Open.NET — .NET Libraries Go "Open Source"

An anonymous reader writes "whurley just posted a blog about Microsoft's announcement To Make .NET Libraries available under a crippled 'Open Source' program using their new Microsoft Reference License. The post includes the official pr doc from Microsoft as well as several points about how this really isn't open source. One example: If a developer finds a bug in the code, rather than fixing it themselves and submitting a patch to the community they'll be encouraged to submit feedback via the product feedback center."

Comments

Re:Could Be Better

[GeckoX]

Bullshit. Complete and utter FUD sucking bullshit.

MS is very responsive wrt .NET issues. Obviously you aren't a .NET developer, or have dabbled a bit but are carrying around a very heavy bias for some reason.
All kinds of issues? Kinda over-loaded statement there as well don't you think?

I'm not even going to bother because, especially at the current dollar value, your 2 cents ain't worth jack.

You want to actually have a conversation other than digging for free mod points for just bashing MS aimlessly, they feel free to try again. Don't worry, I'll take the inevitable hit for speaking up ;)

Re:Need new terminology

[alexborges]

How about "Microsoft's piece-of-crap, FUD-mongering software license"

Re:It's a start.

[Liquidrage]

It's redone Delphi you schmuck. And it was basically done by the same guy.

And people do like C#. A ton. Except in /.land of course. There's tons and tons and tons of nice paying C# development jobs out there. Tons and tons of successful C# projects. I don't mean tons like "Ruby" tons where there aint crap no matter how much /. loves it. I mean real amounts.

Get a clue before you start spouting off.

Re:IT a Trap! (Step 1 to kill Mono)

[shutdown -p now]

C# is to Java as Java is to C++ as C++ is to C on to infinity. To say that C# is just a copy of Java is about as much true and about as much false as saying Java is just a copy of C++.

This is wrong. C++ and Java are very different - most similarities are syntactical, and semantics differs widely. On the other hand, C# and Java are very close, both semantically and syntactically. The object and memory models are almost the same, for example. Core libraries are quite similar as well.

A Java or a C# programmer will have a hard time moving to modern idiomatic C++ (complete with template metaprogramming goodness). On the other hand, a Java programmer won't have much trouble moving to C#, and vise versa.

C# is that same kind of quasi-evolution from Java. It makes some things a lot easier to get right, but at a cost of giving up some of the things that are good about Java.

Examples? There's certainly nothing in the C# language that I'm aware of that could fall in this category.

The key here is that the differences between the two aren't as much in the base language's syntax as in the core frameworks/libraries that are built around them.

There's no "C#" library though (aside from a few core classes such as Object which are defined by the ISO C# language standard). There's .NET Framework and the BCL, and comparing those to J2SE is a whole different kettle of fish.