if ever there was a reason for British anti-Americanism, lend-lease is it, forcing British economic policy to be geared to repayments for some 50 years.
Um, IIRC, the British were quite happy to get lend-lease. Should we have given it to them free? The war was quite crippling to the British empire, to be sure, but how was that America's fault?
And if things were that rational, and if windows were the rational best for that company, then why arent they on it already?
Of course, couldnt be that the other is better, they just resent MS because they are successfull. Politics. Yeah, that's it. Spite. Couldnt be anything else.
See, that is the problem. Bill has a vested interest in seeing disney move to windows. Just as Jobs as a vested interest in seeing Pixar move to Apple. The move *could* be on the merits alone, but Bill will never say that anything is better than windows, despite what the truth of the matter is. So, it will always be a litany of "windows is better", so there is no way for us to tell that it *was* on the merits. So we will always distrust what he has to say. We have no reason to trust him. ( and neither, probably, do you. I would suggest you look at your vested interests, and be honest with yourself, at least ). Show me disney moving to somethign other than windows because Bill was CEO, and I could begin to believe that it was a rational decision. It is like when you hear the CEO of your company tell you in the face of monumental losses that your job is secure. If you believe him, you are probably being foolish ( unless you had a track record with this person that you felt deserved your trust... Be honest, does Bill have that track record with the OS buying community? I think not. )
And no, I am not a rabid anti-microsoft person. There is a place for windows and a place for other platforms in most enterprises.
Your doctor screwed the pooch. ( On *your* operating table, no less ).
The limit is N dollars. Pick an N.
Now, to try to cover over the damage the doctor did though negligence ( and it is negligence, you have it from on high that you will win the case ), it will take M * N, M > 1, just to keep you from suffering pain and anguish for the rest of your life.
Hey, does that payout limit look so good to you now?
And that doesnt stop the fraudster person who got a blister falling on the doctors floor cause he is a member of the three stooges from sueing for N, even though the problem was taken care of with 1.98 in hydrogen peroxide, bandages, and a muzzle.
Good thinking.
Second rant: And dont get me started about insurance companies. My mother had TMJ. Caused her a lot of pain. Insurance would ( for a limited time ) pay for pain meds. They would not pay for a procedure that had a fair chance of leaving her pain free. It was more cost effective that way, you see.
You probably think I am kidding. The old stuff about the "company store" was real. Think it cant happen? You probably thought SCO couldnt sue IBM, Autozone, nor Daimler-Chrysler.
There were a number of reasons why the US Navy thought Pearl was safe.
1: Range. Japanese ships were not thought to have the range to come all the way to Pearl. Much less undetected. They developed refueling techniques to make this possible.
2: Bombs vs Battleships. Conventional bombs of the day were *not* able to affect a Battleship ( the ship used to project power in those days, the day of the carrier was not yet there, they were mainly seen as good for scouting ( battlecruiser replacements ) ). The deck armour was too thick. So, what about Arizona, you ask? Good question. They converted 16" Battleship shells ( the very items designed to go through the deck armour, *and* the much thicker side ( hull ) armour into bombs by adding fins. Then they dropped them from approx 10k meters so that they would have the KE to do the job. In that day, only torpedoes were thought to have what it took to sink a battleship. Which leads me to:
3: Topedoes. The harbor was thought to be safe from attack by torpedoes, as it was only about 40 feet deep ( just a bit deeper than the draught of the ships, IIRC ). This is important as the torpedoes of that day usually sunk to about 75 feet after being dropped from the airplane. The British had pulled off a similar raid at Taranto against the Italian navy using this, but that harbor was deeper than Pearl. The Japanese attached breakaway fins to the torpedoes to arrest their fall on hitting the water, keeping them from sinking so far, and thereby made the attack possible.
Not to mention that the CIA did not exist in those days.
And while I too would like to see our intellegence agencys perform better, I would suggest that it is altogether too easy to armchair QB what they do. I am sure that you have been through something that you did not see coming, but in hindsight, you kick yourself because it was blindingly obvious ( from that side of the event ). Go try to do that job before you kick them too hard about how they have done it.
