf said:

Summing up my thoughts about the "news" and various comments here.

 

1. Microsoft is being EXTREMELY stupid and short sighted if they really are dropping the Iron languages. Without dynamic languages, the .NET world becomes just one giant hammer instead of a toolbox.

 

2. Charles's comment about dynamic languages not fitting in with the CLR means that Microsoft should also be dropping PowerShell. Nuff said, I think.

 

3. Master Pie's complaints about Ruby are really complaints about dynamic languages not Ruby. While I share some of the complaints, having written a large desktop application entirely in ECMA Script, I will still turn to dynamic languages for many tasks. Hammer and nail sort of thing, you know?

 

4. I have to strongly disagree about Ruby/Python mostly running on Linux. I've used many applications on Windows that are widely popular that were written in both languages. I've also done a lot of scripting on Windows using both languages. On Linux, on the other hand, outside of those popular programs I mentioned running on Windows you're far more likely to find things written in Bash, Perl and PHP.

 

5. I've already disputed rhm's assertion that Ruby developers are unlikely to be using Windows, but I'll now argue about "deploying on Windows". That's hogwash. First, if it's strictly Ruby and no dependency on any .NET libraries, you can deploy to Linux using the standard Ruby runtime. Second, if you're using .NET libraries the IronRuby platform runs on any platform that Mono runs on. And the old "Mono isn't complete" argument, that I've always found lacking anyway, really doesn't matter much here, as the "missing" libraries on Mono are libraries that you're probably not using with IronRuby in the first place.

 

6. Next rhm questions whether or not .NET devs would be interested in Ruby, and the answer is emphatically YES. The .NET OpenSource folks already use tools like Rake for building, Cucumber etc. for BDD testing and there's a huge movement right now to use Gems for package management. Then there's the whole need to allow your application to be scripted by end users and the benefits of allowing them to use any "Iron" language to do so. I could go on, but the point is made. .NET devs are already dependent on Ruby/"Iron Languages", much less have a desire to use these languages.

 

All in all, if Microsoft is abandoning dynamic languages on the CLR they are screwing up massively. If they are just dropping the current Iron languages, they are still making a huge mistake, both politically and even for technical reasons.

re 1: .NET has always been about integrating with other languages/APIs without everything having to compile down to CIL. If the Iron languages go away (which they will only do if there's no interest) then that doesn't leave .NET in an island that precludes using any other language in a .NET solution. CouchDB runs on the Erland virtual machine, but they still use a seperate Javascript runtime with it. IE has a Javascript runtime and also loads code in Java and in .NET if required to. Interop is just as powerful as being able to compile everything down to the same VM.

re: 2. Powershell isn't a dynamic language. It has an elaborate type inference system to avoid having to declare types of variables, but it relies on the standard .NET facility for dispatching function invocations. It doesn't use the DLR (predates it by a long time in fact).

re: 5. Why would the bulk of current Ruby users (the Mac and Linux crowd) take a dependency on Windows or Mono just to link to .NET libraries? There's tons and tons of open source C and Ruby libraries that they can use already. Even as someone who loves .NET, I can't see any reason why a rails dev would start using .NET technologies and I haven't heard of anyone coming across from the Mac/Linux using Ruby world to Windows because of IronRuby.

re: 6. If there's so much interest in IronRuby from .NET developers then there's nothing to worry about. It's already open sourced. If IronRuby developers are, as I suspect, in a minority of a minority, then I can understand the panic.

Minh said:

Charles said:

*snip*

In an alternate reality, Alice went home, became a housewife, and lead a perfectly normal life

True story.

C

rhm said:

wkempf said:

*snip*

re 1: .NET has always been about integrating with other languages/APIs without everything having to compile down to CIL. If the Iron languages go away (which they will only do if there's no interest) then that doesn't leave .NET in an island that precludes using any other language in a .NET solution. CouchDB runs on the Erland virtual machine, but they still use a seperate Javascript runtime with it. IE has a Javascript runtime and also loads code in Java and in .NET if required to. Interop is just as powerful as being able to compile everything down to the same VM.

 

re: 2. Powershell isn't a dynamic language. It has an elaborate type inference system to avoid having to declare types of variables, but it relies on the standard .NET facility for dispatching function invocations. It doesn't use the DLR (predates it by a long time in fact).

