From: jcoffin{at}taeus.com
To: c_echo{at}yahoogroups.com

At 01:11 AM 9/20/2003 +0100, you wrote:

>  * Author: Bo Simonsen
>
>Hello Jerry!

Hi Bo,

  JC> First of all, Java is (by definition) a one-language solution,
>  JC> while .NET currently supports at least 4 -- and its virtual machine
>  JC> is noticeably better designed, so it does a better job of
>  JC> supporting more languages as well.
>
>Ofcause, but why is it smart, if you only are programming in the same
>programming language? It's only somekind of luxurary imho.

It means that libraries of code written in _any_ of those languages are
available for your use, so code written in (say) VB can be useful to you
even if you never write a single line of VB in your life.

>  JC> Second, Java is a purely proprietary pseudo-standard, owned
>  JC> entirely by Sun Microsystems, and completely open to their whim.
>  JC> MS originated .NET, but submitted specs for the C#, the CLR (and
>  JC> probably a few other parts as well) to ECMA, and they're now open,
>  JC> international standards that anybody can implement without paying
>  JC> royalties, following directives from above, etc., like with Java.
>
>Why would you get .NET working on other platforms like Linux or other
>UNIX'es.

Because somebody wants it to run there, obviously.

>  JC> Third, .NET is a fundamentally cleaner design.  Java does its best
>  JC> to be entirely monolithic, treating the virtual machine, class
>  JC> library and language proper as basically a single, indivisible
>  JC> unit.  .NET is much more modular, with the virtual machine, the
>  JC> class library, and the languages each defined as an entirely
>  JC> separate unit, so that although MS happens to implement C# only on
>  JC> top of the CLR, somebody else could perfectly reasonably implement
>  JC> it entirely differently.
>
>So you doesn't mean that .NET is doing redudant code, like another 4th
>generation programming language?

I'm not sure what you even _think_ you're saying here.  First of all, none
of this has _anything_ to do with 4GLs.  Second, no, modularity does not
normally result in redundant code -- rather the contrary, it tends to
eliminate it.

>  JC> Finally, .NET is not only more open itself, but is far more built
>  JC> around open standards as well, where Java largely ignores open
>  JC> standards and builds its own instead.
>
>What open standards are .NET using?

Obvious ones include: ISO/IEC 23270, ISO/IEC 23271, ISO/IEC 23272, RFC
2616, about a half dozen or so related to XML, another half dozen (or so)
related to HTML in its various flavors, etc.

Offhand, I'm hard put to think of much of .NET that's _not_ an
impelementation of some open standard.

>  JC> OTOH, none of that has been enough to convince me that I really
>  JC> wanted anything to do with either one -- I've learned bits about
>  JC> both out of necessity, but I'm afraid I'm just not the sort of
>  JC> person to ever really _like_ either one very well.  Fortunately for
>  JC> me, neither is particularly well-suited to most of the work I do.
>
>Tell me how mutch are Microsoft paying you?

MS has never paid me anything.  Basically accusing people of being liars is
NOT a good way to elicit information from them either.  I happen to be
fairly thick-skinned, but the fact is that an accusation like this fully
deserves a serious flaming!
         Later,
         Jerry.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05