Set the trailing bit on in each character of the plaintext ( This will make B == C, D == E, etc ), thereby approximately halving the possible input space.
Compress that result.
It *should* be smaller than compressing the original input. Note, specific cases that exhibit no "lossiness" can be constructed.
QED.
Sorry, I guess you will have to change your.sig now.
A: Things would have worked out roughly the same, but with another company or set of companies up top. With any kind of luck that company would have had some better ethics and a less paranoid world-view.
B: Even if you accept the "microsoft invented everything good" notion, take a look at their bank account and try to say that with a straight face.
C: Hardware pricing falling while getting faster is where the real ubiquity comes from.
Pull your nose out of Bill's behind and think for yourself.
Figuring out *why* they cant, and help them to to work out whatever is holding them back? At least give it a chance or two first, and let them know where they stand.
"but if you've done nothing wrong, you can say "no thank you" and keep walking. If he then physically pounces on you, that's being detained or arrested, and he'd better have grounds. If he doesn't, feel free to own him in court... I would."
While ignoring the officers request is a bit impolite, it is rudely equivilent to what you have suggested above.
2:
Slant. Usually we feel the article is "slanted" when it does not agree with our background/thougths/etc. If it doesnt disagree, then it is balanced. Is it possible that the original link is balanced, and the one you agree with is slanted? Just asking a question, I dont know one from the other.
3:
OK, I cant count. On several occasions in my life, mostly, I think because I choose to wear my hair on the longish side, I *have* been hassled by officers of the police forces. I was nothing but respectful, before, during and after, but it happened none-the-less. I am not a scofflaw, nor do I ( nor did I ) associate with people like that.
I think officers have a tendancy toward an "us vs them" attitude after a while, and some of the more cynical have a "them are criminals, we just havent caught them at anything" attitude. Not many, but some. IMHO.
The incidents A: Driving my old beat up car ( cause that was all I could afford ), on my way up to LA at night, I pulled into a gas station. After I started toward the pumps, I noticed that the station was closed. It was hard to tell, as they had lights on to deter burglers, so... Anyway. I slowed, looked around, noticed another station across the street that looked more promising, so I went across the street ( no excessive displays of speed, waiting where I ought and all ) to the other station. From all I can tell, some officers decided that that was suspicious behaviour, and pulled me over on the pretext that one of the licence plate illuminating bulbs on the rear of my car was out. They ran my drivers licence, and my cars licence, and kept me standing in the cold for a long while. I kept my cool, and was respectful the whole time. Course, that didnt seem to help things, as they seemed to think that I was being respectful because I had something to hide. Darned if you do, and darned if you dont. They asked me ( standing in shorts and a tee shirt ) why I was shifting from one foot to another. I dont remember exactly, but I think it was on the order of "nervous, are you"? I explained that I was cold. BTW, curiously, the next day, the light was fine. And I never did see it out from then on.
B: Outside the Ken cinema hanging out with some friends waiting for the midnight ( or thereabouts ) showing of the Rocky Horror picture show. Not misbehaving ( that was another time:-), just waiting to buy a ticket. An officer came up telling us we needed to leave. Public place, no emergency, no riot. A friend of mine asked the officer something like "would you mind telling us why we need to leave"? Respectful, no attitude. The officer grabbed my friend and threw him up againt the wall. He used either his arm or a night stick, I cant remember which, to pin my friend by the neck to the wall. He then told him something like "I dont have to tell you, clear the area". Very not respectful. Very violent. I think we would have had him on unnessesary use of force, if we were of that mind. I hope his mother was not proud.
I understand that police officers have a difficult job to do. I can even understand that the officer in the above situation, not knowing any of use, just him, how he might have felt intimidated. He had *no* right to respond as he did.
We have a right to expect the same courtesies you are calling for from the officers, and I think the public ought to be civil with the officers.
