# Re: Planning to change IronRuby.sln to a VS 2008 project **URL:** \ **Category:** IronRuby\ **Created:** [March 23, 2008, 6:56pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-planning-to-change-ironruby-sln-to-a-vs-2008-project/132700 "2008-03-23T18:56:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![John\_LSSDLR](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/5f8ce5/32.png) [@John\_LSSDLR](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/John_LSSDLR)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2008, 6:56pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-planning-to-change-ironruby-sln-to-a-vs-2008-project/132700/1 "2008-03-23T18:56:14Z")
Last time i talked to Miguel, he said that they were done implementing linq modulo bugs. - John Sent from my phone * * * From: Matthew M. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 10:08 AM To: removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Planning to change IronRuby.sln to a VS 2008 project Linq would be the biggest thing. The reason being, when devs begin to get very serious with new things like this, mono users are screwed… On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 12:54 AM, Michael L. \ wrote: I think the primary concern would be with C# 3.0 features that the mono compiler does not support, i.e. Extension Methods, Lambdas, Linq… Though I know they’ve been working towards support. Secondary concerns would be .NET 3.0+ libraries that Mono hasn’t implemented yet. Right now (well as of Rev 77) I can compile IronRuby on mono in Linux, don’t want to loose that. On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 12:38 AM, Tomas M. \ wrote: > > causes me trouble, I will scream loudly so that you will know. 🙂 > > * * * > > Ironruby-core mailing list > removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) > [http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core](http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core) – Michael L. [Polymath Prokrammer] [http://blog.prokrams.com](http://blog.prokrams.com) ---
**Author:** ![John\_LSSDLR](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/5f8ce5/32.png) [@John\_LSSDLR](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/John_LSSDLR)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2008, 6:59pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-planning-to-change-ironruby-sln-to-a-vs-2008-project/132700/2 "2008-03-23T18:59:46Z")
John L. (DLR) wrote: > Last time i talked to Miguel, he said that they were done implementing > linq modulo bugs. In some ways Mono users are better off in this regard. Presumably when integrated it will just be a standard part of Mono. For .NET users it is an additional dependency. Michael F. > **[IronPython in Action](https://www.manning.com/books/ironpython-in-action)** > > IronPython in Action offers a comprehensive, hands-on introduction to Microsoft's exciting new approach for programming the .NET framework. It approaches IronPython as a first class .NET language, fully integrated with the .NET environment, Visual... ---
**Author:** ![John\_LSSDLR](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/5f8ce5/32.png) [@John\_LSSDLR](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/John_LSSDLR)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2008, 7:57pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-planning-to-change-ironruby-sln-to-a-vs-2008-project/132700/3 "2008-03-23T19:57:35Z")
In any case, there will be an interop question to answer here. I think we can assume .net will always be x number of features ahead of mono. Being a .net developer by day, interop with .net would be more important for me. I’d love for ironruby to be able to support all of my .net artifacts no matter when we upgrade. I’m sure plenty of people in the list will think mono support is more important to them. I’m wondering how possible it will be to support both scenarios by mixing in the different language constructs when needed. I realize the interop stories haven’t been given much thought yet, but the earlier this dialog is started the better off the implementers will be when its time to hit the road. Aaron On Mar 23, 2008, at 13:57, Michael F. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) ---
**Author:** ![John\_LSSDLR](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/j/5f8ce5/32.png) [@John\_LSSDLR](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/John_LSSDLR)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2008, 8:39pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-planning-to-change-ironruby-sln-to-a-vs-2008-project/132700/4 "2008-03-23T20:39:56Z")
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 11:55:11 -0600, John L. (DLR) [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Last time i talked to Miguel, he said that they were done implementing linq modulo bugs. The most recent release (1.9) contains a _HUGE_ number of improvements to both their C# 3.0 feature support as well as LINQ-related feature support. Though quite obviously they exist somewhere in the feature chain, as of this date I have yet to run across any compilation or runtime issues between .NET 3.5 and Mono 1.9, though I’ve only recently (as of the last 3-4 months) started taking full advantage of both in the Nuxleus code base (which covers a fairly large swath of the FCL.) That said, if there’s one thing that’s been proven more times than I am both willing and able to count it’s that the Mono Project developers are constantly driven by the challenge to ensure the DLR and related projects are able to both compile and run against the Mono assemblies. In other words, sometimes the best way to get something fixed is to highlight the fact that it’s broken. Pushing the envelope via using some of the more alluring features and functionality of both C# 3.0 and .NET 3.0/3.5/LINQ is certainly one way to find out what works and works well and what is in need of attention. – /M:D M. David P. Co-Founder & Chief Architect, 3rd&Urban, LLC Email: removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid | removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid | Mobile: (206) 418-9027 Web: [http://amp.fm/](http://amp.fm/) | [M. David Peterson](http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2354)