From: "Peter Sawatzki" 

Oh and btw. C# is not .NET, C# is just one language that targets the
CLR/.NET. Other languages that target .NET are Delphi, C++, VB.NET, F#,
Eiffel, ...

Peter


Paul Ranson wrote:

> I don't see any point in being different for the sake of it. And both
> Java and C# seem to be jumping through hoops to avoid doing
> destructors the easy way, which means code written in either that
> needs to manage object lifetimes is more convoluted and error prone
> than it need be. I think the work being done on C++ for .NET is
> pretty interesting, even if it's of no use to me personally at the
> moment.
>
> Paul
>
> "Adam"  wrote in message
> news:428a0467{at}w3.nls.net...
> > Paul Ranson wrote:
> >
> >> This isn't the case.
> > >
> >> .NET is analagous to Java, it's a library and an environment for
> >> applications. It's a better design than Java, if only because it
> didn't >> have to repeat the same mistakes and it supports C++, but I
> don't really >> see the point of either. Anyway the MS development
> tools allow you to >> target .NET or native with C or C++.
> > >
> >
> > Chuckle
> >
> > "if only because it didn't have to repeat the same mistakes and it
> > supports C++"
> >
> > Not that you're biased in favour of C++ or anything 
> >
> > Adam

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