In the above case, how did the officer make the request? Did he explain why he was asking? Was he courteous to the individual in question? I'm not saying he wasnt, just asking the questio
Why should I have to buy something to keep them from calling me? How about if I create something to burn commercials into your retinas? Should the govt get involved, or does someone have to invent something to keep this from happening?
If it is up to providers and consumers to duke it out, then it becomes an arms race, they figure a better way to intrude, and you have to buy something else again to have some privacy.
Rocks. Minerals.
Asteroids are full of metals ( some of them ). Mars will likely have some items of interest.
I think you will be suprised. Even on the moon.
I would respectfully suggest that you have a few "unwavering" beliefs yourself.
I have yet to see any evidence from you that J++ was such a terribly good thing that it was worth the effort. Note, "worth the effort". Surely the effort was considerable, and they have recouped little to nothing in the way of revenue from it. I dont see what can be considered so stand out great about J++ *from MS's point of view* that it was worth it *to them* to do this.
Assume for a moment that you did / could. Why use Java for this? Why not create your own language?
Further, SUN's intent with the language was specifically that it not be specialized to any particular OS/platform.
And just for the record, my belief is not unwavering. You simply have not convinced me.
Prolly not. So, why do you have to dis them when they offer what looks like a good suggestion when viewed from their viewpoint? Why dont you share that "better perspective"? We are not dumb, you know. And you might get a few good ideas from it ( dont pass them off as yours, though, be man / woman / whatever enough to give credit where it is due. ). It's a whole lot easier to charge that hill when you know that the hill to your right is also being taken. It is easier to hold there in the face of resistance when you know there is another unit you are supporting. And what, aside from your ego, or making you look important enough to keep, is stopping you?
The reason most of you "managers" get where you are is not because you are inherently superiour. You got on the bus earlier, and where lucky enough to get a good seat. Nothing wrong with that, per se, but it is little different than the old "divine rights of kings" arguments handed out during the aristocratic days to support the failed notion that the King should rule.
As to the "right to a job", I ask you, are you any better? I'll bet you think your "management position" entitles you to a thing or two. Examine yourself.
RE: The military slant. It's all fine, but recall that the should be making sure that his/her/its subordinates have sufficient knowledge to step into his/her/its role in the case he/she/it is removed from that position. Anything less is not acceptable. Now in business, the need is different, but if you arent tring to bring along to your level those currently subordinate to you, then I would argue you are not doing your job. It only works because most of the other "managers" out there are not doing it either.
Also, you need to watch out for the command from the rear problem. The people at the front *know* what is going on in front of themselves better than you do, and Hitlerian rantings from your bunker about holding till the last man will kill morale and make your team far less effective. Know why Rommel was such a good General? He spent a fair amount of time at the front. Yes, he spent time in the rear as well, but he moved down to the front to see what was going on before he made his moves. I would love to meet *one* business leader who did that. ( Yeah, and maybe you could live in a cubical, before you tell me that it is good enough for me. I *might* believe you then. )
Whether the code that does the bridging is in or out of sight, it is still there. Kludge? Perhaps. Not really to the point, I think. If they wanted a language to have some set of capabilities and features, they could create their own, and be above board and not pee in some other companies soup.
If J++ were not supposed to prevent cross-platform development, then this ( COM ) would not be added as a capability, because once you add it, then your only option for platform is a windows platform. Thus executing on MS's plan to tie you to windows.
NT nominally separates them from x86, if they just create the HAL for it ( and change up the compilers ).
I have not noticed that MS cares about my productivity except as it benefits them. To wit, they have buried all the VS 6.0 stuff ( in newer MSDN ), in order to drive more sales and adoption of VS.Net. This makes it harder for me to do my job, should it require the older tools ( and MS propaganda not withstanding, there are good and valid reasons why one might want to stick with the older stuff ). Also, VB was "invented here" java wasnt. MS mostly tends to prefer the stuff they make.
They have, as far as I know, charged for J++. What was the benefit to MS?
Making the platform unimportant means that the whole OS can change, not just the chipset the OS is running on. MS sees that as a threat.
