The "polarization is the problem" narrative to me is bad because it implies the status quo was a stable and acceptable set of trade-offs. It's the equivalent of a pollyanna "why can't we all get along" but the we in question is white supremacy and its targets.

1/ It's probably not the first thing you think of, but when we started .NET (COM+) in the late 90s, C# didn't exist yet. We were working on it at the same time as the CLR and the framework. So, you might wonder, what language was being used to generate IL and write the BCL?

2/ The answer is a language that we called SMC that Peter Kukol wrote the compiler for. Peter is a flat out amazing engineer and wrote the core parts of the compiler in just a few days. This unblocked the framework team, allowed vetting the runtime and interpreter, etc.

3/ SMC was a trimmed down C++ variant and the compiler was written in itself (i.e. SMC). It didn't support things like destructors, multiple inheritance, virtual base classes, etc. But, overall it enabled progress that would have otherwise been stalled.

4/ It did introduce a problem for the C# language and compiler team though. Every day more and more code was written in SMC, a language that we did not intend to ship externally. Designing a new language is hard (well, at least, a general purpose one that becomes popular).

5/ So there was a constant balancing act between laying enough of the foundation of the language and the C# compiler to replace SMC and making sure that the design lived up to the goals and ideals the team was striving for. If we waited too long to adopt C#,

1 There's a chasm between an NLP technology that works well in the research lab and something that works for applications that real people use. This was eye-opening when I started my career, and every time I talk to an NLP engineer at @textio, it continues to strike me even now.

2 Research conditions are theoretical and/or idealized. A huge problem for so-called NLP or AI startups with highly credentialed academic founders is that they bring limited knowledge of what it takes to build real products outside the lab.

3 A product is ultimately a thing that people pay for - not just cool technology or user experience. But I’m not even talking about knowledge gaps in go-to-market work. I'm talking purely technical gaps: how you go from science project to performant + delightful user experience.

4 Most commoditized NLP packages solve well-understood problems in standard ways that sacrifice either precision or performance. In a research lab, this is not usually a hard trade-off; in general, no one is using what you make, so performance is less important than precision.

5 In software, when you’re making something for real people to use, these tradeoffs are a big deal. Especially if you’re asking those people to pay for what you’ve made (can’t get away from that pesky GTM thinking). They expect quality, which includes precision AND performance.

1/ @werat asked about whether the debugger was using the C# compiler or language service in VS 2002. It was not. The debugger has a component called an ‘expression evaluator’ that is provided per language and is responsible for parsing and evaluating expressions when stopped at a

2/ breakpoint. For example, if you type into the immediate window, hover over a variable, type into the watch window, etc. the expression evaluator is involved. The debugger and the language service are actually deeply integrated in a number of scenarios in VS, which may

3/ initially seem surprising. I may talk about more of these scenarios in the future, but to give a flavor, when you set a breakpoint at design time the language service is involved, when you are using Edit and Continue the LS is involved, the range of what is being evaluated

4/ when you get a debugger data tip, completion lists when typing in the data windows or immediate window, etc. Prior to VS 2002, there were distinct debug environments tailored to each target customer (VB/VBA, C++, VJ, VBScript, TSQL, FoxPro, Fortran, etc.). The goals of the

5/ VS 2002 debugger included unifying the debugger backend components and providing a single UI stack that would enable new scenarios (for example, a callstack across languages). Expression evaluators are the architecture that separate the language specific pieces from the