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
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.
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.