We (being a primarly MS house) got so fed up with this IIS (4.0) box that we actually put Apache for Windows on it. The main issue was dynamic scripting for site creation. A Perl script written in less then an hour (with minimal Perl experience then that, and NO experience with httpd.conf) was much more efficient then a huge VBScript (written over a few days) that accessed the IIS Metabase. However, with IIS 6.0 all site configuration and creation can be done by simply interfacing with an XML file.
I'm writing to solicit intelligent and thoughtful rationales for adding 'secret software' into such programs.
A) It's not secret software. You agree to an EULA which clearly mentions this "feature".
B) Essentially, Kazaa is not free. Instead of paying money, you agree to paying CPU cycles. It's a simple form of bartering.
C) They're not a monopoly, and they're not leveraging an existing monopoloy to push this product. Therefore, they make the terms (read: Free Market), and as long as those terms are fully disclosed (as they are), there is no problem. It is of no burden for you to disagree with said terms and use a competitors product.
If there's ever been a reason to support open source software, this is it. I think the plan is interesting, and ambitious. However, it's paramount that users know the function and operation (or at least be able to know) of software installed on their machines.
Let's see... The vast majority of users have the technical skill to read and comprehend the first couple of paragraphs of the EULA which clearly explain what the software does or what it may be used for. Or, the vast minority could spend unwanted hours wading through 1,000,000 lines of source. Heck, even if it was an Evil Company(tm) that didn't disclose this info in their EULA, it's not that hard (and a common practice of geeks) to packetsniff what's going in and out of your network. How do you think we found out about all of the Real spyware? Not with the source, Luke.
They should pay you for their spending on R&D to write software that you can use for free. Right. If you don't like it, use a competitors, or write your own.
I granted no access nor privilage to use my systems, to any employee of Brilliant Digital Entertainment Inc.
Except the EULA you agreed to. We can all argue how much weight an EULA has, however, this point concludes that you are no longer looking at a simple patriot act lawsuit, but a challenge against an EULA's legal power. I don't think a few CPU cycles from a now publically known "feature" will cause enough "damage" to constitute any sort of a lawsuit.
About 5 years ago when I was an entry level web developer (ya, we used Dreamweaver... bleh) I worked on http://www.toilettech.com/. I still work with the designer who made the animation and logo:-).
Your post is +5 Insightful but it is void of any fact and full of pure speculation. MS does want new customers - badly. I personally know a lot of MS employees (actually, I'll be on campus next week). Apple has a HUGE percentage of the "new computer user" marketshare - and that's still a big market. People think XP was just to copy OS X, but in reality, the motivation was to make computing more attractive to those without a computer. Apple is gaining marketshare, and so is Linux.
They commited extortion to prevent computer manufacturers from providing competing Operating Systems, Web Browsers, or Audio/Video viewers.
Okay, this actually does have some fact to it, so I take some of my first statement back. As far as OS's go, MS's OEM issues are anticompetive. However, the rest of this statement is hogwash. As I've preached time and time again, Communicator 4 sucked, IE 4 didn't. Plain and simple. And guess what, I still have choice. My choice is to use IE, and sometimes Opera because if it's great speed. Apple includes Quicktime and iMovie, MS includes Media Player. Again, value added to the customer. Should MS remove their defragger so that Norton has a better chance selling Speed Disk? Ludicrous. Again, I'm not saying that MS didn't break the law, but I think as a business, and even as a monopoly, they should be able to add value to their OS as long as the price does not get abused (meaning they essentially charge you for the "free" add ons).
Legally, there is a different set of rules for MS now.
True, and as long as those rules are aimed at bettering the product for the consumer, and not aimed at hurting MS, I'm all for it. Personally, I'm more for the OS X approach, where things are less integrated. I just think there's much bigger legal fish to fry (like OEM strongarming, for example).
I'm sorry but this is a gross trivialization of human intelligence. There is a huge difference between a machine and a human - I don't even want to get into the discussion. So let's agree to disagree;-).
The real question is, "Is game AI 'real' intelligence". This is logically impossible as Artificial Intelligence is essentially an oxymoron. A better term for the science would be PI, Percieved Intelligence. Even Deep Blue that "beat" Kasparov was just an oversized chess calculator with a ton of relevant algorithms running at insane speeds.
