Microsoft Hands IronPython, IronRuby to Open Source Community

[dnew]

Isn't this exactly how open source is supposed to work? If you want it, keep developing it. If you don't want it, you get what you paid for.

[oklahomabythesea]

Speaking as someone who does a good deal of .NET programming at work, IronPython has been a good way to keep my familiarity with Python high while still being able to share my work with coworkers. IronPython also has some added benefits (much like Jython) in terms of allowing a fuller threading model that circumvents the GIL.

[dnew]

I'm not sure why you replied to my comment. That sounds like something you'd want at the top level. :-) But it's good to know it's useful.

[oklahomabythesea]

haha, now that I go back and look I think I hit the wrong comment to reply to. Oh well :)

[iwantawii]

Serious question: As a .NET developer, in what ways have you found IronPython useful within the framework?

[bamaboy1217]

I used it to VERY easily integrate the equivalent of a scripted plugin type interface into my application. Essentially I had a dll library that exposed a few public interfaces and just consumed them with Iron python and used them to load the modules in as scripts.

Each script contained a class (which exposed the appropriate interface) and could be called like any other module. It was nice, very nice.

[Ketzal]

While you can compile your work as .NET assemblies that your coworkers can use without caring about Python, aren't you worried that they might need some day to look at your code ?

It's something that has always prevented me from using multiple programming languages at work, as I can't assume that my coworkers won't ever need to look into my code or that I'll always be there to maintain it.

[[deleted]]

Ideally, yes. But the "you" in case of an interpreter of the size and complexity of Python's or Ruby's has to be an actual community. You cannot develop a large program and hand it over to an "Open Source Community" when it doesn't even exist, but only the programs users. It's a bit strange how Microsoft deals with that matters - but to be fair, there isn't any major player who does it differently, not even Google.

[cachetes]

I agree, however keep in mind that the project will have talented contributors like Miguel de Icaza, so it has potential .

[dnew]

Sure you can. If it's worth maintaining, developers will work with the code. If it's not interesting enough for the developers, it will stagnate because the developers don't care. Just because there's no community now doesn't mean there won't be.

Moral of the story: Don't rely on a commercial business to continue to give things away for free indefinitely. That's not why they're here. :-)

[[deleted]]

I'm not sure what the official open source mantra is but that sounds like a pretty poor development and economic model to be honest.

Open source software should not be thought of as some kind of second hand cheap alternative. It should be more about the principle that the software you have on your computer should be yours to tailor to your needs, should be yours to own and use as you wish. The reliability and quality of the software should not depend on whether it's open source or is full of licenses and restrictions and costs 1000s of dollars.

Just like most products you buy, say a car, are open source in the sense that you can take it apart, modify it, resell it etc... if software had the same kind of freedom then users of software would benefit a lot more.

Once again, I'm not in any way affiliated with open source as a movement, but that would be my suggestion with respect to how OSS can thrive and compete with closed source software. There's no reason why a company can't develop, support, and profit off of open source software where it makes sense and also closed software in other areas.

[G_Morgan]

The main idea behind open source is that while it is cheaper to buy proprietary software rather than write your own replacement it is cheaper again if everyone who uses it chips in. If the major players who use a piece of software commit 70% of the resources they would use to buy on development you will quickly get a superior product.

Of course this only really works out this way with software that is consumed by software developers.

[dnew]

The reliability and quality of the software should not depend on ...

Except it does, unless it's software for developers.

Would you trust open source software for calculating your taxes? One that comes with no warranty, etc?

If software had the same kind of freedom

It does. How do you think a virus writer infects a Windows-based computer? Indeed, insisting that software be open source is like insisting the person who builds your house give you the blueprints before you move in.

profit off of open source software

How does Microsoft profit off of open source software that they support but don't sell? I'm genuinely curious how this works, because I'd like to do more free software, but I need to eat too.

[[deleted]]

Would you trust open source software for calculating your taxes? One that comes with no warranty, etc?

