Is anyone using Python for .NET?

[Simon B]

I know everyone has probably heard what I'm about to say a couple of 
hundred times, but because it's true, it should be stated.

Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> "Richard Brodie" <R.Brodie at rl.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:brpop1$1636 at newton.cc.rl.ac.uk...
> 
>>That said, Brandon's claim was fairly contentious and likely to get
>>someone to bite. It's a well worn debate though, and c.l.py probably
>>isn't the best place to renew it.
> 
> 
> It was a comment made in passing, and it takes quite a Trollhunter to make
> it otherwise.  My motives for posting were quite explicit, and I could care
> less whether anyone wants to call .NET "a clone" or not.  You can call it a
> sheep or a dog or a rock for all I care.  You can debate it until the cows
> come home for all I care, I just want to know if people are using Python for
> .NET.
 >
> Again in passing: the concept of .NET was of course based on Java and a
> number of other higher level languages.  Every book on the subject I've read
> says so (which by now is a small handful), and the goal (aside from
> Microsoft dominating the world as usual) was to improve upon the basic
> premise of a virtual machine.  They have been successful and the truth
> stands: the Unix world is cloning .NET because it is a superior technology
> for a certain class of language interop problem.  It remains to be seen
> whether the *Windows Forms* part of .NET will be cloned successfully, or is
> desired by the Unix crowd.  I'm referring mainly to the IL.

.NET is a platform, not a language. What you probably meant to say was: 
"C# is of course based on Java and a number of other higher level 
langauges". Completely true... Just as Java is based on Smalltalk and 
C++ along with a number of other higher level langauges.

.NET the platform is, to programmers, a common set of types and 
libraries across multiple languages, whereas the JVM was sold along with 
the language Java, which in my opinion the only difference in 
marketing... Sun associated the JVM with Java so that to use the JVM 
they expected you to program in Java. Weird, because they could just 
have easily sold it as a platform on which other languages ran, and then 
we'd all be impressed about the vision of having multiple languages use 
common types... But it's happening anyway 
(http://grunge.cs.tu-berlin.de/~tolk/vmlanguages.html). There are far 
more languages running on the JVM than languages running on .NET.

UNIX is cloning .NET not because it is superior technology (although it 
migth be, but that is arguable) but because it creates a situation where 
UNIX can run all of the software being churned out by .NET programmers. 
The barrier to moving platforms becomes Null and Void... Very JVM-esque eh?

My opinion on why MS did take the .NET path is based on the premise that 
they are only really interested in Operating Systems, which isn't too 
bigger a stretch. They want to sell operating systems, and part of the 
reason corporations don't upgrade to the lastest version until they 
absolutely have to (and even then, they often don't!) is because they 
have invested big money in software that will require considerable 
testing and/or modification and/or risk if the underlying OS changes.

.NET solves that problem for Microsoft.

> Why bother to make another comment in passing?  Because it's the truth, and
> I find it annoying to be labeled as trying to get people to "bite" on some
> advocacy debate when it's not my motive.  If you want to debate the
> relevance or morality of it all, go talk to the Mono people.  Right now, I
> don't care.  I'm going to wait 4 years and then run .NET on Unix, picking up
> a residual and unimportant market of Linux gamers for very little effort.
> Sooner if things develop quicker.
>