I agree that Windows doesn't allow the end user the same flexibility as OS X. However, your points are moot since the default install of OS X includes everything, and every new Mac with OS X preinstalled already has the programs on there. I don't think the user is going to be taking them off, so the end result is the same. The reason this makes your point moot is within the context of "forcing users to use their software" and "hurt competition". The bottom line is, I use Opera and Winamp on Windows with no problems - I _do_ have the options. Again, I agree that OS X gives the user more control over these things then Windows, but from a legal standpoint I don't see why Windows has to change in this regard (even though I'd like them to).
For it to be faster, user friendly, and easy to support one must strip out all the crap.
But IE isn't the crap. IE is faster and slicker then any OSS browser for Windows, and the second fastest commercial browser (second to Opera). IE isn't perfect, by any means, but it's rediculous to force them to remove it from their OS. Finally, Apple packages Quicktime, iMovie, iTunes, Appleworks (a full office suite), and more with their OS. I think that it is the OS makers right to include value added software, and the consumer benefits from it. I can go and buy a new iMac, plug it in, and have a full home video editing studio without having to do a thing (all on UNIX neverthless)! Now, because MS has a monoploy on the desktop, our solution is to force them to make a less-valued OS with less features and bundled software? How is this better for the consumer. Remember, the whole point of business regulation is to fight for the consumer, not fight against the corporation. Everyone I know who has bought a new Mac absolutely loves all of the bundled software. True, this forces competitors out of the market, but so what? Should Real sue Apple for including Quicktime? No, Real should sue itself (lol) for not selling off their technology years ago, realizing that there was no way that they could compete with the likes of MS and Apple.
You are right from a CS standpoint. What a lot of people (especially anti-MS people) don't get is the fact that MS is talking from more of a market-driven standpoint. A lot of MS's technologies actually rely on the IE engine. They have no reason to remove or rewrite all of these features in their OS (not to mention all of the 3rd party programs that rely on it as well). Actually, the core engine of IE _IS_ actually very modular. With a few lines of code I can slap the engine into any of my apps. Programs that claim to "remove" IE from your system actually remove small parts of IE, not the core engine.
In theory, they could easily remove IE "the browser", while leaving the browser engine for programs and features that rely on it. But then I have to ask, why? IE was way more popular then Netscape way before this whole integration crap came about (NSCommunicator sucked anyway). Opera wasn't around to really compete, and Mozilla wasn't that active either. Plus, Opera, a great browser, is currently gaining marketshare in what's supposedly an anti-competitive marketplace. I think the only thing that's been anti-competitive in the browser market is sub-par browsers trying to compete with IE. Within the last year this has really changed, and IE has been slowly loosing it's share (esp. in Europe).
Just the nature of your posting still alludes to the fact that you are fighting me with a conviction, not facts.
The author of this statement is biased?
Okay, I'm sure you're a smart guy, so let's just try and think about this for half of a second. A) The Author was originally working on a Compent Pascal compiler for Java. He is not a MS fanboy.
B) The Author is not speaking within the context of this discussion. He could care less if the technologies were the same or not. He's not arguing any points. Actually, in the entire introduction, this is the ONLY time he actually compares the two technologies. He's simply educating the reader about the history of abstract machines. Sorry, no conspiracy, move along...
Your emotionally charged posts are void of fact, or of any attempt to discuss things on an intellectual level. You can have your opinions of MS. It is even logical to conclude that because of MS's business practices, no matter how good their technology, that you will not support it. However, when you have a conviction that burns inside you, any fact that is presented to you will be filtered out if it doesn't fit your anti-MS bias (kind of like an ignorant religious zealot).
Quite frankly, I'm not interested in discussing this further, unless of course you have something constructive to post. For your own benefit, you should actually read up on both the JVM and the CLR (I'm talking books, not little web writeups) and at least be able to come up with your own educated conclusion.
You make some good points. I agree with your comments regarding Properties and Namespaces. Although these may (arguably) make things more convenient for the developer, they are bad examples for proving my point. I was just listing languages differences off the top of my head and I wasn't really considering this perspective.
It would be more accurate to say that Java has primitive types. If you want a primitive integer value, declare an "int". If you want an object, declare an "Integer".
This is a curios statement, however. I was under the (false?) impression that the Integer object is simply an object that works with the int primitive. It's not really a language feature, but part of the Class Library. With C#, an int is just a syntactic representation of System.Int32, which ultimately inherits from System.Object. So, an int->System.Object where as in Java an Integer->int. Seems like a fundamental difference, although I could be completely wrong.
