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

At 02:02 PM 9/19/2003 +0100, you wrote:

[ ... ]

>.NET is just Microsofts try of reinvent Java.

A cute one-line reply, but far from accurate or realistic.

First of all, Java is (by definition) a one-language solution, while .NET
currently supports at least 4 -- and its virtual machine is noticeably
better designed, so it does a better job of supporting more languages as well.

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

Third, .NET is a fundamentally cleaner design.  Java does its best to be
entirely monolithic, treating the virtual machine, class library and
language proper as basically a single, indivisible unit.  .NET is much more
modular, with the virtual machine, the class library, and the languages
each defined as an entirely separate unit, so that although MS happens to
implement C# only on top of the CLR, somebody else could perfectly
reasonably implement it entirely differently.

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

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05