Wrapped in a C++ smart pointer ( the way I do most of my COM programming ), the objects look "native", and I dont have to call AddRef or Release. No difference, as far as I can see, huge effort on the part of MS.
VB and VC++ where both already very COM aware, and performance oriented ( well, VC++ was anyway ). What did MS gain in having J++ COM aware, except to take something away from a competitor.
Then why didnt they just ignore it? They had VC++ and VB, what did having a Java impl add for them, except more work?
Java made the underlying platform unimportant, the exact opposite of MS's strategy ( undoubtedly Sun's exact strategy ), which would have made it easier for Java app environments to have the underlying platform replaced by a non-windows environment. Threat to MS.
I think it is pretty clear that MS saw that, felt threatened, and moved to do something about it. As I understand it, the licensing was supposed to be that you would support the write once run anywhere idea, which MS did not do, attempting to specialize their version to fragment this. ( Leading to the MS / Sun lawsuit ).
Now, of course they are not going to come out and say that. The developer community would not support that, and there might be other problems.
Now, if you think I simply have a case of sour grapes toward MS, I would disagree. I started out an MS fan, and thru watching them over the years, I have learned to distrust their motives and actions. I would love nothing better than for MS to wake up and be a cooperative player and work with others ( obviously, there would be competition in there as well, but as long that is handled in an upstanding manner, that is expected. ).
Java took good stuff from C++ in order to make the language easy to adopt. Easy for experienced C++ programmers to start running with.
C# seems to be about salvaging the effort put into J++, which was about fragmenting Java. And likely about that same cause as far as is possible within the bounds possible.
Slashdot Mirror
if ever there was a reason for British anti-Americanism, lend-lease is it, forcing British economic policy to be geared to repayments for some 50 years.
Um, IIRC, the British were quite happy to get lend-lease. Should we have given it to them free? The war was quite crippling to the British empire, to be sure, but how was that America's fault?
And if things were that rational, and if windows were the rational best for that company, then why arent they on it already?
Of course, couldnt be that the other is better, they just resent MS because they are successfull. Politics. Yeah, that's it. Spite. Couldnt be anything else.
See, that is the problem. Bill has a vested interest in seeing disney move to windows. Just as Jobs as a vested interest in seeing Pixar move to Apple. The move *could* be on the merits alone, but Bill will never say that anything is better than windows, despite what the truth of the matter is. So, it will always be a litany of "windows is better", so there is no way for us to tell that it *was* on the merits. So we will always distrust what he has to say. We have no reason to trust him. ( and neither, probably, do you. I would suggest you look at your vested interests, and be honest with yourself, at least ). Show me disney moving to somethign other than windows because Bill was CEO, and I could begin to believe that it was a rational decision. It is like when you hear the CEO of your company tell you in the face of monumental losses that your job is secure. If you believe him, you are probably being foolish ( unless you had a track record with this person that you felt deserved your trust... Be honest, does Bill have that track record with the OS buying community? I think not. )
And no, I am not a rabid anti-microsoft person. There is a place for windows and a place for other platforms in most enterprises.
Well, you know the drill.
First rant:
OK.
Your doctor screwed the pooch. ( On *your* operating table, no less ).
The limit is N dollars. Pick an N.
Now, to try to cover over the damage the doctor did though negligence ( and it is negligence, you have it from on high that you will win the case ), it will take M * N, M > 1, just to keep you from suffering pain and anguish for the rest of your life.
Hey, does that payout limit look so good to you now?
And that doesnt stop the fraudster person who got a blister falling on the doctors floor cause he is a member of the three stooges from sueing for N, even though the problem was taken care of with 1.98 in hydrogen peroxide, bandages, and a muzzle.
Good thinking.
Second rant:
And dont get me started about insurance companies. My mother had TMJ. Caused her a lot of pain. Insurance would ( for a limited time ) pay for pain meds. They would not pay for a procedure that had a fair chance of leaving her pain free. It was more cost effective that way, you see.
