[chabad360]

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?

[jluysvi]

The JVM has a ton of languages built on it.

[pjmlp]

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...

[tcfhgj]

> This does leave me wondering what the trade off is.

Microsoft

[applfanboysbgon]

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.

[paddim8]

.NET programs can be AOT compiled

[applfanboysbgon]

I am well aware of that, given that I routinely ship such programs. Compiling ahead of time does not change the fact that the .NET runtime is orders of magnitude larger than a C runtime.

[metaltyphoon]

Funny enough, in their both latest versions. C# AOT has a smaller runtime than Go one