The inner part of Box 1 is exactly 1 cubic foot larger than you would claim the Universe came from
Again. Stop making stuff up. Nobody has claimed anything about the size of what the Universe "came from". Ever. Claiming that the box is bigger or smaller than something we know nothing about is absurd. You are astonishingly clueless, but you keep on rambling. Go back to a bible or something. Remember, it is better to keep your mouth shut and have everyone think you are an idiot than to open it and remove all doubt.
No matter, no energy, suddenly there is this thing that blows up and becomes the Universe
That doesn't sound like any theory of the creation of the universe I have ever heard of. It certainly is not a summary of the badly named (for obvious reasons) "Big Bang" theory. Really. What you describe above and the BB theory have nothing at all in common.
So yes, it would be perfectly logical according to that belief to run a simulation and see a Universe spring up out of the modeled boxes
It would. But the "that" you are talking about is the box theory, not the Big Bang theory. Your boxes would be able to test if universes can come into existence inside boxes as you describe them, but it would give us no information whatsoever about the current theories about the creation of the universe since your postulations have nothing in common with these whatsoever.
That is your claim if you believe in the big bang and are an atheist
No. On two accounts. What you describe is not the Big Bang theory, making your argument invalid. What you describe as "atheism" is not atheism either, which makes you claim absurd.
You don't get it at all, do you? I don't believe. In anything. I acknowledge the fact that the so called "Big Bang" theory fits current observations, and until some other theory comes along, I'll accept that. Currently no other theory has been formed. However, what you described has nothing to do with the Big Bang theory. "Big giant ball of mass spinning..." - are you on medications?
There are a few that believe the Universe has always been here and never changed
There are? They are wrong. The universe today doesn't look much like the universe of yesterday. I know that. We can observe it.
Perhaps correct, I should say "some" there also
No, you should close your mouth. You clearly have no clue.
Checking one source
You just make stuff up as you go along, don't you? Time for your medications again. You are rambling.
If the amount of inmates has been increasing, we have more crime per 100,000
Man you are retarded. Utterly clueless. I'll show you how. Let's assume year 1960-1962. Three years. The punishment for robbery is one year. There is one conviction of robbery in 1960, one in 1961 and one in 1962. Each year there is one person in jail for robbery. Then we forward to 1970. The punishment for robbery has increased to three years. If you look at incarceration rate from 1970 through 1972 you'll see something amazing. The incarceration rate triples. With only one robbery each year. You see? One robbery in 1970, one person incarcerated. One in 1971, two people incarcerated. One in 1972, three people incarcerated.
Here is a clue for you: Without a lot of other information, incarceration rate says absolutely nothing about crime level. The article you refer to, which links to an article I referred to, talks about all types of crime, and they have all gone down since 1990. You clearly have no reading capabilities though, so I assume you are going to continue to hold on to a belief that was created entirely in your own head, despite the fact that the evidence shows you are wrong. As do all religious nuts. Making them retarded.
Reality: Larceny, down, Motor Vehicle Theft, down, Burglary, down. All property crime, at about the lowest level since 1970 after peaking in 1980 and 1990. The article you used as a reference refers to this data. This means that you supplied the evidence that you are a moron.
First, your concept of a creator is extremely immature
Somewhat absurd statement, but still wrong. I am aware of a large number of definitions of a creator, and they are all childish and/or based on lack of understanding. I used the Abrahamic God as an example simply because it is the most prevalent image of a creator currently popular. The idea of a "prime mover" is based on nothing at all.
fallacy by ridicule to try and prove your point
Sorry, could you elaborate? Have I tried to prove a point? What point? That there is no creator? I have not. You see, I have enough education to know that you can't prove a negative. I can not prove there is no creator. Trying to would therefore be futile and infantile.
Simple, it has not been on a downward spiral. This is statistical bunk that again you have been brainwashed in to believing. A simple check of the Wiki page [wikipedia.org] will show you how wrong your statement is
Do you find it odd that instead of checking a very simple fact you lie?
Before calling people liars, you should actually read what you cite to back up your opinion. Particularly referenced articles from the same publication since they often give background information. I will not call you a liar, I will just point out that you provide ample documentation regarding your own ignorance and stupidity.
