I'd rather go with something I know is openly specified.
The rest of your post makes good sense but not the above line. Please don't use the word "openly" just because it is Sun. The Java language is NOT open. It is a propreitary language controlled by Sun that they refuse to open up to standards bodies.
No here is the original thread for reminder:
"java may be a good languaje, but it seems that everybody forget it is a *propietary* languaje..."
But all the specifications are published. This is why you can get implementations from Sun, IBM and a variety of other sources. Can you assume that MS will do the same?
"it is *owned* by Sun, the same company that doesn't want this languaje/platform in the hands of ECMA or ISO."
The original thread said something about.NET not being public. With the exception of the libraries that is not true and that's what I was responding to. Yees, I should not have included libraries. I made a mistake. I'm human. Sorry.
This is the usual argument and its not true to the same degree. Of course it can run other languages bot not natively. There is a whole web site with something like 100 langauges and someone on the.NET mailing list did an analysis and almost all were non-existent. Of course you can munge the interpreted bytecodes after.
What.NET is doing is compeletly differnt and I can point you to information on it. It defines a Common Type System (CTS) and exception system such that all 31.NET languages work the same way *natively* through the CLR. That's very different. That allows you to make a call, using the same stack frame from Perl.NET into Eiffel.NET into C++ all controlled by VB.NET and have exceptions propogate all the way back. That's pretty cool and even the OO guys like Betrand Meyer and Ralph Johnson think this is an innovation.
As to calling me on it, yay fine, you win. I won't break my NDA. I know and have seen what it can do. I did show you (you already knew) the specs for CLR, CTS and CLI. I thought the libraries were there too but I was wrong.
The libraries do have more functioanlity than Java's (32,000 libraries) but no they haven't all been submitted. It's my hope that Microsoft does this. You are 100% right in that it's the libraries that count and not the language. So why not consider using C#, VB.NET, PERL.NEt or whatever? Do you have requirements for cross-paltform? Right now, Java has the edge there but I think there is much less of this than people make out of it. I haven't had any PM come up to me in 12 years and say "Implement this and have it run on 12 platforms." Most organizations have long since decided on a platform and have no need for cross-paltform. But they do have a need for cross-language. Many companies I have been in have tons of VB people in IT, C++ people in engineering. They can use the same libraries and same structures in.NET. But you may have comepletly different requirements and need cross-paltform.
I don't have 3-4 years to wait so I can do with.NET what I can do with Java today
...
You can't do cross-language development using the same types, same class system, same exception system across 31 languages in Java today..NET can.
And your thousands of classes aren't cross-platform or publicly specified.
...
Actually they are cross-platform and I have seen them on many OS's but you're right - they aren't all publically specified (yet). Which is fair but remember that Java pre V1.0 didn't have them all publically specified yet..NET isn't even released yet. Who's to say what's going to happen post Beta 2?
Then use Java. I prefer not to have my language dictated and controlled (and trademarked) by one company and do development with any language I choose and still get the same exact underlying services and libraries.
Wrong. I replied to a post that said you cannot have.NET without Passport and thats when I siad "Stop writing things about things you no nothing about." If the person posts incorrect assertions (.NET must have Passport) I am not a bigot for saying that he is wrong. And if I pop up to the main topic there are more than a few people making the exact same point that you don't need Passport to use.NET and the two are completly seperate and you are not attacking me. I thought you and I came to a truce on another topic. You agreed to stop shouting bigot and I agreed to stop generalizing and I have. I did not generalize or attack. I corrected a falsehood. And it is completly within my right as someone who has used.NET as their primary development environment for the last year to continue to make this point until it is clear: That.NEt and Passsport are two different things and will remain seperate. I'm sorry we disagree but I am not going to lie in order to have you stop calling me a bigot.
Nothing I said was anti-Microsoft....
.NET is Microsoft's way of trying to get Java off the server side so it will have more oppurtunity to own authentication services.
Fact or your opinion? I still stand by my question - How many.NET projects have you worked with? How many.NET books have you read? I simply asking you to support your speculations? Surely, there must be some scientific basis on how you reached your conclusions.
What do you think the point of.NET is? Microsoft's kind gesture to free us from the tyranny of Java?
Yes, I do. I think that's exactly the point of.NET. All of computer work is an evolution. Ideas come around again and again. The ideas of GC came first in LISP in the 1970's. Java improved on a lot of these ideas..NET improves even further. Microsoft and its developers needed a cross-language cross-platform solution for developing Web services and Internet applications. Sun's lawsuits instead of cooperation prevents them from doing anything with Java. So, instead they developed something more suited to a cross-language environment. And the Mono people see the goodness in that. I want that on my linux platform too. What's wrong with that? But I know the difference between.NET and Passport and I don't guess and speculate on Microsoft's motives because I stick to the facts in front of me. Does it meet my needs? Will it solve my development problems? Those answers have been yes and that's what I stick to.
