RE: bytecode unification for scripting (and other!) languages

[Noel Welsh <noelwelsh@yahoo.com>]

Well, by my rhetoric if the users want .NET
integration, they should have it.  

Its worth noting that many of the languages that
supposedly run on the .NET framework have very
immature implementations.  This is ok 'cause .NET is
still in Beta.  It is also worth noting that the ML
and Haskell compilers both come from Microsoft
Research.  If anyone on this list wants a job in
Cambridge perhaps they should write the PLT .NET
compiler (-:.  There is a document at ActiveState that
describes their difficulties getting their Perl and
Python compilers to work.  The document is in Word,
and amusingly causes Word to crash - had to read it in
Emacs.

A quick straw poll: who on this list is interested in
compilers?  One count for me.

cya,
Noel

--- Alex Peake <apeake@comac.com> wrote:
> Just a perspective from someone who writes business
> apps (traditional web
> based as well as web-services oriented).
> 
> With PLT (and other) Scheme it is difficult to
> access such facilities as
> Databases, Message Queuing, SOAP, ... all of which
> would be more available
> with .NET
> 
> 
> Alex
> 
> 
> (It would also be nice to write Scheme as the
> language behind (MS) Internet
> Information Server (IIS))
> 
> BTW, SML and Haskell are coming into .NET (not sure
> about the Scheme Hotdog
> compiler?)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/