Hello --

On Sat, 6 Oct 2001, Conrad Schneiker wrote:

> "David Alan Black" <dblack / candle.superlink.net> wrote:
>   [re: .NET]
> > Therefore, I don't see how it can be good for Ruby.  I'm not trying to
> > start an argument here; I'm just reasoning from what we know about
> > Micros**t.
>
> OK, that's a good question.
>
> First, let's make the plausible presumption that your seemingly reasonable
> reasoning is indeed eminently reasonable.

All those in favor say ay.  Ay.

> Even so, from the perspective of present and future prospective Ruby users
> working for customers of MS OSes, .NET integration will inevitably be a
> highly desirable feature. If MS has conquered 80% or 90% of the world's
> desktops, do you want to increasingly doom increasingly more of their vast
> population of potential Ruby users to a life of (heaven forbid!) Perl and
> Python because Ruby rejected .NET even as .NET became the standard MS OS
> interface? Please have mercy on the customers. :-)

Actually I'm happy to see Ruby used for anything, as long as it's
still Ruby.  I get nervous when I hear/read discussions about whether
.NET will support this or that feature of Ruby, and whether .NET Ruby
might have to be different from Ruby.  And since it's MS's goal to
infect open standards with proprietary features, I can't help thinking
this might be how it would develop.

But I should probably stop talking about .NET, until I learn more
about it.  Though I'm not sure that will ever happen, what with life
being short and all.... :-)


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack / candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav / shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav