Jon Udell writes about dynamic languages (or the lack thereof) on dotnet.
The shocking part is what's missing. Where is the word from Microsoft? At OSCON 2003 last July, there were BOFs and discussions about this topic, with MSFT representatives claiming efforts toward this goal.
So?
Although Jon claims "Despite lots of second-guessing, there?s no consensus that the CLR is inherently unfriendly to dynamic languages," there is more evidence than not that dynamic languages are more difficult to implement on dotnet than the JVM.
The grade on this for dotnet should be failing. Consider the JVM was never intended for dynamic languages, yet dotnet was deliberately designed for all kinds of languages (Java-like, functional, scripting, and dynamic OOP, at least). Consider the knowledge as well as source to JVM languages have been available for years.
MSFT deliberately de-emphasized dynamic languages approaching the first release of dotnet. But did they go so far as to paint themselves into some kind of a corner, maybe with an over-restrictive programming model?
Maybe there is no consensus, but *something* is wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment