[cxS]

The use of an IL throws another step or two in that process.

The JVM is a JIT compiler. Look it up. The core difference between the two is that Java sandboxes the code more from the running computer, whereas the .NET framework is just pure conversion

The second step of the CLR is interpretation, by the definition of the word. It converts information of one type( MSIL ) to another type( ASM ).

Now you're just reiterating what I've already said. I don't care what JVM is though, this is not Java we're talking about at all. .NET doesn't use JVM; we have the CLR. It doesn't use a virtual machine at all. As I've been trying to say, you can't mix Java and .NET -- they are different. Just because the JVM is a JIT compiler doesn't make the CLR a VM. Did you neglect to read any of the links I posted? :S

"Java sandboxes the code more from the running computer, whereas the .NET framework is just pure conversion" -- This is basically what I've just told you in my last post because you falsely stated that .NET runs through a VM. This is nothing like what you originally stated as it contradicts your statement about .NET running through a VM. Your credibility here is decreasing as you're jumping all over the map now.

Because Mono is not a Microsoft project, and it is not well defined how specific parts of the .NET languages should be assembled and ran, you cannot expect that the same code will assemble and run the same on every computer, a key aspect of portability. It may be well defined, in that there are standard functions and objects that are expected to complete a certain task, but that is as deep as the documentation goes.

Can you guarantee that for any language just because something is written with C/C++/etc? It's not a Microsoft project, therefore it is irrelevant when considering any standardization. .NET was not designed for portability in the first place, by Microsoft standard, so I don't even know why you throw this up there as a negative against "standardization". Your points are flawed.

You're posting information here that doesn't really say much, there's no catch in the points you're attempting to make that explain why .NET languages are "shit", which is originally what this conversation was about. If you want to continue this debate you should start explaining your reasoning IMO, instead of just rambling off a bunch of contradictory and irrelevant information.

So far this is all you have:
1. .NET adds another step in the process of getting to machine code that the CPU can understand
2. There's no standardization

Although, point #2 is flawed because you're still basing it off of non-standards of the language itself, and point #1, I've already stated.