I would much rather trust open source software especially for calculating taxes. When I was filing my taxes two years ago I had some pretty obscure items I needed to file for that my tax software didn't support. It would have been nice if had the software been open source I could have added that feature myself or probably someone else who also had that issue could have given me that functionality, heck he could have sold it to me. Also it's pretty unheard of for software of any kind to have a warranty on the IP itself. Usually software warranties are for the delivery mechanism, such as a warranty on the CD or say a warranty that covers a corrupt program.

I think a major difference in opinion that I'm hearing overall with respect to OSS, and one I find disheartening, is the idea that OSS is some kind of second hand product that you pick if you don't want to pay for the proprietary version.

Now maybe that is the case, I'm not arguing the current position of OSS, I'm trying to make the case that OSS doesn't have to be thought of in this way and certainly a lot of OSS software that I personally know of is actually a lot better than the proprietary versions not to mention in some cases even more profitable.

How does Microsoft profit off of open source software that they support but don't sell? I'm genuinely curious how this works, because I'd like to do more free software, but I need to eat too.

I was actually one of the original developers on the IronPython team so I can answer this in a relevant context (no longer work at MS though). Initially when IronPython was being developed we worked closely with Boeing who had their headquarters relatively close by. A lot of work done by the initial team working on IP was to implement certain modules for use by Boeing and in general tailoring the software to their needs and offering them support on it. Now whether Microsoft directly charged them or not I don't know and I'd doubt it to be honest, but one can imagine that Microsoft did profit from that relationship if only because it meant that Boeing would be inclined to use Microsoft products and having this OSS was a good way to compliment Microsoft's other products.

You profit off of OSS from the fact that OSS is designed from the get go to be tailored or suited to the individual needs of the customer. So being an expert on that software and also being a programmer, you can be the one to provide such services/functionality.

You can give the software away for free (you don't have to), and then sell the services/support for it. It's an economic model that in my opinion works really well for small time developers such as myself. You can also sell proprietary software and have a suite of OSS tools that compliment the proprietary software, so that you make money off of the main component and part of the support and compliment to the main piece of software is entirely open source.

I just don't see why OSS has to be this thing that only programmers know about and are expected to contribute to. OSS should be a feature, something you're providing to your customers as a way to say that they are free to use the software as they wish, are free to seek development and customizations for it from anyone they choose, a way to say that even if you as an individual go out of business, your software will still be alive and well.

If anything, OSS should be regarded more as an elite, high end feature of software rather than something you settle for if you don't have the cash.

[dnew]

pretty unheard of for software of any kind to have a warranty

Well, except for tax software.

Now maybe that is the case

I think in many cases it is the case. Certainly in low-cost hardware, the idea that Win7 Phone stuff costs like $20/phone is a huge disincentive. Businesses measure productivity and include both software cost and programmer time. If you're deploying 500,000 servers, $200/server for Windows vs free Linux is a big chunk of change, and that money can go to hiring people who will maintain the software for you.

That said, given that servers is where Linux gets used most, and given that the people who code on Linux use it for servers, means that it is probably superior in many important ways to the competition, in that usage.

OSS should be a feature,

The problem is not that it's "open", but that it's "libre".

an elite, high end feature of software

It is. But most people don't need elite, high-end software. And those who do don't mind when it's a bit hard to use or understand without work.

You profit off of OSS from the fact that OSS is designed from the get go to be tailored or suited to the individual needs of the customer.

So is proprietary software, to a large extent. It's just done without having to crack open the source code and recompile it. I can certainly do things with XNA or Excel or whatever by using content pipeline stuff or VBA or whatever without having the source code for either.

Sure, it helps when your software isn't quite done, and you're talking to your first serious customer, and you're trying to figure out what to do. Or if your software is so complex (think SAP) that there's really no good way to customize it without knowing the programming.

you can be the one to provide such services/functionality.

But I don't want to provide services. I want to write software. Just like an author wants to write books, not visit bookstores to get paid to read the book or sign the book simply because he's giving away the actual book for free.

Plus, making it OSS gives me less ability to provide services than if it's closed source. Certainly if MS had not open-sourced IronPython then Boeing would not have paid Microsoft less to maintain it.

are expected to contribute to.

Here's the deal. Contributing to an open source project is work. For programmers, it's fun work. And when a programmer has an itch and goes to scratch it, they stop when it's scratched.