What do you think the point of.NET is? Microsoft's kind gesture to free us from the tyranny of Java?
That is not fact. That is your opinion of what the situation looks to you. I don't know how many times I can explain this to you. There just is no link between.NET and Passport. Again, I say this because I have written applications in it for a year and have never seen Passport. You say, wait it's coming. I dought very much Microsoft is going to come into my building, change the code and "make it" do Passport especially since it does not connect to any external web sites. Again and again, I say that you can do.NET forever without ever seeing Passport and you say otherwise without having worked with it. I don't know how you draw your conclusions.
And it took Java 3-4 years to develop and publish those "thousands" of classes. Maybe you should give it a little more time. I have thousands of classes to use.
No, wrong. I have documents from a year ago that.NET was and still is aimed at a cross platform audience. It was planned a year ago to be put into teh ECMA process and sllow Linux implementations. Again, nothing to do with Passport. Speaking of that, what.NET sites/books/code did you look at to arrive at your conclusions or are you just assuming per the usual anti-Microsoft rhetoric?
Why don't you do us all favor and stop yelling bigot and stick to the topic. Apparently the moderator found it insightful. You are trying to drive me off the site and I'm not going. Unless I post bigoted stuff, you have no right to complain.
But all the specifications are published. This is why you can get implementations from Sun, IBM and a variety of other sources. Can you assume that MS will do the same?
>>>>
Yes I can because they have already. They submitted the CLI, CLR, and CTS to ECMA as well as the libraries. The specs are now freely available from Microsoft, HP, and IBM's sites. They have also submitted the libraries. They have also published these specs in book form - I know because I have them and I don't work for Microsoft. Please stop posting things about things you know nothing about. Don't sprout rhetoric and stay to the facts.
You are wrong. The specs are fully available for free on the web site and from ECMA and they have been published in a book. I know - I have them and I don't work for Microsoft. Sun has constantly refused to submit to ECMA. Microsoft has and the specs are available. Please don't speak about things you know nothing about.
Again, as one person pointed out here 85% of the posters here on.NET know nothing about.NET. Mono understands the difference between.NET and HailStorm/Passport. When people write about the evil.NET/passport thing, they really mean Passport/HailStorm only..NET is a completly free-standing open development environment for developing Internet and non-INternet apps. As such it is a rich development environment with Web Services, rich class libraries, language interoperability coupled with resource managment, SOAP services and WebForms - a rich browser independent way to create great looking web applications. This is goodness and Mono deserves our support to make sure that Microsoft delivers on its "open" message - they have given the CLI, CTS and CLR over to ECMA. Now they need to follow through on their promise to open process. And we have implemented lots if.NET projects over the last year and not a single one of them has anything to do with Passport/HailStorm.
Passport is an SRO authentication. Insome cases its useful. I have one logon for the dozens of passwords I used to have for Microsoft sites. But I am worried about Passport beyond Microsoft and so should others. But Mono and O'Riely haven't turned. There are some good ideas in.NET and as a user of both platforms I would love to see the rich developer platform on both of my platforms. HailStorm/Passport only comes into play with e-commerce sites and only if you pick it. By staying just with the development tools and environment, that's not a possibility.
So, I get it - if anyone questions the sacred religous truths on Slashdot - about Open Source, it's flamebait. I disagree. I think I have a valid point and one that many even in the Linux community have started to voice. And that is that Open Source is an excellent software development method but not a great revenue model. VaLinux, RedHat, Caldera and other examples abound. I don't believe distribution companies can make money, even off services. And this is worth discussing.
There is nothing wrong with YAST. I have used SUSE extensively and YAST has made it easy to install packages as well as configure the system. Its their lack of revenue model that is the problem.
This is just continued evidence that allthough the Open Source Model may work well for software development, its horrible for a revenue model. Suse now follows all the other OPen Source disasters. Services are *not* enough to sustain a company.
That's true. Many of the syntactical things in C# are conviences. For instance, the ForEach loop. Where I think the language has made some significant advances is being a true component language. What does that mean? That means that Events, Properties, Versioning are first class constructs in the language.
And the same could be said for you. Some people think you're looking like a fool. The reason for an offline is to put at end to this. What would it take?
Slashdot Mirror
I'd rather go with something I know is openly specified.
The rest of your post makes good sense but not the above line. Please don't use the word "openly" just because it is Sun. The Java language is NOT open. It is a propreitary language controlled by Sun that they refuse to open up to standards bodies.
One worked for Microsoft for a week and Miguel got turned down in his interview at Microsoft.