Color me stupid, but what does anyone have to apologize for?
You probably think I am kidding. The old stuff about the "company store" was real. Think it cant happen? You probably thought SCO couldnt sue IBM, Autozone, nor Daimler-Chrysler.
An old practice. We dont see that much of that as programmers, do we? No. Heavens no.
There were a number of reasons why the US Navy thought Pearl was safe.
1: Range. Japanese ships were not thought to have the range to come all the way to Pearl. Much less undetected. They developed refueling techniques to make this possible.
2: Bombs vs Battleships. Conventional bombs of the day were *not* able to affect a Battleship ( the ship used to project power in those days, the day of the carrier was not yet there, they were mainly seen as good for scouting ( battlecruiser replacements ) ). The deck armour was too thick. So, what about Arizona, you ask? Good question. They converted 16" Battleship shells ( the very items designed to go through the deck armour, *and* the much thicker side ( hull ) armour into bombs by adding fins. Then they dropped them from approx 10k meters so that they would have the KE to do the job. In that day, only torpedoes were thought to have what it took to sink a battleship. Which leads me to:
3: Topedoes. The harbor was thought to be safe from attack by torpedoes, as it was only about 40 feet deep ( just a bit deeper than the draught of the ships, IIRC ). This is important as the torpedoes of that day usually sunk to about 75 feet after being dropped from the airplane. The British had pulled off a similar raid at Taranto against the Italian navy using this, but that harbor was deeper than Pearl. The Japanese attached breakaway fins to the torpedoes to arrest their fall on hitting the water, keeping them from sinking so far, and thereby made the attack possible.
Not to mention that the CIA did not exist in those days.
And while I too would like to see our intellegence agencys perform better, I would suggest that it is altogether too easy to armchair QB what they do. I am sure that you have been through something that you did not see coming, but in hindsight, you kick yourself because it was blindingly obvious ( from that side of the event ). Go try to do that job before you kick them too hard about how they have done it.
Copyright (C) David J. Davison
.sig now.
Set the trailing bit on in each character of the plaintext
( This will make B == C, D == E, etc ), thereby approximately halving the possible input space.
Compress that result.
It *should* be smaller than compressing the original input. Note, specific cases that exhibit no "lossiness" can be constructed.
QED.
Sorry, I guess you will have to change your
A: Things would have worked out roughly the same, but with another company or set of companies up top. With any kind of luck that company would have had some better ethics and a less paranoid world-view.
B: Even if you accept the "microsoft invented everything good" notion, take a look at their bank account and try to say that with a straight face.
C: Hardware pricing falling while getting faster is where the real ubiquity comes from.
Pull your nose out of Bill's behind and think for yourself.
Figuring out *why* they cant, and help them to to work out whatever is holding them back? At least give it a chance or two first, and let them know where they stand.
If what they are doing is not illegal, it is certianly immoral.
It what way do they not deserve to be "bashed"?
If they have / are doing what is being alleged, then that is wrong.
Why do you feel it so needful to defend wrong? Oh, because it is MS? Troll?
Two things:
:-), just waiting to buy a ticket. An officer came up telling us we needed to leave. Public place, no emergency, no riot. A friend of mine asked the officer something like "would you mind telling us why we need to leave"? Respectful, no attitude. The officer grabbed my friend and threw him up againt the wall. He used either his arm or a night stick, I cant remember which, to pin my friend by the neck to the wall. He then told him something like "I dont have to tell you, clear the area". Very not respectful. Very violent. I think we would have had him on unnessesary use of force, if we were of that mind. I hope his mother was not proud.
1:
"but if you've done nothing wrong, you can say "no thank you" and keep walking. If he then physically pounces on you, that's being detained or arrested, and he'd better have grounds. If he doesn't, feel free to own him in court... I would."
While ignoring the officers request is a bit impolite, it is rudely equivilent to what you have suggested above.
2:
Slant. Usually we feel the article is "slanted" when it does not agree with our background/thougths/etc. If it doesnt disagree, then it is balanced. Is it possible that the original link is balanced, and the one you agree with is slanted? Just asking a question, I dont know one from the other.
