Ken Peek wrote:
> ".NET" (and it's 'C#' language) are 'cool' too--
> after all, Micro$haft is copied the great works of UCSD-Pascal, and Java...

You're quite wrong about .NET anyhow. The CLR does not contain an
interpreter, rather the IL is always translated to native machine
instructions before execution - unlike both Java and UCSD-Pascal.

I've built several fast interpreters, but I think MS's approach is
better. It'd be great to see a Ruby->IL compiler, and an open source
CLR. I know of two attempts at the latter, but they seem to have very
small dev't teams, only one or two people, and have the added difficulty
of trying to clone C# as well.

--
Clifford Heath