 

re: 5. Why would the bulk of current Ruby users (the Mac and Linux crowd) take a dependency on Windows or Mono just to link to .NET libraries? There's tons and tons of open source C and Ruby libraries that they can use already. Even as someone who loves .NET, I can't see any reason why a rails dev would start using .NET technologies and I haven't heard of anyone coming across from the Mac/Linux using Ruby world to Windows because of IronRuby.

 

re: 6. If there's so much interest in IronRuby from .NET developers then there's nothing to worry about. It's already open sourced. If IronRuby developers are, as I suspect, in a minority of a minority, then I can understand the panic.

 

 

re1: None of this addresses the lack of dynamic languages on the CLR if Microsoft drops the "Iron" languages.

re2: PowerShell is certainly dynamic (goes beyond type inference and includes dynamic types), though I'll agree that it doesn't use the DLR.

re5: I dispute that the bulk of Ruby users are in the Mac/Linux crowd, and regardless there's numerous reasons why such devs might want to take a dependency on .NET. I won't argue that those reasons aren't corner case reasons, but you've turned this discussion on it's head in the first place. My point was to dispute the claim you made that by using IronRuby you had to target Windows.

re6: That's not entirely true. OpenSource or not, if Microsoft abandons "Iron" then it's very likely that developers will be reluctant to use them. This is more political than technical, and is unfortunate, and it has little to do with how many people currently use the languages.

wkempf said:

rhm said:

*snip*

re1: None of this addresses the lack of dynamic languages on the CLR if Microsoft drops the "Iron" languages.

 

re2: PowerShell is certainly dynamic (goes beyond type inference and includes dynamic types), though I'll agree that it doesn't use the DLR.

 

re5: I dispute that the bulk of Ruby users are in the Mac/Linux crowd, and regardless there's numerous reasons why such devs might want to take a dependency on .NET. I won't argue that those reasons aren't corner case reasons, but you've turned this discussion on it's head in the first place. My point was to dispute the claim you made that by using IronRuby you had to target Windows.

 

re6: That's not entirely true. OpenSource or not, if Microsoft abandons "Iron" then it's very likely that developers will be reluctant to use them. This is more political than technical, and is unfortunate, and it has little to do with how many people currently use the languages.

Maybe they are planning on using SPUR to replace the DLR.

rhm said:

wkempf said:

*snip*

re 1: .NET has always been about integrating with other languages/APIs without everything having to compile down to CIL. If the Iron languages go away (which they will only do if there's no interest) then that doesn't leave .NET in an island that precludes using any other language in a .NET solution. CouchDB runs on the Erland virtual machine, but they still use a seperate Javascript runtime with it. IE has a Javascript runtime and also loads code in Java and in .NET if required to. Interop is just as powerful as being able to compile everything down to the same VM.

 

re: 2. Powershell isn't a dynamic language. It has an elaborate type inference system to avoid having to declare types of variables, but it relies on the standard .NET facility for dispatching function invocations. It doesn't use the DLR (predates it by a long time in fact).

 

re: 5. Why would the bulk of current Ruby users (the Mac and Linux crowd) take a dependency on Windows or Mono just to link to .NET libraries? There's tons and tons of open source C and Ruby libraries that they can use already. Even as someone who loves .NET, I can't see any reason why a rails dev would start using .NET technologies and I haven't heard of anyone coming across from the Mac/Linux using Ruby world to Windows because of IronRuby.

 

re: 6. If there's so much interest in IronRuby from .NET developers then there's nothing to worry about. It's already open sourced. If IronRuby developers are, as I suspect, in a minority of a minority, then I can understand the panic.

 

 

How do you do WPF development in CRuby? You could with IronRuby. You could mix and match C# and Ruby code in your ASP.NET projects. You could have a no effort Ruby scripting API for your app. This kind of stuff is very difficult to do with the C runtime.

I don't really even see much of a reason to use CRuby. JRuby is a fairly complete Ruby implementation. But it has full Java interop. And get this, it actually runs Ruby _faster_ then the original implementation. IronRuby had a lot of potential. It could have been the premier Ruby implementation with just a little more effort on Microsoft's part. IMO.

