Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Portable

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the write-once-run-everywhere-that-is-windows dept.

Michelle Meyers writes "Just days before Microsoft claimed to be making parts of the .NET CLR "available" to other platforms, NeoSmart Technologies had published an article bemoaning and blasting Microsoft's abuse of it's developers by pretending .NET was a true cross-platform framework when they're doing everything in their power to stop it from being just that. Of interest is NeoSmart's analysis of how Microsoft has no problem making certain portions of .NET available to Mac users — just so long as its distributed under an "open source" license that forbids any and all use of the code except for educational purposes — yet are terrified of the very thought of .NET being available to *nix users, even if that's to the benefit of .NET developers everywhere. Even more interesting is one of the comments on that article linking to legal documents in which Microsoft employees discuss the (im)possibility of creating a cross-platform code and UI framework, years before the .NET project even started!"

15 of 293 comments (clear)

  1. Does it matter? by brennanw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's no point in making a marketing sleight of hand portable to other platforms, is there?

    Maybe it's changed in the last few years, but when Microsoft first started talking about "dot net" the only thing I could figure was that they didn't really know what it was going to do -- and four years after it had been announced it didn't really seem as if that had changed.

    Maybe it's changed since then... it's been three years since the last time I paid any attention to it...

    --
    Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
    1. Re:Does it matter? by eln · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I always figured the whole "cross-platform" marketspeak was just a ploy to take some of the wind out of Java's sails. MS wanted people to stop jumping on the Java bandwagon and start jumping on the .NET bandwagon, so they made it sound like .NET was (or would be in the future) more widely usable than it is.

    2. Re:Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Er, I'm no fan of .NET, but the Help Desk webcomic isn't exactly the best source for objective and serious assessments of Microsoft products. Several programming languages have been built for .NET and programs that are built with these will generally require the .NET runtime to run. Although this is irrelevant to the well-definedness of the concept, most people tend to acknowledge that these languages, perhaps C# in particular, are far better than Microsoft's earlier offerings along these lines, although they may of course not be everyone's cup of tea for various reasons including but not limited to their being tied to a closed system and their being generally non-cross-platform.

      You may not like the framework, but there is no longer any confusion about what .NET is. You'll notice that the comic you linked to was from 2004.

    3. Re:Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      What .net is now is completely different from the vast swarm of swirling spin and angry buzzing buzzwords that poured forth from Microsoft when that concept was spawned, half-formed from the bowels of that beast. It was going to revolutionize the world, one-up .mac on the personal services side while providing corporate services that scaled to millions of users and provide a synergistic end-to-end mashup of all business processes with qualitative and quantitative analysis of everything at once. dotnet was going to bring the ultimate in efficiency and productivity to every one of your workers, from the CEO all the way down to the guy who screws the plastic case together and puts it back on the conveyor belt. (Remember the cars on demand ad, with the robot painting the cars as people decide what color they want? .net made that possible!) There was going to be windows .net, office .net and so on, all of them designed to work with The Intarweb in new and wonderous ways that would blow the minds of every lesser being if so much as a hint of their power was whispered at them from across the room.

      Now it's just a runtime for a bytecode interpreted language. Whoopity-doo.

    4. Re:Does it matter? by Ucklak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Cross platform for Microsoft means it will work on Windows, Xbox, and mobile devices that run Windows.

      It's just another word to ignore when Microsoft says it versus say Samsung when their printers are cross platform which means Linux/Mac/Windows.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
  2. Terrified, they aint. by LibertineR · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Come on.

    Why is Microsoft the only company constantly expected to make decisions anti to their business model? Where is the clamor for Apple to adopt VB for the sake of 'developers'? Ok, bad example.

    But seriously; with 50Billion in the bank, I think throwing around words like 'terrified' serve no purpose but to feed the rabid-anti-Microsoft crowds.

    Hard to have a serious discussion, when the article is premised on hype and flaming rhetoric to start with.

  3. Java by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    .NET is basically Java without the portability.
    So why bother with .NET?

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:Java by poindextrose · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I develop in both the Java and .NET frameworks. I like the Java language a lot more than C#. Unfortunately, users like Windows.Forms a lot more than Swing.

      --
      Karma: Raspberry Kiwi
    2. Re:Java by Jarnis · · Score: 4, Informative

      It may be preinstalled in Windows *Vista*, but it sure as hell is not preinstalled on XP.

