Ya I've read it along with most anyone that has had an interest in programming languages and went to school in the last 20 years. It doesn't make his statement less absurd.
I was doing undergraduate research on .NET in 2003 and it was absurd when I first heard it. Academics were upset that M$ made a pragmatic IL. One that didn't support many advanced languages features. That didn't mean implementing those features wasn't possible. It just meant it was yet another step back for features making it to the M$ environment.
It should be noted that Parrot was getting a lot of talk back then. It would be THE intermediate language for all languages dynamic or functional... Maybe it makes sense to start pragmatic, like the jvm and .NET, and then add the harder part later.
I was doing undergraduate research on .NET in 2003 and it was absurd when I first heard it. Academics were upset that M$ made a pragmatic IL. One that didn't support many advanced languages features. That didn't mean implementing those features wasn't possible. It just meant it was yet another step back for features making it to the M$ environment.
It should be noted that Parrot was getting a lot of talk back then. It would be THE intermediate language for all languages dynamic or functional... Maybe it makes sense to start pragmatic, like the jvm and .NET, and then add the harder part later.