Dropping these languages really detracts from the whole "one runtime to rule them all" mantra. Well maybe that mantra never really existed. Maybe at some point Microsoft will change CLR to stand for C# Language Runtime.

Bass said:

rhm said:

*snip*

How do you do WPF development in CRuby? You could with IronRuby. You could mix and match C# and Ruby code in your ASP.NET projects. You could have a no effort Ruby scripting API for your app. This kind of stuff is very difficult to do with the C runtime.

 

I don't really even see much of a reason to use CRuby. JRuby is a fairly complete Ruby implementation. But it has full Java interop. And get this, it actually runs Ruby _faster_ then the original implementation. IronRuby had a lot of potential. It could have been the premier Ruby implementation with just a little more effort on Microsoft's part. IMO.

 

Dropping these languages really detracts from the whole "one runtime to rule them all" mantra. Well maybe that mantra never really existed. Maybe at some point Microsoft will change CLR to stand for C# Language Runtime.

Isn't that true just from the codedom, samples released.  

Think the best statement I have heard for the state of the codedom,  it is the best platform for creating code as long as it is exactly C#,  even in the case of generating VB.net. 

My Gut feeling is that within 2 versions F# will no longer be a language available in VS.  Given the removal of Jscript, in the recent past. apparent removal of support of the Iron languages. 

The sad part is that there will have to be a fundamental change of the BCL (immutable types, Isolation, actor based passing? instead of tightly coupled method passing) to support the coming multiprocessor revolution.  (talking 12 core or more)   So I do see significant changes coming in the near futre to all the base languages.  

Douglas

Bass said:

rhm said:

*snip*

How do you do WPF development in CRuby? You could with IronRuby. You could mix and match C# and Ruby code in your ASP.NET projects. You could have a no effort Ruby scripting API for your app. This kind of stuff is very difficult to do with the C runtime.

 

I don't really even see much of a reason to use CRuby. JRuby is a fairly complete Ruby implementation. But it has full Java interop. And get this, it actually runs Ruby _faster_ then the original implementation. IronRuby had a lot of potential. It could have been the premier Ruby implementation with just a little more effort on Microsoft's part. IMO.

 

Dropping these languages really detracts from the whole "one runtime to rule them all" mantra. Well maybe that mantra never really existed. Maybe at some point Microsoft will change CLR to stand for C# Language Runtime.

Nobody cares about WPF except a (small) subset of .NET developers. Seriously - 99% of the worlds developers are working on something web-related and the other 1% have a wide choice of UI frameworks. Ruby developers wouldn't be caught dead using ASP.NET when they have Rails. There are a variety of scripting options for .NET apps and like I said before, Ruby is a pretty oddball language syntax-wise - I think offering Ruby scripting in my apps would only be of interest to people who already know Ruby.

If JRuby is any good, that only reduces further any interest from non-.NET developers in IronRuby. I'm not a fan of Java by any means, but it runs fully supported on most platforms. IronRuby would never be the main Ruby implementation unless all the others were truely useless.

What I'm seeing here is a small number of .NET developers who like Ruby. Which is fine. But the idea that IronRuby is something that ever had huge potential is just a fantasy those people are revelling in to try and make out the [potential] loss of their pet language is more significant than it really is.

Bass said:

rhm said:

*snip*

How do you do WPF development in CRuby? You could with IronRuby. You could mix and match C# and Ruby code in your ASP.NET projects. You could have a no effort Ruby scripting API for your app. This kind of stuff is very difficult to do with the C runtime.

 

I don't really even see much of a reason to use CRuby. JRuby is a fairly complete Ruby implementation. But it has full Java interop. And get this, it actually runs Ruby _faster_ then the original implementation. IronRuby had a lot of potential. It could have been the premier Ruby implementation with just a little more effort on Microsoft's part. IMO.

 

Dropping these languages really detracts from the whole "one runtime to rule them all" mantra. Well maybe that mantra never really existed. Maybe at some point Microsoft will change CLR to stand for C# Language Runtime.

I'm kind of hoping that IronPython ends up being safe, I was about to use it in a product.  Could really do with a word from the product teams on this!