If you search independent sources, you will see that amount of inmates has steadily been increasing, not decreasing
Ah lovely. You automatically think there is a causation or strong correlation where you see some covariation. Perfect example of ignorance. Your fallacy is (a variation of) the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. Is it possible there might be other factors affecting the incarceration rate other than a rise in crime? Let's, for fun, think about what would happen if you significantly increase the incarseration time for all crimes. How will that impact the incarceration rate. If you had not been an uneducated idiot you would have pointed to an article on crime, not one on some tangental and possibly quite unrelated data set. In this case it is not quite tangental, but it shows nothing of what you assumed it to show. Please try to find valid data before continuing to argue that you are an idiot (which is the only thing you are arguing at the moment).
You see atheists believe, or perhaps only want you to believe, that Box 1, Box 2, and Box 3 can all pop up Universes just like ours full of materials, energy, and even life
Do we? Could you please point me in the direction of any articles showing this? Here is a clue: you have just proven that you know as much about atheism as you do about science. Nada. Nobody I have ever heard of believes what you just said. I am not a physicist, but I do know enough about physics to point out that nothing you claim in your "experiment" is remotely close to what atheistic scientists "believe". I have never heard anyone claim that it is likely a universe can pop into existance inside another universe. You state that this is irrelevant since a multiverse doesn't change things since it is just more of the same, but how do you know? I know of no scientist anywhere who would claim that we know anything about a theoretical multiverse. Your statement is not just incorrect, it is "not even wrong".
Some Atheists will go a bit further, and claim that there was a big giant ball of mass spinning at an incredibly fast rate which exploded
The more one is educated in Liberal arts, namely Philosophy, the more one tends to believe in a creator
This is incorrect. Stats show that all eduction tends to remove belief in supernatural mumbo-jumbo, but education in hard sciences such as maths and physics remove these beliefs faster and more thoroughly than other educations. However, education in general removes belief in the supernatural.
So the point you make is really not validated unless you restrict education from the liberal arts
Incorrect, even an education in Liberal Arts tend to reduce and remove belief in the supernatural. I would expect that an education in religion would also tend to reduce belief in the super natural, but I have not seen studies showing this.
Funny that you state I'm childish when you make this statement: "Adults, as opposed to sniveling children, don't need a big bogey man behind the door to scare them into moral behavior.".
How was that childish? Honestly? If you are unable to form a moral framework for your life without the threat of a bogey man, you are mentally at the level of a child. Morals do not need angry bogey men in the closet. This is proven by the fact that most systems of morality have been developed completely devoid of angry bogey men. From Socrates and onwards, moral frameworks have been developed using logic and reason. Honestly, if you can't understand that killing is wrong whether an angry bogey man will torture you forever or not, then you are not an adult. Sniveling child would be a highly appropriate description.
Also, if you want to look at a-moral beings, the Abrahamic God is a good place to start. I can't even imagine anyone being more evil than the Abrahamic God. He deserves no respect. He deserves contempt. If he ever shows up at my door, and it turns out the stories about him are true, no matter how real he is there at my door, I will spit him in the face.
The moral play field in the US is the lowest it has ever been
It is? So why has crime in the US been in a downward spiral since 1990? Does a lowered "moral play field" reduce crime?
Liar. It would take you at least two hours to make that, and then you'd have to pay rent to your mother, and pay for the child you produced last year with your sister who is also your cousin.
I agree, the keyboard thingy is not going to be as good as the laptop in places where there is no surface to put the Surface on. In such cases you have they stylus and the on-screen keyboard. There are always trade offs. The trade off with the Surface is insignificant compared to the iPad though. On the iPad I can not do (much) real work. No matter what. I need Citrix and a fast network connection.
A, but the surface supports external drives, so the 1G travel drive I have in my photo bag comes with me. The Surface has 100% laptop functionality. I can bring that, and only that. With the iPad I am forced to also bring my laptop. This is why the surface is $599 cheaper than the iPad. The Surface replaces both my iPad and my laptop. The iPad is not a laptop replacement, I always need to bring my laptop. Not so with the Surface.
Ah, yes, that is practical. I just downloaded the 400 pictures I took with my Canon 7D to my tablet so that the wife and I could gush over 400 pictures of a little girl having fun at the park. I am now going to put these (all Canon Raw of course) into the cloud. Start uploading now over the 3G connection I have available on my vacation in Rome... ah, I am running out of space here... upgrade to more space... a week later... disconnect the pad. Move the pics onto a USB alternative... fly home... upload to main computer. Hell, waiting a week then flying home with the stick was faster than pushing it to the cloud.
