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("random.py");
//Make an array of numbers
var items = Enumerable.Range(1, 7).ToArray();
random.shuffle(items);
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 genuinely.
I think it depends (like most everything at MS) on your team. Although actually what I'm referring is to legal restrictions on software we can actually use in production.
> Microsoft already has an MVC framework that works just fine.
And that's where people miss the point. Is there any passion towards Microsoft's ASP.NET MVC thing? Because there a lot of passionate Rails enthusiasts around and it runs very well on top of the JVM.
