CLR is a lowest common denominator for language ideas which MS supports. 
What happens when a language has good ideas which are more advanced than 
what CLR supports. It is left out of CLR, or included into it with those 
ideas stripped from the language to accomodate CLR. Sometimes the Holy 
Grail of language interoperability has serious flaws to it.

Similarly Esperanto may be a nice idea but most countries love their own 
languages. The same goes for languages which programmers use.

Tim Roberts wrote:

> Boris Borcic <borcis / geneva-link.ch> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Conrad Schneiker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So my question is: at such a presently entirely hypothetical future
>>>juncture, is there any practical and desirable middle ground for a common
>>>single successor language to the current generations of Python and Ruby?
>>>
>>What would be fun is to have library interoperability completed
>>with interlingual source-to-source conversion from adequately
>>constrained style... premitting more or less, to use one's language
>>superficial idioms to mean corresponding idioms in the other
>>language.
>>
> 
> Oddly enough, I believe that is almost exactly what Bill Gates believes he
> has created with .NET and the common language runtime.