Come home... receive cell-phone bill from Rome resulting from my non-complete upload of pictures to the cloud... mortgage house again to pay cell phone bill for data-usage abroad. "Use wi-fi!" you said? Have you ever been on a vacation in Italy, Spain or Greece?
AND if they can keep the price competitive to an iPad
They can't..
Sure they can, it will probably be significanly cheaper than the iPad. The Pro model that is. I expect the RT model to be priced about the same as the iPad and the Pro model to be perhaps $599 cheaper. How so? Well, let's look at the price for me, taking my iPad to Rome this summer, and a hypothetical trip to Paris in 2013 with the Surface Pro. What is the cost of equipping me for this trip?
2012 - Rome
Apple iPad: $599
Lenovo laptop: $1000
Total: $1599
2013 - Paris
Microsoft Surface pro: $1000
Total: $1000
See, the Surface beats the iPad by about $599. That's significant. It isn't just an alternative to my iPad, it is an alternative to my iPad and my laptop combined. The two-fer if you will. If I, as so many are, am a corporate user, the numbers are more attractive (though not substantially different). Total cost 2012: $599, total cost 2013: $0. I am still going to being the iPads (or Surface RT) for kids an others, but quite frankly, this should be somewhat scary days for Apple. I am the IT decision maker in my household. If my company equips me with a Pad alternative that works, I'm going to standardize on versions of that device. That only makes sense.
I, as most people in my situation, own a couple of iPads. Wife. Children. Me. All cool. The iPad is a fantastically useful consumption device with minor possibilities for content modification. It's not ideal or even convenient, but definitely possible. This means that when I head off to Rome this summer on vacation, I will bring my iPad on the plane, but I'll probably check my laptop. I will of course bring the laptop. I can do things on that (such as develop software) that simply isn't possible, or at least practical on the iPad.
When the Windows Surface Pro comes out, if it has the specs it looks like it's going to have, my laptop will be retired. I will no longer bring it anywhere, since the Surface Pro will be a fully functional substitute for my laptop. I look forward to not having to travel with my laptop. Oh, and my iPad will be retired at the same time, since the Surface will have 100% of the functionality of my iPad also.
Microsoft is a little slow to the party, but not too late. This offering, if it works as advertised, will simply kill the iPad in the enterprise. Is that important? Yes it is. Once most of us get a Surface at work, why would we need an iPad?
Remeber too, the Surface has at least an order of magnitude more developers than does the iPad.
And, as with religious leaders and other prominent American leaders today, Hitler, deeply religious as he was, hated atheists:
We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.
- Adolf Hitler, Speech in Berlin, October 24, 1933
Now, one could say that that dude had a warped sense of religion. Most religious people today do. Did he? The lutherans, evangelicals etc in the US take their religion from the man Luther. He formed the base for their beliefs. Hitler just continued Luthers work and ideas
. In other words, the person who laid the base for most of the non-catholic Christian faiths in the US today was as rabid a Jew hater as Mr. Adolph was.
BZZZZ! WRONG!. On all accounts, but that is not surprising. There is a strong correlation between education level and religiosity. The less education one have, the more religious one tends to be. The correlation is particularly strong in hard sciences.
The most atheistic countries in the world are probably the Scandinavian countries and some of the Benelux countries. These all have significantly lower crime rates than the countries where religion has a more prominant position. If you look at the US and The Netherlands for example, it is interesting to see that the religious US has higher crime rate, higher divorce rate, higher teen pregnancy rate, more children born out of wedlock etc, than the rather atheist Netherlands. Oh, and the Dutch also have a more libereal drug legislation. So, comparing the US and and Netherlands less religion and more drugs leads to less crime, less divorce and in general more "moral" behavior as determined by the traditional Christian "moral code".
Guess what happens to people with no moral guide lines?
What a childish and inane statement. Shows a serious lack of brains right there. Moral guidelines have nothing to do with religion. Adults, as opposed to sniveling children, don't need a big bogey man behind the door to scare them into moral behavior. Thinking adults can actually act morally based on philosophy or self-interest. Please grow up. Santa doesn't exist. There is no God. stop using a divine entity as an excuse for inexcusable behavior. It is inexcusable to be unable to device a set of moral rules without the scary bogeyman forcing you to.