Well, you obviously didn't get the point of my post. You are giving me your opinions about C#, which quite frankly I don't care about. My point is that they are different languages, not that one was better then the other.
If it isn't a Java ripoff, then why is everyone comparing it to Java?
Maybe because Java is it's competitor?
The fact is that Microsoft never innovated anything
The fact is that you are so passionate about this personal conviction, that you could care less about any facts. Try to remain objective about this stuff - it's just technology!
I've included an excerpt from John Gough, someone who's written a Component Pascal compiler for BOTH the JVM and CLR, and has written a book on the CLR (ISBN:013062296-6).
[The CLR] "... like the JVM, is based on an abstract stack machine. Apart from this superficial level of commonality, the design of the two virtual machines is quite different."
Of course, he's not in the middle of any debate, he's just giving some introductory history (from the P-Machine to.NET).
Interesting point. However, a System.Int32 does inherit from System.ValueType, which inherits from System.Object. Whethor or not this is a "good" thing or not, I think it shows the differences between (the) C#/CLR and Java/JVM, which was my main point. Maybe it's more accurate to state, "C# is more OO then Java".
Really? How much have you delved into each platform? Does the JVM have an equivilent to the Common Type System (CTS) or the Common Language Specification (CLS)? These two points alone make the CLR a lot more "language neutral" then the JVM. It is true that the CLR does not support MI, for example, so there is a limit as to how "language neutral" it can be. Nevertheless, a bit of reading will prove that the CLR really does have some very "language agnostic features", which makes it much more compelling to develop compilers for.
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, abused and ripped off was also in there just to some extent.
I do find it obvious that there are some things in C# that are like Java. However, it seems to me that this is generally moot considering both languages where heavily inspired from C++. When you do your homework, you find that C# is actually quite different the Java:
+ C# is completely OO - even an Int32 is an Object. Java uses primitive types.
+ C# uses Delegates for Event Handling (think function pointers, but different).
+ C# supports the use of Properties instead of Getter and Setter methods.
+ C# supports Indexers which allow objects to be treated as Arrays.
+ C# forces explicit Method Overriding (via the virtual/override or new keywords).
+ C# supports namespaces. Unlike Java's packages, namespaces do not rely on a file/folder structure.
+ The C# Abstract or "Virtual Machine" (CLR) is not designed for C#, rather for language neutrality (to an extent). Java and the JVM, however, are closely tied.
I could go on. Whethor or not you think that these differences are Good Things(tm), the point is, they are definitely different langauges. Although there may have been some inspiration from Java, I'd be hard pressed to call it a "Java Ripoff".
Don't like MS, fine. But come on slashdot - GROW UP! This is business! These are largely subjective issues, and we know that MS will exaggerate every possible flaw with Unix systems. This strategy is nothing unique to MS. Leave America and stop supporting American businesses if you don't like it. Stop looking like brainless reactionary zealots. I'm telling you, the MS folks laugh when stories like this appear on slash. If you ever want to gain mindshare for Linux, you need get an open mind and stop appealing to the "bunch of hippies" stereotype. Try to look at things from the bigger picture. Unless these ads are illegal, we should've brushed this news off no different then the launch of a new Cheerios marketing campaign against "generic wanna be cheerios".
So you agree with me that you had your tenses mixed up....I distinctly remember you saying...
There is no reason to to try and remember, just read my post:
and the Mono project has even implemented many of the "non-standard" (like ASP.NET) class libraries
They have implemented many, but not all, noting that they are making good progress, but are not complete. Of course, this is nitpicking and not relevant to my assertion that.NET could be valuable to schools. Schools are on Windows anyway - they don't need to wait for a third party solution. Because of standards, however, competition is created through Open Source and potentially future commercial initiatives. This just adds to the longevity of the technology.
I still say it makes no sense teach.NET because by the time the student graduates MS will have dumped it and moved on the new acronym of the day.
I'll say the same about J2EE, JVM, and EJB. You're still missing the fundamental point. This isn't a trade school. We aren't teaching the acronyms in the first place. We are teaching students about technology and CS. Using Java, I can teach OOP, a very important aspect of programming. With C# I can do the same (see my original post in this thread to see what else you can learn effectively from the.NET platform). If Java or C# go away, the student still has OOP.
