Coffeehouse Thread

61 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

IronRuby dead

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Bass

    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.

  • User profile image
    exoteric

    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.

  • User profile image
    Blue Ink

    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.

  • User profile image
    figuerres

    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.

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    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?

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    exoteric

    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.

  • User profile image
    PerfectPhase

    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. 

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.