Oh, and if you want to take moral guildelines from someone, the Abrahamic God is the last place to look. That dude is a shitbag and deserves only contempt. Even the idea of a divine entity demanding a loyal subject murder his oldest son for him is abhorrent. If God stepped down tomorrow and asked of me what he asked of Abraham, I would spit him in the face. If he continued his insane demands I would have him comitted or I would slay him. You see, slaying divine entities is easy.
Here is some more from the article, so now you are enlightened:
C# and Visual Basic are also abstracted from hardware differences. They compile to MSIL, which is platform neutral. Therefore, Metro style apps using C# or Visual Basic can be compiled once to run on x86/x64/ARM.
The story about how we engineered for ARM begins one decade ago, when we ported the.NET Framework to 64-bit.... A group in Microsoft Research did an experiment running the main desktop.NET Framework on a smartphone, and found that it performs well. Their experience made us confident that our work to port the desktop.NET Framework to ARM would be successful.
As a result of our existing product designs, we were able to support the ARM chip in a relatively straight-forward way.
Yeah, I agree. It all started when they added "sound" to the pictures. Ridiculous. Later they added this thing called "color". Absurd. Just trying to fleece the audience.
When it comes time to upload your app to the store, you can build a “Neutral” package if you only have managed code in your app (C#, VB, JavaScript). This indicates that the package contains code that will run on either x86, x64 or ARM
This seems to suggest otherwise - quote: "Metro style apps in the Windows Store can support both WOA and Windows 8 on x86/64. Developers wishing to target WOA do so by writing applications for the WinRT"
How does changing rapidly (also known as the "bleeding edge") make C# mature?
Sigh. C# hasn't changed rapidly. It has changed though. It has incorporated some well-tested and well-founded new language constructs. There is nothing "bleeding-edge" as such about C#. It has incorporated an SQL-like structure into the language, something others did decades ago, it has incorporated functional programming constructs, functional programming is hardly bleeding edge, it has also incorporated aspects of dynamic programming languages, which is also nothing new. You are again talking out of your ass with absolutely no knowledge about the topic of conversation. C# has changed where it makes sense. Java has hardly changed at all. The JCP is to blame.
The Java language changes slowly because it doesn't need to
Balderdash. Java changes slowly because of the in-fighting in the JCP and the insane focus on forward and backwards compatibility of (once) Sun. Java needs a new implementation of generics. The current one sucks big time. Java needs new basic types or a new implementation of autoboxing, the current one is a bug. Java should incorporate aspects of functional programming since it makes parallel easier, safer and more testable. Future hardware developments is going to center around adding cores to CPUs, so parallel programming is of paramount importance. Java sucks at it compared to C#, F# and a whole host of functional programming languages. Java has barely changed at all since 2001. Not because it is perfect but because it takes a decade for the JCP to agree on anything.
instead a conservative approach to change
Seriously? Have you been following the Java development at all? The JCP is broken. That's the reason for the slow development. Herearesomeblog postings on how utterly broken the JCP is. This was in 2007. It's not better today. By any stretch of the imagination. Java isn't moving slowly because of a conservative attitude, Java is moving slowly because it is "stuck in committee". I am surprised that a Java programmer is ignorant of the serious problems plaguing the JCP. Have you been living in a cave for all this time?
Are you then trying to assert that Java cannot integrate with Active Directory
Have you ever tried? It is a pain. Huge pain. We had to drop it from our JBoss project since it could not co-exist with the Apache SOAP libraries and Smooks. You could have two of them, but all three and AD would stop working. At random intervals. So. yes, I have done it. No, it wasn't pain-free by any stretch of the imagination. We had to move the solution to IIS since integration with AD was mandatory. BTW, this was JBoss 4.2.3, might have changed since then.
much of it was doing software development and computational work for some very hard scalability and data processing problems
Cool. Can you optimize an Oracle query? Seriously. Maths is important in software development (I took maths) but it isn't important in the day-to-day work of the enterprise developer. It is a good way to develop an analytic mind though.
the Windows phones will still have no traction
I do development on phones, so I have a few. Two iPhones, only one Windows Phone and a couple of Samsungs with Android. I much prefer the Windows paradigm, it is a significant change in the right direction for a phone. iOS is just a desktop OS metaphor on a phone. It sucks compared to Metro, but so be it. Strangely Win Phone has a signif
Here I give a *scientific* paper evaluating the performance of Java
Sigh. Here is what you did. You sited a paper, correct, that says, among other things "e first perform some micro benchmarks for various JVMs" (my emphasis), then you said "Only n00bs believe marketing spiels and microbenchmarks". See the problem?
