The problem is that it does not allow stack allocated objects.
Haven't started working on it yet, still on my contract project. But got word from some friends of mine who have experience with Mono internals. Seems while classes are allocated to heap, structs are allocated to stack. So it does indeed allow stack allocated objects, in the form of structs.
This is a terrible suggestion. Mono's patent situation is very unclear. You put the project at risk by tightly integrating it with Mono.http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono
I'd also wager (but can not attest to) that implementing "a wide range of choice in scripting languages" is not as simple as adopting a VM that supports them.
Btw, a better option for this would be Parrot (http://www.parrot.org
Apologies for the manual links. Spam prevention is preventing this non-spam post.
mortaleditification: fixed links
I put nothing at risk, the FSF warning is nothing but unsubstantiated hype. The only risks with Mono and patents, involves come of the framework classes built on top of Mono such as Windows Forms and ADO.NET. These would not be needed for game scripting engine, and should be left out of the build. The classes included should be the base types, networking, XML, IO, reflection, and a class created for the engine. None of which would be a patent risk.
As for Parrot, the vast majority of the languages it supports are typeless or weakly typed, and/or have weird syntax. Strict typing produces more efficient code, and is likely to have fewer bugs. The 2 languages (from the listed languages) which are acceptable to me, are both listed as "?" as to whether it works with the latest Parrot builds. I think i would rather stick with Mono and be certain of having decent languages, and a VM that is much better maintained.