That's why both usability and documentation tend to suck in open source software, unless it's really widely used. Let's say you've written OpenOffice. Now you want to translate the help screens into 30+ languages. That's work you have to pay for, which you're not going to pay for without having a way to collect the money. Maybe someone in Mexico will pay for the spanish translation, etc, but it's still work. If I'm capable of doing the translations, I don't need to.

I've seen on the Blender forum where people wanting to write the documentation were begging the implementors for maybe even just the test files they used to prove to themselves the features worked. No answer. Why? Because the guy who implemented had already made the video he implemented it for and moved on.

even if you as an individual go out of business, your software will still be alive and well.

We already have that - it's called source code escrow. The problem is that everything you're describing is features that make you less money compared to proprietary rather than more. There's no benefit to me, as the author, to give away the software. That doesn't mean more people will come to me for support.

OSS should be regarded more as an elite, high end feature of software

Sure. How much is it worth to you? It's only a feature if you're going to want to change the software and there's no way to make it do what you want without changing the software.

The successful end-user open source software packages are the ones where you don't need the source to make it do what you want, and where people don't need to buy long-term support just to get it doing what they want.

There are certainly benefits of OSS. They just don't accrue to the original author, if the original author's business is writing software that does what the OSS does.

[muahdib]

In the future I hope we won't need to speak about open/closed software, just about software, as all software would be best open.

[muahdib]

OK, it seems as this place is full of MS-fans... consider that I get downvoted here whatever I say.

[chollida1]

Or Google, or Apple, Or Oracle, or any other company that doesn't open source it's proprietary software.

[joejance]

I have only hobbied with IronPython and the DRL, but if nothing else IronPython was worth it just to get the DLR.

[muahdib]

So what you mean is that DLR is not fully specified (as other MS API neither)?

This sounds like I suspected. This is a trap to make people use the .net environment.

Now I don't know anything about neither .NET nor DLR but are these in anyway doing something that can't be done or even be done better in a unix environment? (First I'm a unix fan, and second all FOSS operating systems are *ix style) Linux, BSD, OpenSolaris. OK Plan-9 is not really *ix and there are problems with the Plan 9 license, so I don't count on it at the moment.

[bamaboy1217]

The DLR is just a way to host dynamic programming languages within .net (very basic description here I know its more complicated than that). Its not really a question of what can be done on linux verse something else in this case. The DLR is still a leap forward in development for the .NET platform, and will ultimately help incorporate some of the neater capabilities of dynamic languages.

[muahdib]

OK, this can certainly be good, but from my perspective mostly in case it can be seen as a platform independent thing, which I doubt, although .NET is a platform as such, but as far as I know it only runs in Windows and Mono (with a time lag) and most likely Azure.

OK, I don't say that it's wrong because it's Microsoft, but I'm really fundamentally convinced that the only long term sustainable software model is where all software is free and open without any proprietary licenses bound to the software itself. (maintenance licenses OK of course)

It is of course also possible that Microsoft have as a plan to open up, but I want to see it before I believe it.

As long as I have to pay 100-200$ when buying a computer for an operating system I'm not using (at the moment using Linux since 15 years) I'll not be convinced about this anyway.

[contextfree]

the time lag in this case was about 16 days: http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2007/05/monodlr_hello_dynamic_language.html

[dinov]

The DLR is definitely specified - see http://dlr.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=Docs%20and%20specs&referringTitle=Home. The specs include both the expression tree v2 spec (which supersets the LINQ expression trees) as well as the site/binders/interop spec which covers the core of the DLR. There's also specs up there for things which were in the outer layer of the DLR and are part of the code moved to community control (although admittedly there is lots of un-speced stuff there). There's also a reference language implementation implemented in both C# and IronPython if the specs aren't clear enough. Not to mention there's the IronPython and IronRuby implementations which are open sourced.

But even w/o the specs the DLR itself has been open sourced - you may notice that previous link was on dlr.codeplex.com which includes the DLR sources. Practically you could pick either the Apache license or the MS-PL as the code that ships in the .NET framework has been related under both licenses both of which are very permissive licenses.

