11–20 of 43 posts
Interesting that he's going to a financial technology consulting firm whose products include algorithmic trading. It seems like that would be one of the last spaces to be interested in a dynamic scripting language versus pure speed.
Probably not that big of a deal if they stop supporting IronRuby. What's the point anyhow? Ruby is most popular because of RoR and Microsoft already has an MVC framework that works just fine. There was some very limited effort to port ASP.NET MVC to IronRuby, but it looked dead in the water to me. Plus, I hear straight up Ruby has built-in bindings for Windows, so IronRuby isn't necessary for scripting either.
As the author points out, he's concerned about the future about dynamic languages on the .net platform in general. IronPython and IronRuby are just two implementations of it. The reason you should care (assuming you're a .net developer) is that the DLR lets you do all sorts of cool things such as the following c# snippet calling python code: ScriptRuntime py = Python.CreateRuntime(); dynamic random = py.UseFile("rand…
I am heartbroken to hear this. .Net, the Dynamic Language Runtime, IronPython and IronRuby are incredibly awesome technologies and if instead of embracing the cool aspects, Microsoft will focus only on the boring enterprisey bits in the future I'll have no choice but stop being a .Net developer and switch to something else. Which would be a shame because I really like those technologies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As the author points out, he's concerned about the future about dynamic languages on the .net platform in general. IronPython and IronRuby are just two implementations of it. The reason you should care (assuming you're a .net developer) is that the DLR lets you do all sorts of cool things such as the following c# snippet calling python code: ScriptRuntime py = Python.CreateRuntime(); dynamic random = py.UseFile("rand…
I guess when I say "what's the point?" I mean, what's the point of really wasting so much time and effort getting Ruby running on .NET in general? And I say that as primarily an MS developer. It's all just a plot to sell expensive licenses and thus will never have good community backing. Look what this guy went through. He's talented. It's a shame he didn't work for a company like Google who embraces OSS more genuine…
Which is not to say that Microsoft embraces it. Even internally their policies are almost downright hostile.
Possibly off-topic. "However, a year ago the team shrunk by half and our agility was severely limited. I’m omitting the internal reasons for this, as they are the typical big-company middle-management issues every software developer has." This is one of the things that can happen to you when you work at Microsoft. You can start thinking that the terrible work problems you face are both "typical big-company...issues"…
> There's a minimsft.blogspot.com, but is there an equivalent for Apple? For Google? If so, are they as well known? Do they draw knowledgeable commenters from within the ranks of the host/target company? Every corporation sucks in some way ... and if there isn't a minimsft equivalent for Google/Apple ... that's a point in Microsoft's favor.
In my experience, all medium and large organizations in this industry have a very unique culture that affects everything they do. For better or worse, there's nothing like working at Microsoft. Personally, having the valuable opportunity to see it up close, I would never work there and I'm not surprised to read the accounts of those who have worked there.
Interesting that he's going to a financial technology consulting firm whose products include algorithmic trading. It seems like that would be one of the last spaces to be interested in a dynamic scripting language versus pure speed.
Interesting that he's going to a financial technology consulting firm whose products include algorithmic trading. It seems like that would be one of the last spaces to be interested in a dynamic scripting language versus pure speed.
C++ and C# are big deals in the financial industry, but remember that programmer time is a lot more expensive than hardware time, and there could be wins to be had in extremely rapid development.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess when I say "what's the point?" I mean, what's the point of really wasting so much time and effort getting Ruby running on .NET in general? And I say that as primarily an MS developer. It's all just a plot to sell expensive licenses and thus will never have good community backing. Look what this guy went through. He's talented. It's a shame he didn't work for a company like Google who embraces OSS more genuine…
Eh, Google embraces OSS when it doesn't affect their bottom line. Which is not to say that Microsoft embraces it. Even internally their policies are almost downright hostile.
How so?