jna

JVM you can make it so that those invocations will be inlined at runtime (in server mode the JVM even inlines method calls made through plain reflection, which is considered extremely expensive). Implementations such as JRuby successfully do this, but because of JRuby's nature, the call-stack sometimes gets too tall, beyond the capabilities of the JVM to inline, however this is addressed with the InvokeDynamic support from JDK 7, which will make dynamic method calls as efficient as normal calls. Because the CLR is not capable of such optimizations, compiler authors have to do a lot of optimizations ahead-of-time, while on the JVM even a dumb compiler can produce good results ... for proof, compile 2 binaries from the same source-code, one with the Mono compiler, the other one with the official compiler, then run on the same platform and compare. (2) compiler writers love the Jar/.class formats, being really easy to produce binaries for Java, coupled with the maturity of libraries such as ASM ... contrast this with the CLR .dll format, for which the .pdb format for attaching debugging symbols is proprietary and NOT documented, which pushed the people working on Mono to come up with their own format (.mdb). Of course, through reverse engineering and through some code that Microsoft published, the interoperability of Mono with .pdb has improved lately, but it's still painful. (3) there are many tools available for the JVM that complement compiler authors, tools like ObjectWeb's ASM, which have poor substitutes for .NET. And if you want a good parser generator, there are plenty to choose from for Java, while for .NET the only reasonable choice being Antlr, which is primarily a Java tool that also supports .NET -- on the other hand if you wanted to express your grammar with PEGs I personally couldn't find an option for .NET, while there are several available for the JVM. (4) the features in .NET that are not used in C# have received poor support. For instance tail calls were NOT guaranteed to be eliminated, even if you specified this behavior in the compiled bytecode. But more than this, tail-calls have severe overhead over plain method calls. And did I mention that tail-call optimizations, as produced by the F# compiler, simply won't work reliably on Mono? On value types, this is not such a huge issue as many people think. In Scala there's the proposal SIP 15 (value classes) which are implemented in the latest Scala 2.10 milestone release. This will open the door to much needed primitives, like unsigned ints: http://docs.scala-lang.org/sips/pending/value-classes.html Also, you're making a mistake if you think the CLR type system doesn't have flaws. For instance the CLR lacks a Union type, which makes it a bitch to implement lazy languages, such as Haskell. The CLR also lacks anything that would aid in implementing continuation-passing-style. The JVM doesn't have anything for it either, however for the JVM exceptions can be used for unwinding the call-stack efficiently and compared with the CLR, exceptions on the JVM are very, very cheap. This coupled with bytecode manipulation and library authors have been able to build libraries that make use of CPS efficiently. (5) P/Invoke is basically JNA ... https://github.com/twall/jna C# does make it easier because it has a couple of primitives that make the marshaling of data easier.