Slashdot Mirror
We (being a primarly MS house) got so fed up with this IIS (4.0) box that we actually put Apache for Windows on it. The main issue was dynamic scripting for site creation. A Perl script written in less then an hour (with minimal Perl experience then that, and NO experience with httpd.conf) was much more efficient then a huge VBScript (written over a few days) that accessed the IIS Metabase. However, with IIS 6.0 all site configuration and creation can be done by simply interfacing with an XML file.
I'm writing to solicit intelligent and thoughtful rationales for adding 'secret software' into such programs.
A) It's not secret software. You agree to an EULA which clearly mentions this "feature".
B) Essentially, Kazaa is not free. Instead of paying money, you agree to paying CPU cycles. It's a simple form of bartering.
C) They're not a monopoly, and they're not leveraging an existing monopoloy to push this product. Therefore, they make the terms (read: Free Market), and as long as those terms are fully disclosed (as they are), there is no problem. It is of no burden for you to disagree with said terms and use a competitors product.
I hope that was at least semi-intelligent!
If there's ever been a reason to support open source software, this is it. I think the plan is interesting, and ambitious. However, it's paramount that users know the function and operation (or at least be able to know) of software installed on their machines.
Let's see... The vast majority of users have the technical skill to read and comprehend the first couple of paragraphs of the EULA which clearly explain what the software does or what it may be used for. Or, the vast minority could spend unwanted hours wading through 1,000,000 lines of source. Heck, even if it was an Evil Company(tm) that didn't disclose this info in their EULA, it's not that hard (and a common practice of geeks) to packetsniff what's going in and out of your network. How do you think we found out about all of the Real spyware? Not with the source, Luke.
They should pay you for their spending on R&D to write software that you can use for free. Right. If you don't like it, use a competitors, or write your own.
I granted no access nor privilage to use my systems, to any employee of Brilliant Digital Entertainment Inc.
Except the EULA you agreed to. We can all argue how much weight an EULA has, however, this point concludes that you are no longer looking at a simple patriot act lawsuit, but a challenge against an EULA's legal power. I don't think a few CPU cycles from a now publically known "feature" will cause enough "damage" to constitute any sort of a lawsuit.
About 5 years ago when I was an entry level web developer (ya, we used Dreamweaver... bleh) I worked on http://www.toilettech.com/. I still work with the designer who made the animation and logo :-).
Incredible post! You are right on the money!
Your post is +5 Insightful but it is void of any fact and full of pure speculation. MS does want new customers - badly. I personally know a lot of MS employees (actually, I'll be on campus next week). Apple has a HUGE percentage of the "new computer user" marketshare - and that's still a big market. People think XP was just to copy OS X, but in reality, the motivation was to make computing more attractive to those without a computer. Apple is gaining marketshare, and so is Linux.
They commited extortion to prevent computer manufacturers from providing competing Operating Systems, Web Browsers, or Audio/Video viewers.
Okay, this actually does have some fact to it, so I take some of my first statement back. As far as OS's go, MS's OEM issues are anticompetive. However, the rest of this statement is hogwash. As I've preached time and time again, Communicator 4 sucked, IE 4 didn't. Plain and simple. And guess what, I still have choice. My choice is to use IE, and sometimes Opera because if it's great speed. Apple includes Quicktime and iMovie, MS includes Media Player. Again, value added to the customer. Should MS remove their defragger so that Norton has a better chance selling Speed Disk? Ludicrous. Again, I'm not saying that MS didn't break the law, but I think as a business, and even as a monopoly, they should be able to add value to their OS as long as the price does not get abused (meaning they essentially charge you for the "free" add ons).
Legally, there is a different set of rules for MS now.
True, and as long as those rules are aimed at bettering the product for the consumer, and not aimed at hurting MS, I'm all for it. Personally, I'm more for the OS X approach, where things are less integrated. I just think there's much bigger legal fish to fry (like OEM strongarming, for example).
I'm sorry but this is a gross trivialization of human intelligence. There is a huge difference between a machine and a human - I don't even want to get into the discussion. So let's agree to disagree ;-).
Is game AI "real" AI?
The real question is, "Is game AI 'real' intelligence". This is logically impossible as Artificial Intelligence is essentially an oxymoron. A better term for the science would be PI, Percieved Intelligence. Even Deep Blue that "beat" Kasparov was just an oversized chess calculator with a ton of relevant algorithms running at insane speeds.