No here is the original thread for reminder: "java may be a good languaje, but it seems that everybody forget it is a *propietary* languaje..." But all the specifications are published. This is why you can get implementations from Sun, IBM and a variety of other sources. Can you assume that MS will do the same? "it is *owned* by Sun, the same company that doesn't want this languaje/platform in the hands of ECMA or ISO."
The original thread said something about .NET not being public. With the exception of the libraries that is not true and that's what I was responding to. Yees, I should not have included libraries. I made a mistake. I'm human. Sorry.
, JVM can run more languages than .NET.
.NET mailing list did an analysis and almost all were non-existent. Of course you can munge the interpreted bytecodes after.
.NET is doing is compeletly differnt and I can point you to information on it. It defines a Common Type System (CTS) and exception system such that all 31 .NET languages work the same way *natively* through the CLR. That's very different. That allows you to make a call, using the same stack frame from Perl.NET into Eiffel.NET into C++ all controlled by VB.NET and have exceptions propogate all the way back. That's pretty cool and even the OO guys like Betrand Meyer and Ralph Johnson think this is an innovation.
.NET. But you may have comepletly different requirements and need cross-paltform.
This is the usual argument and its not true to the same degree. Of course it can run other languages bot not natively. There is a whole web site with something like 100 langauges and someone on the
What
As to calling me on it, yay fine, you win. I won't break my NDA. I know and have seen what it can do. I did show you (you already knew) the specs for CLR, CTS and CLI. I thought the libraries were there too but I was wrong.
The libraries do have more functioanlity than Java's (32,000 libraries) but no they haven't all been submitted. It's my hope that Microsoft does this. You are 100% right in that it's the libraries that count and not the language. So why not consider using C#, VB.NET, PERL.NEt or whatever? Do you have requirements for cross-paltform? Right now, Java has the edge there but I think there is much less of this than people make out of it. I haven't had any PM come up to me in 12 years and say "Implement this and have it run on 12 platforms." Most organizations have long since decided on a platform and have no need for cross-paltform. But they do have a need for cross-language. Many companies I have been in have tons of VB people in IT, C++ people in engineering. They can use the same libraries and same structures in
I don't have 3-4 years to wait so I can do with .NET what I can do with Java today
.NET can.
.NET isn't even released yet. Who's to say what's going to happen post Beta 2?
...
You can't do cross-language development using the same types, same class system, same exception system across 31 languages in Java today.
And your thousands of classes aren't cross-platform or publicly specified.
...
Actually they are cross-platform and I have seen them on many OS's but you're right - they aren't all publically specified (yet). Which is fair but remember that Java pre V1.0 didn't have them all publically specified yet.
Then use Java. I prefer not to have my language dictated and controlled (and trademarked) by one company and do development with any language I choose and still get the same exact underlying services and libraries.
Oh look, the bigot is back!
Why don't you do us all a service and learn to format your posts
And I didn't format my posts because the HTML here is broken. I surrounded my paragraphs with
and SlashDot chose to ignore them. I don't have time to debug their HTML implementation. The HTML 4.2 spec clearly dictates that this is valid HTML.
Wrong. I replied to a post that said you cannot have .NET without Passport and thats when I siad "Stop writing things about things you no nothing about." If the person posts incorrect assertions (.NET must have Passport) I am not a bigot for saying that he is wrong. And if I pop up to the main topic there are more than a few people making the exact same point that you don't need Passport to use .NET and the two are completly seperate and you are not attacking me. I thought you and I came to a truce on another topic. You agreed to stop shouting bigot and I agreed to stop generalizing and I have. I did not generalize or attack. I corrected a falsehood. And it is completly within my right as someone who has used .NET as their primary development environment for the last year to continue to make this point until it is clear: That .NEt and Passsport are two different things and will remain seperate. I'm sorry we disagree but I am not going to lie in order to have you stop calling me a bigot.
Nothing I said was anti-Microsoft....
.NET projects have you worked with? How many .NET books have you read? I simply asking you to support your speculations? Surely, there must be some scientific basis on how you reached your conclusions.
.NET is Microsoft's way of trying to get Java off the server side so it will have more oppurtunity to own authentication services.
Fact or your opinion? I still stand by my question - How many
What do you think the point of .NET is? Microsoft's kind gesture to free us from the tyranny of Java?
.NET. All of computer work is an evolution. Ideas come around again and again. The ideas of GC came first in LISP in the 1970's. Java improved on a lot of these ideas. .NET improves even further. Microsoft and its developers needed a cross-language cross-platform solution for developing Web services and Internet applications. Sun's lawsuits instead of cooperation prevents them from doing anything with Java. So, instead they developed something more suited to a cross-language environment. And the Mono people see the goodness in that. I want that on my linux platform too. What's wrong with that? But I know the difference between .NET and Passport and I don't guess and speculate on Microsoft's motives because I stick to the facts in front of me. Does it meet my needs? Will it solve my development problems? Those answers have been yes and that's what I stick to.