PerfectPhase said:

Bass said:

*snip*

I'm kind of hoping that IronPython ends up being safe, I was about to use it in a product.  Could really do with a word from the product teams on this!

Agreed. Let them speak. Sorry about fueling speculation. Bad Charles. Bad.

C

Bass said:

figuerres said:

*snip*

Because people use more then two languages. Personally I think everyone should STFU and use Java.

 

Oh wait.

 

Do you get what I mean though?

 

You might be a C# programmer and you probably think everyone is using just "one or two of them". But that's because you are pigeon holed into that niche. IE. Oracle DBA will think everyone uses Oracle, because he is pigeon holed by his own Resume into a career as an Oracle DBA. So all he will ever see is Oracle this Oracle that. But that is a false idea. 

Bass, You have not a clue.........

let me see just a few of the things is have used :

Perl

Cobol

Basic (multiple versions)

Pascal

C

X86 MASAM

Z80 Assembler

6502 Assembler

WebBase (A type of SmallTalk)

C#

Java

VB 1-6

VB.NET

Sybase SQL Anywhere

Oracle 7.xx

MS Access v1.... Office 2000 version

SUn OS

Linux

Multiple versions of Windows Server.

dBasae II / III / III+

FoxBase (before MS owned it)

Crystal Reports

Clipper

NOvell Netware 2.xxx

Mac OS 6.xxx and 7.xxx and OSX

all of the above and more i have been paid to use for clients.

things i have tinked with but not made money on:

Forth

Lisp

CuBloc Basic

AMiga OS

possible future work may be on the iPad / iPhone if a project needs it, in the planning stage riight now.

and you think I am stuck on one platform or language ???  HA HA HA HA 

Wake UP!

I do stuff that pay my bills, right now it's using C# - but next week ? who knows?

figuerres said:

Bass said:

*snip*

Bass, You have not a clue.........

 

let me see just a few of the things is have used :

 

Perl

Cobol

Basic (multiple versions)

Pascal

C

X86 MASAM

Z80 Assembler

6502 Assembler

WebBase (A type of SmallTalk)

C#

Java

VB 1-6

VB.NET

Sybase SQL Anywhere

Oracle 7.xx

MS Access v1.... Office 2000 version

SUn OS

Linux

Multiple versions of Windows Server.

dBasae II / III / III+

FoxBase (before MS owned it)

Crystal Reports

Clipper

NOvell Netware 2.xxx

Mac OS 6.xxx and 7.xxx and OSX

 

all of the above and more i have been paid to use for clients.

 

things i have tinked with but not made money on:

Forth

Lisp

CuBloc Basic

AMiga OS

 

possible future work may be on the iPad / iPhone if a project needs it, in the planning stage riight now.

 

and you think I am stuck on one platform or language ???  HA HA HA HA 

 

Wake UP!

 

I do stuff that pay my bills, right now it's using C# - but next week ? who knows?

 

I could probably listen dozens of languages on my Resume too, and for awhile I did. But nobody cares that you "used" a language. I realized how crappy it looked with a bunch of languages I barely used all over my Resume.

A better question 5-10+ years of professional expirence using one of those exclusively? How about all of them? Are you 300 years old?

Eg:

Senior Delphi Developer

Requirements

- 7 Years of Delphi experience

...

Senior C# Developer

Requirements

- 7 Years of C# experience

...

I can't get that Delphi job even if I have played around with Delphi. Etc.

Bass said:

figuerres said:

*snip*

I could probably listen dozens of languages on my Resume too, and for awhile I did. But nobody cares that you "used" a language. I realized how crappy it looked with a bunch of languages I barely used all over my Resume.

 

A better question 5-10+ years of professional expirence using one of those exclusively? How about all of them? Are you 300 years old?

 

Eg:

 

Senior Delphi Developer

Requirements

- 7 Years of Delphi experience

...

 

Senior C# Developer

Requirements

- 7 Years of C# experience

...

 

I can't get that Delphi job even if I have played around with Delphi. Etc.

