What happens when Bill Gates writes a book and mentions that the reason for which C# isn't free-as-in-speech is that he wanted to keep the language pure?
Do you really believe *any* of these guys? Neither M$ nor $un are in it to help people out. These companies exist to do what big American companies exist to do: Make big money. If some modifications to Java somehow made $un the wealthiest company in the universe, I don't think Scott McNealy would complain too much.
Hypocrisy aside, the adoption of C#/.NET by the OSS crowd is a good move (in the opinion of those of us who actually like.NET).
My mom (bless her little heart) is one of those people who will argue, argue, and argue some more, even when she has been proven wrong about something - Even when she knows she's wrong, she continues to defend her position.
Her friends admire her conviction, but I would be much more impressed if she could suddenly perform a volte-face and admit that she had been wrong.
I get into arguments with people all the time, and I often lose. When I lose, the average opposing interlocutor will lord it over me - Fingers are pointed, I'm laughed at. But, at least I can admit when I'm wrong.
Along these lines, it's pretty cool that there are some OSS groups pushing forward with the adoption of MS technology in spite of the possibility that the contributors might have, at some point, been steadfast haters of MS and its technology. Heck, they might still be, but at least they know a good thing when they see it, and aren't afraid to go after it even though some members of the community are crying foul.
In the end, it's more important to make good technical choices than to look hip in front of your peers.
Microsoft isn't going to do anything - This is just peachy for them. When you have the universe breathing down your neck because you're financially abusing everybody else in the universe, having somebody else implement your system on another platform is really a *good* thing. Makes MS look pretty good where anti-trust is concerned.
I'm guessing that the angry one here is probably Scott McNealy.
If you are writing C# code that leverages the CLR, then your code *will* port (as long as you aren't doing anything with Winforms). If you're coding against ActiveX components from within.NET, then you're kind of missing out on the rich framework provided by the CLR.
For example, you mentioned ADO, XML, and the FSO. You really ought to be coding against ADO.NET, the System.XML namespace, and System.IO. If you do this, then your code should (eventually) port to other.NET implementations.
COM interop/PInvoke is the stuff that will foul up your porting efforts...
Slashdot Mirror
What happens when Bill Gates writes a book and mentions that the reason for which C# isn't free-as-in-speech is that he wanted to keep the language pure?
Do you really believe *any* of these guys? Neither M$ nor $un are in it to help people out. These companies exist to do what big American companies exist to do: Make big money. If some modifications to Java somehow made $un the wealthiest company in the universe, I don't think Scott McNealy would complain too much.
But, that didn't happen, so MS is the "bad guy".
Hypocrisy aside, the adoption of C#/.NET by the OSS crowd is a good move (in the opinion of those of us who actually like .NET).
My mom (bless her little heart) is one of those people who will argue, argue, and argue some more, even when she has been proven wrong about something - Even when she knows she's wrong, she continues to defend her position.
Her friends admire her conviction, but I would be much more impressed if she could suddenly perform a volte-face and admit that she had been wrong.
I get into arguments with people all the time, and I often lose. When I lose, the average opposing interlocutor will lord it over me - Fingers are pointed, I'm laughed at. But, at least I can admit when I'm wrong.
Along these lines, it's pretty cool that there are some OSS groups pushing forward with the adoption of MS technology in spite of the possibility that the contributors might have, at some point, been steadfast haters of MS and its technology. Heck, they might still be, but at least they know a good thing when they see it, and aren't afraid to go after it even though some members of the community are crying foul.
In the end, it's more important to make good technical choices than to look hip in front of your peers.
Microsoft isn't going to do anything - This is just peachy for them. When you have the universe breathing down your neck because you're financially abusing everybody else in the universe, having somebody else implement your system on another platform is really a *good* thing. Makes MS look pretty good where anti-trust is concerned.
I'm guessing that the angry one here is probably Scott McNealy.
Sorry, Scott.
If you are writing C# code that leverages the CLR, then your code *will* port (as long as you aren't doing anything with Winforms). If you're coding against ActiveX components from within .NET, then you're kind of missing out on the rich framework provided by the CLR.
For example, you mentioned ADO, XML, and the FSO. You really ought to be coding against ADO.NET, the System.XML namespace, and System.IO. If you do this, then your code should (eventually) port to other .NET implementations.
COM interop/PInvoke is the stuff that will foul up your porting efforts...