3:
OK, I cant count. On several occasions in my life, mostly, I think because I choose to wear my hair on the longish side, I *have* been hassled by officers of the police forces. I was nothing but respectful, before, during and after, but it happened none-the-less. I am not a scofflaw, nor do I ( nor did I ) associate with people like that.
I think officers have a tendancy toward an "us vs them" attitude after a while, and some of the more cynical have a "them are criminals, we just havent caught them at anything" attitude. Not many, but some. IMHO.
The incidents
A: Driving my old beat up car ( cause that was all I could afford ), on my way up to LA at night, I pulled into a gas station. After I started toward the pumps, I noticed that the station was closed. It was hard to tell, as they had lights on to deter burglers, so... Anyway. I slowed, looked around, noticed another station across the street that looked more promising, so I went across the street ( no excessive displays of speed, waiting where I ought and all ) to the other station. From all I can tell, some officers decided that that was suspicious behaviour, and pulled me over on the pretext that one of the licence plate illuminating bulbs on the rear of my car was out. They ran my drivers licence, and my cars licence, and kept me standing in the cold for a long while. I kept my cool, and was respectful the whole time. Course, that didnt seem to help things, as they seemed to think that I was being respectful because I had something to hide. Darned if you do, and darned if you dont. They asked me ( standing in shorts and a tee shirt ) why I was shifting from one foot to another. I dont remember exactly, but I think it was on the order of "nervous, are you"? I explained that I was cold. BTW, curiously, the next day, the light was fine. And I never did see it out from then on.
B: Outside the Ken cinema hanging out with some friends waiting for the midnight ( or thereabouts ) showing of the Rocky Horror picture show. Not misbehaving ( that was another time
I understand that police officers have a difficult job to do. I can even understand that the officer in the above situation, not knowing any of use, just him, how he might have felt intimidated. He had *no* right to respond as he did.
We have a right to expect the same courtesies you are calling for from the officers, and I think the public ought to be civil with the officers.
In the above case, how did the officer make the request? Did he explain why he was asking? Was he courteous to the individual in question? I'm not saying he wasnt, just asking the questio
Has a proper place, IHMO, and this is part of it.
Why should I have to buy something to keep them from calling me? How about if I create something to burn commercials into your retinas? Should the govt get involved, or does someone have to invent something to keep this from happening?
If it is up to providers and consumers to duke it out, then it becomes an arms race, they figure a better way to intrude, and you have to buy something else again to have some privacy.
Rocks. Minerals. Asteroids are full of metals ( some of them ). Mars will likely have some items of interest. I think you will be suprised. Even on the moon.
Selling air and food to the people who go.
Dont think it wont happen!
I would respectfully suggest that you have a few "unwavering" beliefs yourself.
I have yet to see any evidence from you that J++ was such a terribly good thing that it was worth the effort. Note, "worth the effort". Surely the effort was considerable, and they have recouped little to nothing in the way of revenue from it. I dont see what can be considered so stand out great about J++ *from MS's point of view* that it was worth it *to them* to do this.
Assume for a moment that you did / could. Why use Java for this? Why not create your own language?
Further, SUN's intent with the language was specifically that it not be specialized to any particular OS/platform.
And just for the record, my belief is not unwavering. You simply have not convinced me.
did they know there was this discount with Dell?
Prolly not. So, why do you have to dis them when they offer what looks like a good suggestion when viewed from their viewpoint? Why dont you share that "better perspective"? We are not dumb, you know. And you might get a few good ideas from it ( dont pass them off as yours, though, be man / woman / whatever enough to give credit where it is due. ). It's a whole lot easier to charge that hill when you know that the hill to your right is also being taken. It is easier to hold there in the face of resistance when you know there is another unit you are supporting. And what, aside from your ego, or making you look important enough to keep, is stopping you?