Incorrect. Java is much older than C#
Sigh. If you don't understand the difference between "old" and "mature" then you need to stop conversing with adults. Yes, Java is (obviously) older than C#, but development in Java, that is, the development of the language it self, has been extremely slow, and Java has not incorporated newer and better language constructs at the pace C# has. Java was at the forefront of popularization of certain things like VMs etc, but that was long ago. Java has basically not evolved at all since Sun added (in a terrible way) Generics to the language. C# has evolved significantly faster, and now leaves Java in the dust. C# generics are done right, Java - wrong. Java auto boxing is basically a bug, not a feature. Java has nothing like the dynamic aspects of C#, functional programming is (basically) totally absent from Java. Java has nothing like the async support of C#. Hell, I can only say LINQ, and Java is instantly old, decrepit and from the 1990s.
If by more developed you mean more complicated and with a rapidly increasing number of constructs then C# is indeed ahead
I guess that is what adding modern programming constructs looks like to someone who is unable to learn.
Will third parties access your back end
I build enterprise apps. The answer to that is "always".
there is nothing to fear with a JSON interface so it is strange you do
Sigh. Why do you think I do? I specifically mention REST above. REST returns XML or JSON (or ATOM or...) based on what the client asks for. Assume you hava a method that returns a list of customers from either from an Oracle database (using EF, Hibernate or similar here). You need a REST API that returns that filtered by the start of the customer name (overly simplified here). The code (all that is needed) would look like this:
public void CustomersController() {
theDB =... connect to the DB;
}
As I said, this code will return JSON if the client asks for JSON, XML if the client asks for XML etc. It also shows some LINQ above. LINQ is excellent and a huge time saver. You can use an SQL-like syntax to querey anything. Whether the object "theDB" above was a Hibernate construct connecting you to an Oracle DB, or it was an in-memory XML stream read from a config file (for example for testing) or a List<Customer> or anything else that is queryable, the code is identical. I'd like to see you do this in Java. Seriously, I thought everybody knew that REST typically was JSON. Luckily I won't have to force my clients to chose, if they want ATOM it returns ATOM, if they want XML, it returns XML, if they want JSON it returns JSON.
make a Java webservice client
I don't have to chose. Once I build it on web api (also known as WCF), and I build it ONCE, the client decides what he wants to use for accessing the data. SOAP, XML serialization, JSON, ATOM, you name it.
Betting the farm on Microsoft and Microsoft tech is a strategy that people used to do a decade ago
You have never worked in an enterprise have you? AD everywhere. Exchange integration mandatory. That's the enterprise world of today.
If you *know what you are doing* then Java is very fast... basically your statement is out of date
Which statement? Did I state Java was slow? If you think I did you need to lay of your mothers meds. Did you see me state otherwise? What are you rambling about? I said Java is old and moving slowly, not that Java programs are slow. Java is old and moving slowly (in the same way COBOL is moving slowly - it's being killed by committee).
Why would anyone torture themselves with such a ridiculous mismatch
If you are sane, in today's world, your back end is some sort of standards-based interface. REST, SOAP (ouch) or some such. What you should not do is use the default GWT-RPC communications. Once GWT-RPC is out the window, what backend your GWT program talks to is irrelevant. It would be insane to use the default GWT server for this, which means that you would have to use the Spring or JBoss or similar GWT packages. Why limit your self in such a way. REST is more fun, and it isn't limited to GWT. Only a fool would use GWT-RPC.
GWT contains both client-side and server-side components
Nope, it is only you who have problems reading. I said "The main issue for us doing GWT on.NET was that we basically had to mimic our server-side stuff in Java for the development environment" - in other words, we had to make the GWT server stuff look a little like our.NET back end.