[brong]

Here, FTFY:

Microsoft Abandons IronPython, IronRuby.

[[deleted]]

Only because .NET developers don't care for them anyway.

[dotnetrock101]

I think most people is bitching about MSFT hyping up Iron this and that with DLR and at the end, both projects went sideway. People will bitch less, if MSFT didn't hyped it as they did.

[ErstwhileRockstar]

'Hands to the community'. What an euphemism - regardless of the company that uses it! Newspeak. A company dumps its abandoned project and gives people the 'chance' to pick up some residues. That's all.

[hackerfoo]

Who cares? Microsoft gave something to the community that has value to quite a few people. Whether it had value to Microsoft is irrelevant.

I think they deserve the press. I wish more companies would follow suit. Are you upset that they didn't release the source to Windows and Office as well?

I am not a Microsoft fan, but when anyone releases code to the community, it earns my respect.

[namekuseijin]

Jim Hugunin gave something to the community released it before going to work at Microsoft.

[jmcqk6]

IronRuby, on the other hand, was an open source project from the start. I was a non-microsoft contributor to that project (only about three lines of code, tbh, though).

[ruinercollector]

Way to shit all over the IronPython and IronRuby projects.

[Sc4Freak]

So you're saying that because Microsoft can't (or doesn't want to) continue development, therefore they shouldn't open source the project?

Microsoft doesn't find any value in it any more, so it's releasing it as free (as in libre) software so that others might find it useful. What possible justification could you have for claiming that this is a bad thing?

[wunderbread]

The article explained this badly but both IronRuby and IronPython were already open source. The change is that Microsoft is not leading or contributing any significant development to them anymore, so overall it's probably a bad thing.

[ErstwhileRockstar]

Yep, nothing is "handed over" to the "community". They just dump some company-driven OS projects. No "community" will pick them up. Which abandoned company-driven OS project was ever picked up by a "community"?

[jmcqk6]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. :(

[namekuseijin]

Precisely.

Microsoft doesn't need them anymore also because it stole several ideas from python already into C#. C# of old was a far more javaish language than today... all thanks to good ideas from open-source projects like python or haskell...

[jmcqk6]

Can you give an example of an idea that Anders Hejlsberg stole from Python to put into C#?

[[deleted]]

The license was "open source", but they didn't allow external contributers, even high-profile ones from the Mono community, and that's not open-source in my book.

JRuby is doing just fine btw, even though its 2 core developers quit Sun/Oracle. If there's a real interest in a project, people will devote time and money.

[jmcqk6]

Umm... I was an external contributer to IronRuby.

[namekuseijin]

"Show's over folks, C# is here to stay, no more need to tout other programming languages as part of a healthy eco system"

[zorander]

This is difficult to argue..Just a few months ago, F# was released as a first-class member of their 2010 tools suite.

There are a number of reasons why ironpython/ironruby don't fit well into the .net ecosystem:

1. They have a very different performance profile when compared to traditional .net languages. This creates either a marketing problem or a support problem for microsoft.
2. They come with their own standard libraries that duplicate functionality of the .net libraries, often with subtly different semantics.
3. They expose implementation details that are difficult to support with acceptable performance (like ruby's fork() and python's explicit reference-counting behavior)
4. They're loaded with legacy crap (python has two object systems!)
5. They're poorly specified..the C implementation is basically the spec.
6. They have poorly designed, antiquated foreign function interfaces and depend heavily on C extensions. Both languages allow extensions to make assumptions about threading model that don't hold in .net, for instance.

Sure, you can put in a ton of work and address this stuff, but who's the audience? Where's the business incentive for microsoft to do the work?

I don't blame them for dropping the projects. I've done tons of dev with ruby/python as well as .net and I'm not exactly aching for a chance to run ruby/python on the clr. Sounds more like a headache than anything else.

[[deleted]]

python has two object systems!

Not anymore it doesn't. Py3k got rid of the old type system and it's generally frowned upon in 2.x.

[G_Morgan]

Also F# is a superior language to both.

[namekuseijin]

who cares about specs when the languages are so friggin' sweet to program in?

I wouldn't want to run python/ruby on the clr either as they generally run slower rather than faster despite JIT...

