rhm said:wkempf said:*snip*
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.