Alexander Kellett wrote:

> On Feb 6, 2005, at 11:00 AM, moma wrote:
>> + Dynamic type systems in Python/Ruby/Perl are too complex for
>> (ecma's) frigid CLI spec!
I think dynamic type systems, such as in ruby, are easier to understand and
simpler than static typing systems. The type model for C++ is incredibly
complex, yet the CLI handles a large subset of C++ quite well. 

> this is FUD
Where are open classes, meta classes, and dynamic despatch on class methods
in the CLI? 

Instead you can't add behaviour to existing classes, it has static methods
instead of class methods and classes aren't first class instances. How can
you work round those problems? For instance, you would need two C# style
CLI classes for every ruby one for a start; one as the ordinary class, and
one to act as a metaclass. Once you go to those lengths is it really true
to say that ruby and C# are sharing the same class model?

I've read that the Iron Python guy that Microsoft hired, is pleased with the
progress he has made, and last I heard he was tackling the problem of
static methods, being static. But to me, that doesn't mean that the CLI was
designed for dynamic languages, or that it's a particularly good place to
start.

-- Richard