I agree that Windows doesn't allow the end user the same flexibility as OS X. However, your points are moot since the default install of OS X includes everything, and every new Mac with OS X preinstalled already has the programs on there. I don't think the user is going to be taking them off, so the end result is the same. The reason this makes your point moot is within the context of "forcing users to use their software" and "hurt competition". The bottom line is, I use Opera and Winamp on Windows with no problems - I _do_ have the options. Again, I agree that OS X gives the user more control over these things then Windows, but from a legal standpoint I don't see why Windows has to change in this regard (even though I'd like them to).
For it to be faster, user friendly, and easy to support one must strip out all the crap.
But IE isn't the crap. IE is faster and slicker then any OSS browser for Windows, and the second fastest commercial browser (second to Opera). IE isn't perfect, by any means, but it's rediculous to force them to remove it from their OS. Finally, Apple packages Quicktime, iMovie, iTunes, Appleworks (a full office suite), and more with their OS. I think that it is the OS makers right to include value added software, and the consumer benefits from it. I can go and buy a new iMac, plug it in, and have a full home video editing studio without having to do a thing (all on UNIX neverthless)! Now, because MS has a monoploy on the desktop, our solution is to force them to make a less-valued OS with less features and bundled software? How is this better for the consumer. Remember, the whole point of business regulation is to fight for the consumer, not fight against the corporation. Everyone I know who has bought a new Mac absolutely loves all of the bundled software. True, this forces competitors out of the market, but so what? Should Real sue Apple for including Quicktime? No, Real should sue itself (lol) for not selling off their technology years ago, realizing that there was no way that they could compete with the likes of MS and Apple.
You are right from a CS standpoint. What a lot of people (especially anti-MS people) don't get is the fact that MS is talking from more of a market-driven standpoint. A lot of MS's technologies actually rely on the IE engine. They have no reason to remove or rewrite all of these features in their OS (not to mention all of the 3rd party programs that rely on it as well). Actually, the core engine of IE _IS_ actually very modular. With a few lines of code I can slap the engine into any of my apps. Programs that claim to "remove" IE from your system actually remove small parts of IE, not the core engine.
In theory, they could easily remove IE "the browser", while leaving the browser engine for programs and features that rely on it. But then I have to ask, why? IE was way more popular then Netscape way before this whole integration crap came about (NSCommunicator sucked anyway). Opera wasn't around to really compete, and Mozilla wasn't that active either. Plus, Opera, a great browser, is currently gaining marketshare in what's supposedly an anti-competitive marketplace. I think the only thing that's been anti-competitive in the browser market is sub-par browsers trying to compete with IE. Within the last year this has really changed, and IE has been slowly loosing it's share (esp. in Europe).
Basically, VB.Net is a skinned version of C#.
Well, if that's the case, then it's a pretty ugly skin!
Just the nature of your posting still alludes to the fact that you are fighting me with a conviction, not facts.
The author of this statement is biased?
Okay, I'm sure you're a smart guy, so let's just try and think about this for half of a second. A) The Author was originally working on a Compent Pascal compiler for Java. He is not a MS fanboy.
B) The Author is not speaking within the context of this discussion. He could care less if the technologies were the same or not. He's not arguing any points. Actually, in the entire introduction, this is the ONLY time he actually compares the two technologies. He's simply educating the reader about the history of abstract machines. Sorry, no conspiracy, move along...
Your emotionally charged posts are void of fact, or of any attempt to discuss things on an intellectual level. You can have your opinions of MS. It is even logical to conclude that because of MS's business practices, no matter how good their technology, that you will not support it. However, when you have a conviction that burns inside you, any fact that is presented to you will be filtered out if it doesn't fit your anti-MS bias (kind of like an ignorant religious zealot).
Quite frankly, I'm not interested in discussing this further, unless of course you have something constructive to post. For your own benefit, you should actually read up on both the JVM and the CLR (I'm talking books, not little web writeups) and at least be able to come up with your own educated conclusion.
You make some good points. I agree with your comments regarding Properties and Namespaces. Although these may (arguably) make things more convenient for the developer, they are bad examples for proving my point. I was just listing languages differences off the top of my head and I wasn't really considering this perspective.
It would be more accurate to say that Java has primitive types. If you want a primitive integer value, declare an "int". If you want an object, declare an "Integer".
This is a curios statement, however. I was under the (false?) impression that the Integer object is simply an object that works with the int primitive. It's not really a language feature, but part of the Class Library. With C#, an int is just a syntactic representation of System.Int32, which ultimately inherits from System.Object. So, an int->System.Object where as in Java an Integer->int. Seems like a fundamental difference, although I could be completely wrong.