Anyone who uses GWT knows it is truly multiplatform
Do you even read what you your self write? You just said above that it wasn't. You claimed it was not particularly easy to integrate with a.NET app. Are you just trolling or are you this stupid? Most companies have a corporate policy on what app server to use. Websphere etc. Have you tried integrating GWT with any of those? With SOAP?
Mono is hobbled... WPF
Wow. WPF. Where in this discussion would you use that?
I did know you can write Android apps in a variety of languages, including C#. Why you would want to is beyond me
Simple. C# is a far more mature and developed language than is Java. I have done Java since 1996. C# passed Java in version 3.5 and has been speeding ahead since. Java is standing still or even doing the wrong things. Generics in Java is a disaster. Autoboxing in Java is an example of how you should never do things.
performance comes from using the *hardware* properly (eg. OpenGL ES
Really? For enterprise apps? You know, the kind that companies pay millions for? Not some silly game for children.
Only n00bs believe marketing spiels and microbenchmarks
Given your reference to INRIA above, I guess you are a noob then. Only noobs spell noobs "n00bs".
and the latest failure with the Silverlight clone - since Microsoft is letting this wither and die
Now to this one. This is actually a misunderstanding. Really. It is. Look at Win 8. WPF is everywhere. You know the original name for SL right? WPF/E, WPF Everywhere. Microsoft is probably retiring WPF as a plugin. It is no longer needed in Win8.
Yes, I meant COBOL. Java is the COBOL of this decade. Trust me, I was part of a team that developed one of the first commercial applications on Java, with our company featured in the New York Times ads Sun was running on Java back in the late 90s. Java was great then. Now it has stiff joints and is moving slowly.
Do you even know what GWT is? it makes.NET's ASP look neolithic
Wow. The amount of ignorance here is amusing. Yes, I know what GWT is. I have even deployed two in-house GWT apps on a JBoss server and I am in the process of putting a GWT app on IIS, probably late this summer. It works quite well with.NET MVC 4. The idea that it makes.NET look neolithic is like saying that the apple over there makes this car look ancient. It is an absurd statement. GWT is a client-side technology where you write Java code and compile it to Javascript. What technology you use to deploy said Javascript is irrelevant, and GWT plays well with.NET MVC, and even more so with version 4 and the REST api framework of this version. The main issue for us doing GWT on.NET was that we basically had to mimic our server-side stuff in Java for the development environment. This was not as much of an issue as one might think. I basically cross-complied a bunch of the C# code to Java. Not quite as easy as one might think since C# is a far more capable language than Java.
Would I do it again? No. GWT is a cool idea, but it is a one-platform pony. Integrating with just about any back-end is not a problem in production as such, but it is a pain in the neck to do easily in development. It is a great idea with a horrible tool kit. Would I use GWT again? No. It was a great idea whos time came and went before it caught on. Today I would use Ember, but Knockout,, SproutCore, Batman, Spine and lots of others are cool too. GWT simply was timed badly. Google is going to kill it once Dart gets traction. Darts beats GWT as a concept.
By.NET MVC do you mean WPF or ASP
Really, you don't know the MVC product from MS? Open source. Very similar (in so far as you can go similar to ruby with C#) to rails, and very clearly inspired by rails..NET MVC is the product that the Play! Framework guys "copied" (the rendering engine) in Play! 2.0..NET MVC puts all Java web frameworks in the rear view mirror, except Play (which is the only Java web framework I am willing to use now, Spring MVC in a pinch.)
It's cool, you stick with your.NET, but it turns out a one-platform pony is the true dinosaur these days
Even the fact that you think.NET is a one-platform pony shows how little you know. The GWT app I am talking about above is being deployed on the same Linux box that runs the JBoss server.
Android is essentially the marketing name of Java on Linux
I prefer to develop my Android applications in C#, but then again, you didn't know that C# development was possible on Android. Funny enough, it is also far more efficient and performant than Java on Android. Really. It is. But hey, you can develop slower Java apps on Android all you want.
If you are not developing solely for the Windows desktop
I wasn't saying it was not solely for Windows desktop, but you are still not correct in your assertion..NET for web-based applications beats Java easily..NET MVC, for example, beats every single Java framework out there. The Play! framework is getting close to.NET, but not close enough. Java is the COLBOL of this decade. Slowly murdered by slow-moving committee.