The reason most of you "managers" get where you are is not because you are inherently superiour. You got on the bus earlier, and where lucky enough to get a good seat. Nothing wrong with that, per se, but it is little different than the old "divine rights of kings" arguments handed out during the aristocratic days to support the failed notion that the King should rule.
As to the "right to a job", I ask you, are you any better? I'll bet you think your "management position" entitles you to a thing or two. Examine yourself.
RE: The military slant. It's all fine, but recall that the should be making sure that his/her/its subordinates have sufficient knowledge to step into his/her/its role in the case he/she/it is removed from that position. Anything less is not acceptable. Now in business, the need is different, but if you arent tring to bring along to your level those currently subordinate to you, then I would argue you are not doing your job. It only works because most of the other "managers" out there are not doing it either.
Also, you need to watch out for the command from the rear problem. The people at the front *know* what is going on in front of themselves better than you do, and Hitlerian rantings from your bunker about holding till the last man will kill morale and make your team far less effective.
Know why Rommel was such a good General? He spent a fair amount of time at the front. Yes, he spent time in the rear as well, but he moved down to the front to see what was going on before he made his moves. I would love to meet *one* business leader who did that. ( Yeah, and maybe you could live in a cubical, before you tell me that it is good enough for me. I *might* believe you then. )
Whether the code that does the bridging is in or out of sight, it is still there. Kludge? Perhaps. Not really to the point, I think. If they wanted a language to have some set of capabilities and features, they could create their own, and be above board and not pee in some other companies soup. If J++ were not supposed to prevent cross-platform development, then this ( COM ) would not be added as a capability, because once you add it, then your only option for platform is a windows platform. Thus executing on MS's plan to tie you to windows.
NT nominally separates them from x86, if they just create the HAL for it ( and change up the compilers ).
I have not noticed that MS cares about my productivity except as it benefits them. To wit, they have buried all the VS 6.0 stuff ( in newer MSDN ), in order to drive more sales and adoption of VS.Net. This makes it harder for me to do my job, should it require the older tools ( and MS propaganda not withstanding, there are good and valid reasons why one might want to stick with the older stuff ). Also, VB was "invented here" java wasnt. MS mostly tends to prefer the stuff they make.
They have, as far as I know, charged for J++. What was the benefit to MS?
Making the platform unimportant means that the whole OS can change, not just the chipset the OS is running on. MS sees that as a threat.
Wrapped in a C++ smart pointer ( the way I do most of my COM programming ), the objects look "native", and I dont have to call AddRef or Release. No difference, as far as I can see, huge effort on the part of MS.
Why was yet another COM language needed?
VB and VC++ where both already very COM aware, and performance oriented ( well, VC++ was anyway ). What did MS gain in having J++ COM aware, except to take something away from a competitor.
Then why didnt they just ignore it? They had VC++ and VB, what did having a Java impl add for them, except more work?
Java made the underlying platform unimportant, the exact opposite of MS's strategy ( undoubtedly Sun's exact strategy ), which would have made it easier for Java app environments to have the underlying platform replaced by a non-windows environment. Threat to MS.
I think it is pretty clear that MS saw that, felt threatened, and moved to do something about it. As I understand it, the licensing was supposed to be that you would support the write once run anywhere idea, which MS did not do, attempting to specialize their version to fragment this. ( Leading to the MS / Sun lawsuit ).
Now, of course they are not going to come out and say that. The developer community would not support that, and there might be other problems.
Now, if you think I simply have a case of sour grapes toward MS, I would disagree. I started out an MS fan, and thru watching them over the years, I have learned to distrust their motives and actions. I would love nothing better than for MS to wake up and be a cooperative player and work with others ( obviously, there would be competition in there as well, but as long that is handled in an upstanding manner, that is expected. ).
Java took good stuff from C++ in order to make the language easy to adopt. Easy for experienced C++ programmers to start running with.
C# seems to be about salvaging the effort put into J++, which was about fragmenting Java. And likely about that same cause as far as is possible within the bounds possible.
The difference is in the intent.
Shouldnt it be 503 "Cervix Unavailable"?