Hey make up your mind.... you said i was .... how did you put it? "Pigeon holed" on one language?

so i pointed out that i am not stuck on just the MS "Fashion List"

as for how long etc.... yeah the core of my work is rather more focused on a few of them....

just do not think that i am a "One Trick Pony" I can do whatever needs to be done.

and I have the background to have a feel for what's what.

and think outside the box to be creative and practical as needed.

figuerres said:

Bass said:

*snip*

Hey make up your mind.... you said i was .... how did you put it? "Pigeon holed" on one language?

so i pointed out that i am not stuck on just the MS "Fashion List"

as for how long etc.... yeah the core of my work is rather more focused on a few of them....

just do not think that i am a "One Trick Pony" I can do whatever needs to be done.

and I have the background to have a feel for what's what.

and think outside the box to be creative and practical as needed.

 

Sure you can drop your Senior .NET Developer position and be a Entry-level Ruby Developer, but at the point you are basically rebooting your career. You won't be at the same level professionally as someone doing Ruby for 5 years, even if they are much younger then you. Five years of full time experience doing something day in and day out makes a big difference.

Bass said:

figuerres said:

*snip*

Sure you can drop your Senior .NET Developer position and be a Entry-level Ruby Developer, but at the point you are basically rebooting your career. You won't be at the same level professionally as someone doing Ruby for 5 years, even if they are much younger then you. Five years of full time experience doing something day in and day out makes a big difference.

so what ?

if i need to switch i can but right now i am doing fine and do not need to.

i do not see any point here that's new....   if you can't adapt you fail. if you can you keep moving to where the work is.

*IF* i had to take on Ruby I am sure i could very quickly but I think there is more to the job and the pay than just years in one tech.

like a track record of beeing able to take on hard stuff and make it work.

and the skills to look at all the options and tell folks more than one way to make it work.

anyway... you took this way far from your point.... you spoke of the MSFT and Iron Ruby and i said two things on that topic and now you are going off on some tangent about what i can or can't do......

get back on topic or drop it.

figuerres said:

Bass said:

*snip*

so what ?

 

if i need to switch i can but right now i am doing fine and do not need to.

 

i do not see any point here that's new....   if you can't adapt you fail. if you can you keep moving to where the work is.

 

*IF* i had to take on Ruby I am sure i could very quickly but I think there is more to the job and the pay than just years in one tech.

like a track record of beeing able to take on hard stuff and make it work.

and the skills to look at all the options and tell folks more than one way to make it work.

 

anyway... you took this way far from your point.... you spoke of the MSFT and Iron Ruby and i said two things on that topic and now you are going off on some tangent about what i can or can't do......

get back on topic or drop it.

 

 

Agreed. Let's wind this thread back...

One thing to add to this rabbit hole side trip, though: Herb Sutter always advocates that developers learn as many languages as they possibly can to hone their skills and learn new ways to approach familiar and not-so-familiar problems. For a day job, typically you focus on one or maybe two languages to accomplish the tasks at hand. These languages should not define your own toolbox, however - you just use them often and you get paid in the process. Ultimately, you master one or two.

Learn, learn, learn. It's the best thing to do.

C

1st Job:

VBA: Excel (Zero Experience)

Javascript (Zero Experience)

Crystal Report (Never heard of it)

Great Plains (Never heard of it)

SalesForce (Never heard of it)

SQL (Hated it in school, but, I learned it)

HTML (High School skill)

My Skill:

C++ (No use)

Java (No use)

My hobbit:

C# (No use)

2nd Job:

Crazy strange muti-browser CSS, DOM, HTML crap (same as my High School skill)

Debug Infogragistic web controls. (WOOOORD)

C# (so far, they didn't give me any C# task)

jQuery (Never heard of it, but, I did XPath in school)

jQuery UI (Never heard of it)

So, do we really need to know all those languages? When I get the interview from my second job, they ask me C# and SQL only. And I haven't really used it in my current job. It seems like they are hiring me not to do what they are already doing, but, what they wanted and no one really got the time to explore it.

My thought, learn too much = information overload. Unless you master a language, you can off-road for fun. Computer science is not about remember everything you learn because there is too much to learn. For every 5 to 10 years, new thing comes out.

Anyway, about the IronRuby, well, RIP. I don't really care actually. Tried it in RPG Maker XP, terrible terrible experience. I want class, private, public, static feilds. I want out parameter with "out" warning so I don't mess up. I want it to failed compile most of the time instead of getting runtime exceptions. Those brainy guy can type perfect code they want. But, I am not perfect guy, I need IDE to babysit me. So far, I make the most elegant code when I am using C#. 

