Tobias Reif <tobiasreif / pinkjuice.com> wrote in message news:<3C713E4C.5020008 / pinkjuice.com>...
> Sean Middleditch wrote:
> 
> 
> > Well, face it - if Microsoft OS's become *totally* dependent on .NET
> > technology, Ruby will not be used on that platform with .NET
> > compatibility.
> > 
> > This is the path MS wants, and the one they are likely to get.  Unless a
> > *really* big problem unforseen by anyone working on a .NET
> > implementation arises that makes .NET unusable, MS *will* get .NET put
> > everywhere they can.  Playing with them and 90% of the world, will
> > require .NET.
> > 
> > Or some really ugly SOAP hacks... ~,^
> 
> 
> What do you propose? Ruby is not dependent on M$, and thus doesn't have 
> to act like it would be.
> 
> Tobi

Couldn't Ruby be implemented in C#, this would allow Ruby to hook into
..NET at the deepest levels without restrant.  Not that this would be a
small undertaking, but wouldn't this allow Ruby to "keep up with" the
evolution of .NET?

//ed