I think that Visual WebGui, e.g., is a lot more than eye candy. It has advantages for putting data apps in the cloud that are not yet fully appreciated, because real world internet latency hasn't been factored into providing complex RIA's with their data. The empty client model solves these issues. And to get there, I need to have .Net.

The presentation layer (WPF, Silverlight 4) along with the availability of well-written and supported 3rd-party controls, the communications layer (WCF -- I think they finally got it right after what, 4 tries?), the workflow engine, etc. And then there's parallel computing, which we will all be doing in 5 years. These are the kinds of things that will keep me in the .Net game.

But as you might have gathered, I'd like to play this game on my own terms. <s>

Hank

>>I'm fairly confident about MS's lukewarm support of IronPython. I don't think it will get more support, nor do I think it will get less support.
>
>I thought source code was made available for IP? Support can be provided if MS loses interest.
>
>>Interestingly, there is what looks like a pretty good IronRuby IDE that works in VS2008 created by a 3rd party. If IronPython had the equivalent, I >think it would open up the market.
>
>Ask the guy to do one for IP.
>
>>For me, the .Net ecology (WCF, WPF, Silverlight 4) is too good a thing to pass up. But if you don't need it, then yes, you will be a lot of stability >sticking with Python.
>
>I agree the eye candy is very important and those tech's provide lot's of eye candy. But the eye candy is available using QT. I've seen QT in a web browser, on cell phones, on desktops (Linux, Mac, Windows). All running similar code (nothing is perfect yet). Yes I realize that the techs offer more than just eye candy. But when creating CRUD apps they offer little more that platform and eye candy.
>
>
>Johnf