Well, you obviously didn't get the point of my post. You are giving me your opinions about C#, which quite frankly I don't care about. My point is that they are different languages, not that one was better then the other.
.NET).
If it isn't a Java ripoff, then why is everyone comparing it to Java?
Maybe because Java is it's competitor?
The fact is that Microsoft never innovated anything
The fact is that you are so passionate about this personal conviction, that you could care less about any facts. Try to remain objective about this stuff - it's just technology!
I've included an excerpt from John Gough, someone who's written a Component Pascal compiler for BOTH the JVM and CLR, and has written a book on the CLR (ISBN:013062296-6).
[The CLR] "... like the JVM, is based on an abstract stack machine. Apart from this superficial level of commonality, the design of the two virtual machines is quite different."
Of course, he's not in the middle of any debate, he's just giving some introductory history (from the P-Machine to
Interesting point. However, a System.Int32 does inherit from System.ValueType, which inherits from System.Object. Whethor or not this is a "good" thing or not, I think it shows the differences between (the) C#/CLR and Java/JVM, which was my main point. Maybe it's more accurate to state, "C# is more OO then Java".
Really? How much have you delved into each platform? Does the JVM have an equivilent to the Common Type System (CTS) or the Common Language Specification (CLS)? These two points alone make the CLR a lot more "language neutral" then the JVM. It is true that the CLR does not support MI, for example, so there is a limit as to how "language neutral" it can be. Nevertheless, a bit of reading will prove that the CLR really does have some very "language agnostic features", which makes it much more compelling to develop compilers for.
WARNING: Lawyers Inside.
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, abused and ripped off was also in there just to some extent.
I do find it obvious that there are some things in C# that are like Java. However, it seems to me that this is generally moot considering both languages where heavily inspired from C++. When you do your homework, you find that C# is actually quite different the Java:
+ C# is completely OO - even an Int32 is an Object. Java uses primitive types.
+ C# uses Delegates for Event Handling (think function pointers, but different).
+ C# supports the use of Properties instead of Getter and Setter methods.
+ C# supports Indexers which allow objects to be treated as Arrays.
+ C# forces explicit Method Overriding (via the virtual/override or new keywords).
+ C# supports namespaces. Unlike Java's packages, namespaces do not rely on a file/folder structure.
+ The C# Abstract or "Virtual Machine" (CLR) is not designed for C#, rather for language neutrality (to an extent). Java and the JVM, however, are closely tied.
I could go on. Whethor or not you think that these differences are Good Things(tm), the point is, they are definitely different langauges. Although there may have been some inspiration from Java, I'd be hard pressed to call it a "Java Ripoff".
What about the anti-Windows Novell ads? Why didn't these make it to /.?
Nice business practices, MS.
Don't like MS, fine. But come on slashdot - GROW UP! This is business! These are largely subjective issues, and we know that MS will exaggerate every possible flaw with Unix systems. This strategy is nothing unique to MS. Leave America and stop supporting American businesses if you don't like it. Stop looking like brainless reactionary zealots. I'm telling you, the MS folks laugh when stories like this appear on slash. If you ever want to gain mindshare for Linux, you need get an open mind and stop appealing to the "bunch of hippies" stereotype. Try to look at things from the bigger picture. Unless these ads are illegal, we should've brushed this news off no different then the launch of a new Cheerios marketing campaign against "generic wanna be cheerios".
So you agree with me that you had your tenses mixed up. ...I distinctly remember you saying ...
.NET could be valuable to schools. Schools are on Windows anyway - they don't need to wait for a third party solution. Because of standards, however, competition is created through Open Source and potentially future commercial initiatives. This just adds to the longevity of the technology.
.NET because by the time the student graduates MS will have dumped it and moved on the new acronym of the day.
.NET platform). If Java or C# go away, the student still has OOP.
There is no reason to to try and remember, just read my post:
and the Mono project has even implemented many of the "non-standard" (like ASP.NET) class libraries
They have implemented many, but not all, noting that they are making good progress, but are not complete. Of course, this is nitpicking and not relevant to my assertion that
I still say it makes no sense teach
I'll say the same about J2EE, JVM, and EJB. You're still missing the fundamental point. This isn't a trade school. We aren't teaching the acronyms in the first place. We are teaching students about technology and CS. Using Java, I can teach OOP, a very important aspect of programming. With C# I can do the same (see my original post in this thread to see what else you can learn effectively from the