| ▲ | chabad360 2 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
While the language itself doesn't seem very interesting (which is perhaps the point). The idea of building a new language on top of the CLR runtime feels very wise. Instead of a new language suffering from a lack of ecosystem, you get everything else that's already built, even in other (CLR-based) languages. This does leave me wondering what the trade off is. Do you sacrifice any potential language features for CLR compatibility? Or provided you can get it compile, it will run? Also, are there other language ecosystems with a similar capability? | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | pjmlp 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
That was the original goal of CLR, hence Common Language Runtime, even though nowadays it feels more like it means C# Language Runtime. https://news.microsoft.com/source/2001/10/22/massive-industr... | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | jluysvi 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
The JVM has a ton of languages built on it. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | tcfhgj 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> This does leave me wondering what the trade off is. Microsoft | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | applfanboysbgon 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
I mean, one trade-off is obvious: you get the drawbacks of the runtime too. Any .NET program is opting you into tens of MBs of binary/lib size and RAM usage for what a C program could do in <1mb. This completely rules out using in the language in certain domains eg. embedded. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||