Hank,

>Everything that can be done in Boo can be done in C#, without the DLR. So it's not a matter of whether it can be done, but rather how one wants to work. At the least, Boo's compiler does for one what the C# compiler could do if the designers wanted it to, without breaking static typing at all.

Isn't that what the "var" of DLR in 4.0 does ? Type inferencing ?

> In C#, base.<method> performs the same as dodefault() or super(); the latter two are to my mind more descriptive (although the lengthier version can be used in Boo as well).
...
>All the rest that is missing from the C# eventhandler code is just confusion waiting to happen: words that have to be there, but which give no additional meaning. Code should be self-documenting, as an ideal; having to type a bunch of words that lend no additional meaning gets in the way of moving toward that ideal. Of course, this effect varies by person: for those who are simple-minded like myself, keeping it simple is the key to productivity.
>
>Finally, there is the issue of static typing: with -ducky set on at the compiler level (a checkbox in SharpDevelop, on the Compiling tab under Project), all variables are duck-typed by default (but can be specified as desired). Even without -ducky, type inference will handle the typing of variables that are set directly to object instances. Where speed is useful, static typing is available.

Can you reflect working C# code out of the compiled ILM from wrist saving boo code ?
Write in Boo, reflect into C# for companies where this is a must ?

curious

thomas