      Instructing end users to install this and that .NET framework is a common problem. As is explaining the fact 'WTF why do I have to install .NET 1.1, I already have 2.0!' - most users don't understand that the two can (and in some cases should) coexist.

      MS has made .NET very end-user unfriendly in XP.

  4. .NET Is Only Really Useful on Windows Anyway by repruhsent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Other implementations of .NET are kind of stupid anyway, and, like it or not, Mono really isn't very useful. Anyone who does development on Linux/Mac/anything that isn't Windows will just use native code, or Java - probably because writing a native app isn't nearly as difficult on other platforms, and Java actually is write once, run anywhere (well, closer than .NET, anyway).

    The only platform that benefits from .NET is Windows; have any of you written a native code Windows app (I'm sure many of you have)? The code is a nightmare and makes my eyes scream. With Windows, you really, truly need a system like .NET to make developing any non-trivial app even remotely possible, unless you want to spend 1,000 hours writing fucking COM shit (which I sure as fuck don't).

  5. Re:Snooze. by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So what you're saying is that what they said some years ago shouldn't be taken serious anymore? Why should I take anything said by MS now serious? Why should I believe that what's being spun today holds any meaning in the future if I am not supposed to believe what I was told earlier?

    Don't get me wrong, but when a company makes a statement or announcement, there are two ways to deal with it. Either believe it and expect it to happen or declare it bunk and handle it accordingly. And if the former is expected, the results should warrant it. Either MS follows its words with actions or it has to accept that people ignore their announcements, or, worse, read them for the same reason they read the Prawda: To know what will certainly NOT happen.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Re:So C# is .Net? by digitig · · Score: 4, Informative

    No. As I see it (and there's more than one way to see it) .NET is essentially an API and virtual machine offering that API. C# happens to be a high level language that maps very closely onto the virtual machine language, but in theory any language can compile to that machine language (and many do -- C++, Java, VB, Python, Ada, Eiffel, and so on). I like it as an API (at least at version 2.x), the VM makes multi-language programming a cinch, its memory manager really does seem to eliminate a lot of classic memory bugs, and its deployment model moves away from huge, centralised registries. But it comes at the expense of bloat and the speed penalty of an extra layer between the code and the metal. IMHO that's a reasonable design choice to have to make. If you're developing for MS Windows I reckon .NET is a decent design choice as long as you're not particularly size or speed constrained. If you're developing for anything else -- well, try starting here: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/02/133 6216&from=rss.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  7. Re: Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Port by nametaken · · Score: 4, Informative

    I care. I maintain, and develop for, windows systems all day... then come home to all linux systems with the exception of an XP Pro VM I keep tucked away for emergencies. I'm not switching frameworks, and the business is not switching platforms. What's more, like most .net developers, I like the framework and the dev environment. They're the sort of things that MS actually got right.

    It seems to me that the popularity of .Net should be obvious to those who frequent slashdot.

  8. Re:So C# is .Net? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Informative

    I like it as an API (at least at version 2.x), the VM makes multi-language programming a cinch, its memory manager really does seem to eliminate a lot of classic memory bugs, and its deployment model moves away from huge, centralised registries. But it comes at the expense of bloat and the speed penalty of an extra layer between the code and the metal. IMHO that's a reasonable design choice to have to make.
    Actually, it's faster than many think. Remember that the bytecode was optimized to be JITed rather than interpreted from the very beginning. The easiest way to check on it is to run your .NET program from within Visual Studio, set a breakpoint, and then go into "Disassembly" mode. You'll see what the JIT compiler made out of your code. I've found that for math, pointer operations, and method calls, it's pretty much the same as the output of a C++ compiler, except that you can't avoid checks for null reference on method calls (though it does not check for that repeatedly if one check is enough). Well, there's still the penalty from GC, and that one is harder to account for - but still, there really isn't much reason to pick C++ over C# for speed, unless you really really need that 3-5% extra.
  9. Re: Why Microsoft Will Never Make .NET Truly Port by deathy_epl+ccs · · Score: 4, Informative

    When you say dev environment is better, do you mean VS.net is better than Eclipse? Eclipse has come to a point that it is way better than many development IDE.

    I use both currently, and I can say that Eclipse may be way better than many IDEs, but Visual Studio.net isn't one of them.