Its sad to hear that the DevDiv suffers this kind of bs too, too bad.

dynamic infrasturacture is definetely an important capability for a runtime that 'runs them all', maybe DLR is not that optimal, but at least the team can learn a lot from it and be prepared to implement them at lower layers.

now who's going to wake up and take it seriously again ????? or not ??????

supports for specific languages is another problem, if the company think its too small a niche market to use their resources, then hand it to the community is a good option, JRuby started as a community effort too, and now became independent also.

magicalclick said:

That's talk about mine.

 

1st Job:

VBA: Excel (Zero Experience)

Javascript (Zero Experience)

Crystal Report (Never heard of it)

Great Plains (Never heard of it)

SalesForce (Never heard of it)

SQL (Hated it in school, but, I learned it)

HTML (High School skill)

 

My Skill:

C++ (No use)

Java (No use)

 

My hobbit:

C# (No use)

 

2nd Job:

Crazy strange muti-browser CSS, DOM, HTML crap (same as my High School skill)

Debug Infogragistic web controls. (WOOOORD)

C# (so far, they didn't give me any C# task)

jQuery (Never heard of it, but, I did XPath in school)

jQuery UI (Never heard of it)

 

So, do we really need to know all those languages? When I get the interview from my second job, they ask me C# and SQL only. And I haven't really used it in my current job. It seems like they are hiring me not to do what they are already doing, but, what they wanted and no one really got the time to explore it.

 

My thought, learn too much = information overload. Unless you master a language, you can off-road for fun. Computer science is not about remember everything you learn because there is too much to learn. For every 5 to 10 years, new thing comes out.

 

Anyway, about the IronRuby, well, RIP. I don't really care actually. Tried it in RPG Maker XP, terrible terrible experience. I want class, private, public, static feilds. I want out parameter with "out" warning so I don't mess up. I want it to failed compile most of the time instead of getting runtime exceptions. Those brainy guy can type perfect code they want. But, I am not perfect guy, I need IDE to babysit me. So far, I make the most elegant code when I am using C#. 

 

 

 

My thought, learn too much = information overload. Unless you master a language, you can off-road for fun. Computer science is not about remember everything you learn because there is too much to learn. For every 5 to 10 years, new thing comes out.

That is 100% true and my point exactly. That's why you can't force the whole world onto "one or two" languages.

felix9 said:

......as they are the typical big-company middle-management issues every software developer has......

 

Its sad to hear that the DevDiv suffers this kind of bs too, too bad.

 

dynamic infrasturacture is definetely an important capability for a runtime that 'runs them all', maybe DLR is not that optimal, but at least the team can learn a lot from it and be prepared to implement them at lower layers.

 

now who's going to wake up and take it seriously again ????? or not ??????

 

supports for specific languages is another problem, if the company think its too small a niche market to use their resources, then hand it to the community is a good option, JRuby started as a community effort too, and now became independent also.

I really don't have much faith in the alleged .NET FOSS community. I'd love to be proven wrong but I think without Microsoft's support IronRuby will be effectively dead.

figuerres said:

Bass said:

*snip*

so what ?

 

if i need to switch i can but right now i am doing fine and do not need to.

 

i do not see any point here that's new....   if you can't adapt you fail. if you can you keep moving to where the work is.

 

*IF* i had to take on Ruby I am sure i could very quickly but I think there is more to the job and the pay than just years in one tech.

like a track record of beeing able to take on hard stuff and make it work.

and the skills to look at all the options and tell folks more than one way to make it work.

 

anyway... you took this way far from your point.... you spoke of the MSFT and Iron Ruby and i said two things on that topic and now you are going off on some tangent about what i can or can't do......

get back on topic or drop it.

 

 

From the tone of your posts, it almost feels like you think I am insulting your programming ability. I don't know anything about your programming ability. Therefore, insulting it would be stupid and pointless really.

