"I have a mind like a steel... uh... thingy." Patrick Logan's weblog.

Search This Blog

Monday, March 01, 2004

Dynamic languages on dotnet

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.


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:

Blog Archive

About Me

Portland, Oregon, United States
I'm usually writing from my favorite location on the planet, the pacific northwest of the u.s. I write for myself only and unless otherwise specified my posts here should not be taken as representing an official position of my employer. Contact me at my gee mail account, username patrickdlogan.