Another .NET Language

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by Hemos on Monday February 17, 2003 @12:27AM from the expanding-their-weaponery dept.

Wankers Anonymous writes "In an interview with David Simmons, CTO of SmallScript Corp., Learn about a new .NET language about to debut, the ins and outs of its creation, as well as some insider history behind the genesis of the .NET platform. "

17 of 34 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

well done... by REBloomfield · 2003-02-17 00:31 · Score: 1

that was only posted two days ago....
1. Re: well done... by Black+Parrot · 2003-02-17 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  > that was only posted two days ago....
  
  I wonder how many people are deliberately submitting stories that have already been posted, to see if they can get a dupe.
  
  I also wonder whether the editors are doing it deliberately, as some kind of joke (or attempt thereat).
  
  --
  Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
2. Re:well done... by SteveX · 2003-02-17 03:51 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Notice in the article that Microsoft invited representatives from a LOT of different languages to the table when designing the CLR, to ensure that while they might not necessarily support them all ideally in v1, they wanted to make sure they weren't doing anything that would preclude them from supporting them in the future.
  
  The next version of the CLR adds support for generics and some other stuff.. language support will only get better. (I don't see Sun working on making the JVM better suited to languages other than Java...)
  
  - Steve
3. Re:well done... by voodoo1man · 2003-02-17 09:39 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  10 to 15 different languages? They can't even get an exact number, much less say what they are (and how closely they're related).
  At the very least, they didn't even bother looking at Common Lisp - Franz took a look at the CLR several years ago and decided that it wasn't even worth the trouble. It is impractical to get CLOS (the Common Lisp Object System - multiple dispatch, multiple inheritance, generic functions, and completely dynamic (you can re-define a class at runtime, and all the instances, and subclasses, etc. will be converted according to either a default or user specified method the next time they are accessed)) implemented with any sort of efficiency. Closures and dynamically generated lambdas (anonymous functions that capture a lexical environment and plain vanilla anonymous functions, created at runtime, respectively) seem to present a similar sort of problem from what I know of the CLR (I understand that they'd have to be represented as objects, please correct me if I'm wrong).
  I've heard other similar objections to the inadequacy of the CLR when it comes to dynamics languages, and overall I'm not terribly impressed with what Microsoft is doing or how it is going about it (the seemingly primary reason why .Net has/will have Scheme implementations from both Northwestern and PLT is because of rather large grants).
  
  --
  In the great CONS chain of life, you can either be the CAR or be in the CDR.
4. Re:well done... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-18 06:59 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  CLR is the runtime library while IL is the Intermediate Language. You're mainly talking here about limitations of the IL.
  
  Effectively however these are criticisms that IL isn't high-level enough. Kind of missing the point; IL isn't designed to be high level - it's effectively an assembler code. Guess what? In assembler, you have to represent closures as objects. In assembler you can't implement CLOS primitives with much "efficiency" (number of instructions). CLR + IL define a platform which supports LISP + CLOS just as well as a raw CPU does; it JIT compiles so the speed of code is asymptotically more-or-less the same. And Allegro Common LISP is hardly a poster child for efficiency anyway.
  
  One issue with all this is that the JIT phase can slow down certain very dynamic programs. Python.NET has issues in places because of this. But that's the price you pay for using a bytecode. Java would have the same problem if it attempted to be as powerful and dynamic as .NET.
  
  However, I must agree that MS seem to have dropped the ball somewhat in their support of lexical closure. It is possible, but it's highly awkward, AIUI. However, these are not mainline features that Microsoft's market are demanding. What Microsoft is offering is a unified programming paradigm for Visual Basic, C++ and C#. Other languages are "nice-to-have", but hardly essential for 99% of the world's programming needs.
5. Re:well done... by angel'o'sphere · 2003-02-19 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  Generics are not the problem of the VM or CLR. Its a problem of the compiler.
  
  On a Java VM simply any language, except perhaps C++ compiles and runs.
  