No, if I was insulting you, I'd use something more visible. Like your complete lack of spelling or grammar skills. But see, that's the thing: I'm not trying to insult you. Besides, that would make me a grammar/spelling naazi[sic], and that's something I most certainly am not. I hate putting the effort sometimes to proofread random garbage I put on the Internet. So why would I tell other people to do so? I hate when people like to point out every little petty grammar rule I violated when I posted some angry diatribe anonymously over the Internets[sic]. So why would I decide to become one of these people? It just doesn't really make much sense.

I'll just say it plainly: I was just trying to make a point. Unfortunately, that point was poorly expressed. It was poorly expressed because it seemed to go way over your head. It probably over most people's head, except maybe magicalclick. Although I am not sure he actually derived my point from all various rambling in this thread. So I apologise in advance for trying.

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.

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.

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.

I see your point, and instinctively I agree with that, but there are a few considerations worth making.

The hardest part of learning a new language usually consists of getting to know its libraries, so having all sorts of languages on .NET would make that easier. Unfortunately it also works the other way around: if I'm a proficient user of language L, I wouldn't be compelled to use a .NET implementation of L if that forces me to learn a new set of libraries. No problem, someone may create a wrapper that emulates the L standard libraries for me... but at that point, even assuming that the wrapper is reasonably complete and performs optimally, I would not be exposed to .NET at all, which kind of defeats the original purpose.

I would add that mixed-language projects are overrated (unfortunately). While I concur that it is a thing of beauty for anybody who loves computer science, it is less valued in the market, from what I've seen, and understandably so: if you allow a project to be composed of several languages, you are creating a dependency on all of those languages, their respective tools, and this will make your life miserable when it's time to hire new programmers (or, at least, stretching their training ad nauseam). Exits beauty... most companies I worked with tend to use only a handful of languages, with some getting more love than others and rigorously in non-overlapping domains.

Now, it would be great if Microsoft implemented every language under the sun, but given how everybody is constrained by finite resources, I think they bring more value to the community by trying to create and evolve new innovative languages (and possibly fail) rather than just porting existing ones.

Bass said:

figuerres said:

*snip*

From the tone of your posts, it almost feels like you think I am insulting your programming ability. I don't know anything about your programming ability. Therefore, insulting it would be stupid and pointless really.

 

No, if I was insulting you, I'd use something more visible. Like your complete lack of spelling or grammar skills. But see, that's the thing: I'm not trying to insult you. Besides, that would make me a grammar/spelling naazi[sic], and that's something I most certainly am not. I hate putting the effort sometimes to proofread random garbage I put on the Internet. So why would I tell other people to do so? I hate when people like to point out every little petty grammar rule I violated when I posted some angry diatribe anonymously over the Internets[sic]. So why would I decide to become one of these people? It just doesn't really make much sense.

 

I'll just say it plainly: I was just trying to make a point. Unfortunately, that point was poorly expressed. It was poorly expressed because it seemed to go way over your head. It probably over most people's head, except maybe magicalclick. Although I am not sure he actually derived my point from all various rambling in this thread. So I apologise in advance for trying.

Thank you.... and yes i was very confused at the way you were replying to the posts i made.

Bass said:

magicalclick said:

*snip*

My thought, learn too much = information overload. Unless you master a language, you can off-road for fun. Computer science is not about remember everything you learn because there is too much to learn. For every 5 to 10 years, new thing comes out.

 

That is 100% true and my point exactly. That's why you can't force the whole world onto "one or two" languages.

True, but, why should MS covers all?

magicalclick said:

Bass said:

*snip*

True, but, why should MS covers all?

There is no moral imperative. [in this case]

The strategic business value of supporting or not supporting dynamic languages is the only relevant question. It's not like dynamic languages are endagered species that need and deserve special protection but it might be a good idea to support them; it all comes down to whether it helps Microsoft or not.

exoteric said:

magicalclick said:

*snip*

There is no moral imperative. [in this case]

 

The strategic business value of supporting or not supporting dynamic languages is the only relevant question. It's not like dynamic languages are endagered species that need and deserve special protection but it might be a good idea to support them; it all comes down to whether it helps Microsoft or not.

I'd rather they support one well, rather than two poorly.  Can only hope that's what's happing (vested interest in IronPython surviving). 

At least as C# and VB now use the DLR for their Late binding/dynamic dispatch it's furture must be quite stable, one would hope.