Yes, I do. I think that's exactly the point of
What do you think the point of .NET is? Microsoft's kind gesture to free us from the tyranny of Java?
.NET and Passport. Again, I say this because I have written applications in it for a year and have never seen Passport. You say, wait it's coming. I dought very much Microsoft is going to come into my building, change the code and "make it" do Passport especially since it does not connect to any external web sites. Again and again, I say that you can do .NET forever without ever seeing Passport and you say otherwise without having worked with it. I don't know how you draw your conclusions.
That is not fact. That is your opinion of what the situation looks to you. I don't know how many times I can explain this to you. There just is no link between
And it took Java 3-4 years to develop and publish those "thousands" of classes. Maybe you should give it a little more time. I have thousands of classes to use.
Sure. The link is: http://msdn.microsoft.com/net/ecma/default.asp
Then look under Class Library Detailed Specifications (word zip, pdf zip)
No, wrong. I have documents from a year ago that .NET was and still is aimed at a cross platform audience. It was planned a year ago to be put into teh ECMA process and sllow Linux implementations. Again, nothing to do with Passport. Speaking of that, what .NET sites/books/code did you look at to arrive at your conclusions or are you just assuming per the usual anti-Microsoft rhetoric?
Why don't you do us all favor and stop yelling bigot and stick to the topic. Apparently the moderator found it insightful. You are trying to drive me off the site and I'm not going. Unless I post bigoted stuff, you have no right to complain.
But all the specifications are published. This is why you can get implementations from Sun, IBM and a variety of other sources. Can you assume that MS will do the same? >>>> Yes I can because they have already. They submitted the CLI, CLR, and CTS to ECMA as well as the libraries. The specs are now freely available from Microsoft, HP, and IBM's sites. They have also submitted the libraries. They have also published these specs in book form - I know because I have them and I don't work for Microsoft. Please stop posting things about things you know nothing about. Don't sprout rhetoric and stay to the facts.
You are wrong. The specs are fully available for free on the web site and from ECMA and they have been published in a book. I know - I have them and I don't work for Microsoft. Sun has constantly refused to submit to ECMA. Microsoft has and the specs are available. Please don't speak about things you know nothing about.
Again, as one person pointed out here 85% of the posters here on .NET know nothing about .NET. Mono understands the difference between .NET and HailStorm/Passport. When people write about the evil .NET/passport thing, they really mean Passport/HailStorm only. .NET is a completly free-standing open development environment for developing Internet and non-INternet apps. As such it is a rich development environment with Web Services, rich class libraries, language interoperability coupled with resource managment, SOAP services and WebForms - a rich browser independent way to create great looking web applications. This is goodness and Mono deserves our support to make sure that Microsoft delivers on its "open" message - they have given the CLI, CTS and CLR over to ECMA. Now they need to follow through on their promise to open process. And we have implemented lots if .NET projects over the last year and not a single one of them has anything to do with Passport/HailStorm.
Passport is an SRO authentication. Insome cases its useful. I have one logon for the dozens of passwords I used to have for Microsoft sites. But I am worried about Passport beyond Microsoft and so should others. But Mono and O'Riely haven't turned. There are some good ideas in .NET and as a user of both platforms I would love to see the rich developer platform on both of my platforms. HailStorm/Passport only comes into play with e-commerce sites and only if you pick it. By staying just with the development tools and environment, that's not a possibility.
So, I get it - if anyone questions the sacred religous truths on Slashdot - about Open Source, it's flamebait. I disagree. I think I have a valid point and one that many even in the Linux community have started to voice. And that is that Open Source is an excellent software development method but not a great revenue model. VaLinux, RedHat, Caldera and other examples abound. I don't believe distribution companies can make money, even off services. And this is worth discussing.
There is nothing wrong with YAST. I have used SUSE extensively and YAST has made it easy to install packages as well as configure the system. Its their lack of revenue model that is the problem.
This is just continued evidence that allthough the Open Source Model may work well for software development, its horrible for a revenue model. Suse now follows all the other OPen Source disasters. Services are *not* enough to sustain a company.
That's true. Many of the syntactical things in C# are conviences. For instance, the ForEach loop. Where I think the language has made some significant advances is being a true component language. What does that mean? That means that Events, Properties, Versioning are first class constructs in the language.
Ok truce? I'll chill out and stop generalizing.
And the same could be said for you. Some people think you're looking like a fool. The reason for an offline is to put at end to this. What would it take?