  See http://grunge.cs.tu-berlin.de/~tolk/vmlanguages.ht ml for an overview.
  
  The only limitation the Java VM has is that it supports only single inheritance. So if you like to map C++ to JBC you need to invent a new object format and work with delegations.
  
  I find it interesting that suns VM is nearly unchanged since 8 years while Microsoft tried to beat SUN and tried to make it better in some way but need to change their own VM just a year after it was published.
  
  angel'o'sphere
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
new name by rhyd · 2003-02-17 01:38 · Score: 1

"brought to you by project fail.NET"

In MicroSoft Marketing speek shouldn't that be:

"The Fail.NET Initiative"

good work

--
'Be the change you want to see in the world' - Al Gore
Okay, this is really freaking me out... by tachyonflow · 2003-02-17 02:48 · Score: 2, Funny

...to see my name on Slashdot for the second time in a week.

David Simmons
(the one not associated with SmallScript Corp.)
Don't comment here by n9hmg · 2003-02-17 03:18 · Score: 1

Let's keep them all with the original, only two-day-old posting of this same story, here. No point in getting useful comments scattered across two stories. Cool slashcode idea - track stories seen, and extend expiration to some configurable value for unseen ones. It still won't avoid the 3 hour old dupes we sometimes see (if they don't read it at all, nothing can help), but it might make it easier for the editors to catch the forgivable dupes like this one.
Re:i smell a shill by SteveX · 2003-02-17 07:14 · Score: 1

I comment on articles I feel like commenting on. I use C#/.NET so I'm probably more familiar with it than a lot of people who post here. Most of the time when I bother to respond it's because the parent said something wrong or stupid.

I'm sure if I said something stupid about Linux I'd get a lot of people responding correcting me.. does that make them Linux shills?

- Steve
Re:i smell a shill by SteveX · 2003-02-17 07:19 · Score: 1

Hah, I've been stevex longer than there's been a DirectX. here is some proof if you like.
Re:i smell a shill by SteveX · 2003-02-17 10:36 · Score: 1

I think giving software away for free isn't a good business model. I like to write software and give it away free in my spare time, because I enjoy doing it, but I work for a company that sells proprietary software and that's what pays the bills.

The GPL is cool but I prefer a BSD style license - I've never put any restrictions on any of the code I've personally released.

Shareware, well, the term's not so common these days is it? I still like the idea of "pay for this software if you like it".

A model I've been toying with is one that works like shareware except that once a predefined amount of $$ is donated, soure code is released. Ransomware, I guess - sort of like what happened with Blender, but designed that way from the start.

A well documented API is better than access to source code in most cases anyway.

- Steve
Re:i smell a shill by SteveX · 2003-02-17 10:39 · Score: 1

Nope. Not an MCSE either. :)
In case article gets /.ed... by BoneMarrow · 2003-02-17 11:32 · Score: 1

...heres a link to last weeks version...

dupe.NET

--
Unfortunately, no one can be told what my sig is...
If I were going to design a language... by GCP · 2003-02-17 19:13 · Score: 1

...I think I'd base it on the .Net framework or the Java framework. My preference would be .Net because of the genuine interest MS is taking in making it a good platform for lots of languages and the fact that, if it fit my language adequately, I'd get all those libraries, GC and other services, ASP.Net, ADO.Net, etc., all for free.

However, the genuine interest Sun has taken in making the Java runtime available for lots of *platforms* is pretty attractive, too. If the Mono Project doesn't make it, I'd have to go with Java, but I think Mono will eventually have pretty good coverage of the platforms of interest to me.

--
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
Re:i smell a shill by SteveX · 2003-02-18 05:30 · Score: 1

If it amuses me to do so, yes. :)
Re:Lots of reasons why I want .NET to fail by Neural+Assassin · 2003-02-18 09:49 · Score: 1

Blah, blah, blah, blah...same old crap...blah, blah, blah... Shut the f**k up. Retard. You're self righteous, 'everybody but MS is an angel' politics are getting boring.