I feel exactly the same way. When do we start coding? :-)

Rodrigo

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thomas Sondergaard" <thomass / deltadata.dk>
To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk / ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 11:06 AM
Subject: Advocacy: Ruby on/with .net


> I'd like a minute or two of your time as I try to sell you the idea of
ruby
> on/with .net :-)
>
> == Ruby the language rocks, ruby the platform not as much ==
> I love ruby the _language_, but there are often annoying obstructions when
> you want to develop an application on ruby the _platform_, like missing or
> immature class libraries and poor threading support (IMHO).
>
> == .net is the future ==
> It is my firm belief that .net as a development platform is very powerful.
It
> has been my main development platform for more than a year and a half and
> considering how young it is things just work amazingly well and
performance
> doesn't suck, like it at least initially did with Java. Technically the
.net
> framework and runtime are excellent and with Microsoft pushing it as hard
as
> possible it will end up on most Windows computers sooner rather than
later.
> The mono project is doing an excellent job of making sure that the .net
> platform will also be available on other OSes than Microsofts. I am not a
> Microsoft fanatic, but after having used .net for a long time I must admit
it
> just works very well. I don't think it is worth sticking our heads in the
> sand, just because we may not approve of Microsofts business methods,
> especially as the .net runtime and base framework have been made open
> standards.
>
> == Ruby on/with .net ==
> Ruby is not a scripting language front-runner, but as a language, not a
> development platform, it leaves the front runners in the dust. By relying
on
> a common and very popular platform we can do away with most of the
> disadvantages of ruby and keep the advantages.
>
> == Projects to take ruby to .net ==
> After having perused the documentation for the .net CLR runtime and the
CLS
> and read a white paper on the lessons learned trying to make Python run on
> the .net CLR runtime, it is clear to me that the .net runtime is not well-
> suited for dynamic languages, such as Python, Perl and indeed ruby.
However,
> smallscript inc (http://www.smallscript.org) are working on exactly that,
and
> will soon be releasing a version of smallscript, a smalltalk variant, that
is
> running on the .net CLR. I think it would be worthwhile to pursue two
> projects, one with the objective to allow .net class libraries to be used
> from ruby using a dual-runtime approace and another approach that attempts
to
> run ruby on the .net CLR runtime
>
> === rubydotnet - dual runtime approach ===
> This project will aim to allow any CLS compliant .net assembly to be used
> from ruby. This would make all .net class libraries including the entire
.net
> framework to be used from ruby, without having to implement ruby wrapper
> modules.
>
> === r# - ruby on the .net runtime ===
> r# is to ruby, what S# is to smalltalk (http://www.smallscript.org)
> This much more ambitious project would aim to run ruby on top of the .net
> CLR. I, personally, would be willing to make some adaptions to the ruby
> language to facilitate the .net platform integration, and do away with
much
> of the core ruby platform. Making ruby, or rather r#, fully CLS compliant
has
> many advantages in terms of distribution and in terms of using ruby/r#
with
> asp.net and running ruby applets inside browsers etc.
>
> == Status ==
> I have just today submitted a project registration with sourceforge.net
for
> rubydotnet. rubydotnet has a much smaller scope than r# and will allow the
> ruby community to see the benefits of ruby/.net interop. Hopefully after
that
> support can be rallied for the much more ambitious r# project.
>
> Thank you for your time
>
> - Thomas Sondergaard
>
>
>