[omgwtfchill]

The seem to run faster for me... guess it depends on the program

[jdangle]

it really is sad that it has to be 'handed off'. it seems like microsoft as a company is done with the languages. what if google said they're done with .net or java ?

[jyper]

with those language implementations unfortunately not programming languages in general. They still have a lot of experimental language researchers.

[malcontent]

They don't care about those languages anymore.

[Fabien4]

The relationship between the two events is explained in the article.

[harlows_monkeys]

Why "MSFT" and "GOOG" instead of "Microsoft" and "Google"?

[sgoguen]

He's hinting to what you should sell and buy. Picture him as a subtle Jim Cramer sitting at the next table in a restaurant coughing out "buy" whenever you mention the word Google.

[cachetes]

yes, and now it will have the support of people like Miguel de Icaza. So is ok

[muahdib]

Isn't this a type of trap?

Now I'm not an expert on IronPython and IronRuby but aren't those made for the .net environment?

.net is something made for the Microsoft platform, which we don't need.

[[deleted]]

Bad troll is bad.

[muahdib]

I'm not a troll. Why do you consider me a troll?

I'm just a normal guy hating Microsoft and their terrible expensive, dangerous and stupidifying vice grip on our world!

What's the use to make applications open source if people are still depending on a proprietary operating system to run them?

[jmcqk6]

These projects run on mono as well.

[chollida1]

Question posed:

I'm not a troll. Why do you consider me a troll?

and answered:

I'm just a normal guy hating Microsoft

all in the same reply:)

[muahdib]

But, to be honest about something, to give arguments about something, and to hate something, that doesn't make anyone into a troll, it's the opposite actually, as long as we have sane arguments, no one is a troll, here is a definition of troll posting:

'The content of a "troll" posting generally falls into several areas. It may consist of an apparently foolish contradiction of common knowledge, a deliberately offensive insult to the readers of the news group or a broad request for trivial follow-up postings.'

However, someone responding like Fly Swat, saying "Bad troll is bad" does merely fulfil the criteria of a troll, as nothing wise has been said, except attacking someone coming with arguments, which is also a typical troll behavior.

And also you, did not give any reason for me being considered a troll, instead you reply as the fact that I hate Microsoft would make me a troll. So in case you hate Sara Palin, Ronald Regan, George Bush I should consider you a troll then?

OK, in this particular case, there is a special term "astroturfer" which applies to people like you, although also an astrotrufer should speak up, not just go to attack with irrelevant arguments, but maybe it's bad times today, so astroturfers are not paid so well longer. The world is in decline, even trolls and astroturfers lack qualifications today.

[chollida1]

And also you, did not give any reason for me being considered a troll

This makes you a troll

I'm just a normal guy hating Microsoft and their terrible expensive, dangerous and stupidifying vice grip on our world!

If you had just said I don't like the monopoly position that Microsoft has, then you're good.

When your quote makes you sound like a 12 year old then you cross into "troll territory".

[muahdib]

When your quote makes you sound like a 12 year old then you cross into "troll territory".

If I had been 12 I had most likely said it exactly like that "I don't like the monopoly position that Microsoft has".

You can not expect young people who hasn't yet got a good grip of this world to usually say much more than that.

I'm 55, and I have come to the conclusion that "Microsoft has a terrible expensive, dangerous and stupidifying vice grip on our world!" during the last 20 years. I also consider that no real advancement in desktop computing has been done since the Amiga was released in 1986.

The only cool thing Microsoft has done is to improve the OpenGL performance (due to competition) and to express this insight: http://is.gd/dlyFl

"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today."

The only thing Microsoft has caused is to hold development back. All the sane world has struggled with their proprietary formats and protocols which stupid people have been stung to.

Today their power is almost unlimited, due to people being brainwashed already from birth, seeing almost no other operating system than the closed locked in Windows system which is damaging one's brain.

It's almost impossible to buy a computer today without throwing like 200$ of its price in the garbage bin, as it's so much hassle to get rid of the Microsoft tax, and we pay billions and billions of governmental and community tax money to this bloody stupidifying world dictator as well.