From: "Antti Kurenniemi" 

It's more Java than improved C IMO, but it is a programming language. It
just compiles (same way as VB.NET) into an app that requires the .NET
framework to exist. Very similar to Java, where you compile the sources to
some sort of mash (bytecode) that requires the Java runtime to be present.

It is sort of nice in that the actual "compiled" app is very
small - I just made a tool that downloads, compresses and emails files from
a server, with GUI, and it's 86 Kb in size. But then you'll need the
multi-megabyte runtime to run it on.

Or in another way: think of it as VB: you have the "programming" language
(), several different versions of the runtime which MS insists is no
biggie but which users hate because they will eventually become a pain in
the butt, and also developers will end up hating because you just can't
count on the users having just the right runtime installed so you end up
writing very small apps but having to package them with the runtime just to
make sure the user gets the right one, and as a result you'll have a
"Hello, world!" app that is a 35Mb download and only runs on some
computers 


Antti Kurenniemi

"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:4289feda$2{at}w3.nls.net...
>I thought C# was some sort of improved C.  In other words I thought it was
>a
> programming language, but can something be called a programming language
> if
> it doesn't/can't be compiled into a working program?
>
> Gary
>
> "Antti Kurenniemi" 
wrote in message
> news:4289eda5{at}w3.nls.net...
>> "Geo"  wrote in message
news:4289bfec$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> It's not even easier to program for, at least not the way
it's going
>> >> right
>> >> now: new releases that are not compatible, coming out way
too often,
>> >> which
>> >> not only causes more work but also makes one wonder how
well designed
> the
>> >> whole damn thing was to begin with. I used .NET for a
while (I like C#
> as
>> > a
>> >> language), but I'm now mostly back on Win32.
>> >
>> > the question I have to ask is do you think MS created .NET because
>> > it was needed or because they needed to replace Sun's Java?
>>
>> I don't know. Maybe they needed something "new" to make
a big hoopla
> about.
>> Probably Java had a lot to do with it, which would explain why MS created
> a
>> new "platform" that is almost as sucky as Java instead
of making just a
> new
>> language (C#). Now, a C# compiler that generates Win32 apps, that I would
>> like a lot.
>>
>>
>> Antti Kurenniemi
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5