Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 11th Aug 2006 19:10 UTC, submitted by Dolphin
.NET (dotGNU too) "Four short years ago, Microsoft unveiled its new framework/engine for programming and running applications in a virtual environment, and the world was stunned. Microsoft had introduced a run-time environment that was for the first time a true 'write once, run everywhere' implementation, but that was far from being the end. With .NET 3.0 on the loom, NeoSmart Technologies takes a look at how far .NET has come and just how long it can keep going."
Thread beginning with comment 151648
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: I don't think so
by ma_d on Sat 12th Aug 2006 02:04 UTC in reply to "I don't think so"
Member since:

Ruby is implementable on .Net... The implementation is currently in progress.

It's probably also implementable on Java's system as well, as many other languages such as Groovy have been implemented there.

But I agree, .Net is certainly evolutionary from Java with the twist that it's not as picky about bringing new ideas in as Java (as a language) has been (I really mean C# here, but that's the flagship language for .Net).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: I don't think so
by tmack on Sat 12th Aug 2006 02:16 in reply to "RE: I don't think so"
tmack Member since:

Just to clarify, Ruby has already been implemented for the Java platform (for a while even).

Java has support for many, many more languages than .NET does. It's just that Sun has not officially supported the practice until recently.

Up until the recent change of heart, Sun said you could program in any language you want... as long as it's Java. ;)

Edited 2006-08-12 02:17

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: I don't think so
by zerohalo on Sun 13th Aug 2006 02:25 in reply to "RE[2]: I don't think so"
zerohalo Member since:

Do you mean to say that it's possible to compile a Ruby program into a binary that can be executed by a Java VM without the need to have a Ruby intepreter present on the client system?

And is that what Ruby.NET implementations are supposed to do? So that you can write a program in Ruby, turn it into an EXE that can then run on a Windows system that has the .NET framework and it will run (so the user doesn't need to install Ruby). And that you access any .NET library from your Ruby code? I'm just trying to make sure I understand the relationship between Ruby and .NET in this case.

Reply Parent Score: 1