The PInvokes will typically not be a major problem for enterprise developers who build DB front-end apps that mostly collect and vizualize or integrate data. You don't need PInvoke for most of those.
IMHO Microsoft should be looking at shoring up its desktop rather than fighting Android
That is exactly what they are doing. Some time in the next years, perhaps even months, there will be tablets and phones out there which plug into docking stations with keyboard, mouse and a big screen. It will be the ultimate in portability. If it doesn't support Office software it has lost in the enterprise space. Some of the tablets will be fully WinTel compatible, and they'll be hard as hell to beat in the enterprise. I don't know if Intel will manage to put x86 on a phone, but it won't matter all that much. The enterprise is using.NET for a huge portion of their vertical software..NET will run fine on WinRT.
Slashdot Mirror
The inner part of Box 1 is exactly 1 cubic foot larger than you would claim the Universe came from
Again. Stop making stuff up. Nobody has claimed anything about the size of what the Universe "came from". Ever. Claiming that the box is bigger or smaller than something we know nothing about is absurd. You are astonishingly clueless, but you keep on rambling. Go back to a bible or something. Remember, it is better to keep your mouth shut and have everyone think you are an idiot than to open it and remove all doubt.
No matter, no energy, suddenly there is this thing that blows up and becomes the Universe
That doesn't sound like any theory of the creation of the universe I have ever heard of. It certainly is not a summary of the badly named (for obvious reasons) "Big Bang" theory. Really. What you describe above and the BB theory have nothing at all in common.
So yes, it would be perfectly logical according to that belief to run a simulation and see a Universe spring up out of the modeled boxes
It would. But the "that" you are talking about is the box theory, not the Big Bang theory. Your boxes would be able to test if universes can come into existence inside boxes as you describe them, but it would give us no information whatsoever about the current theories about the creation of the universe since your postulations have nothing in common with these whatsoever.
That is your claim if you believe in the big bang and are an atheist
No. On two accounts. What you describe is not the Big Bang theory, making your argument invalid. What you describe as "atheism" is not atheism either, which makes you claim absurd.
You don't believe in the big bang?
You don't get it at all, do you? I don't believe. In anything. I acknowledge the fact that the so called "Big Bang" theory fits current observations, and until some other theory comes along, I'll accept that. Currently no other theory has been formed. However, what you described has nothing to do with the Big Bang theory. "Big giant ball of mass spinning..." - are you on medications?
There are a few that believe the Universe has always been here and never changed
There are? They are wrong. The universe today doesn't look much like the universe of yesterday. I know that. We can observe it.
Perhaps correct, I should say "some" there also
No, you should close your mouth. You clearly have no clue.
Checking one source
You just make stuff up as you go along, don't you? Time for your medications again. You are rambling.
If the amount of inmates has been increasing, we have more crime per 100,000
Man you are retarded. Utterly clueless. I'll show you how. Let's assume year 1960-1962. Three years. The punishment for robbery is one year. There is one conviction of robbery in 1960, one in 1961 and one in 1962. Each year there is one person in jail for robbery. Then we forward to 1970. The punishment for robbery has increased to three years. If you look at incarceration rate from 1970 through 1972 you'll see something amazing. The incarceration rate triples. With only one robbery each year. You see? One robbery in 1970, one person incarcerated. One in 1971, two people incarcerated. One in 1972, three people incarcerated.
Here is a clue for you: Without a lot of other information, incarceration rate says absolutely nothing about crime level. The article you refer to, which links to an article I referred to, talks about all types of crime, and they have all gone down since 1990. You clearly have no reading capabilities though, so I assume you are going to continue to hold on to a belief that was created entirely in your own head, despite the fact that the evidence shows you are wrong. As do all religious nuts. Making them retarded.
Reality: Larceny, down, Motor Vehicle Theft, down, Burglary, down. All property crime, at about the lowest level since 1970 after peaking in 1980 and 1990. The article you used as a reference refers to this data. This means that you supplied the evidence that you are a moron.
First, your concept of a creator is extremely immature
Somewhat absurd statement, but still wrong. I am aware of a large number of definitions of a creator, and they are all childish and/or based on lack of understanding. I used the Abrahamic God as an example simply because it is the most prevalent image of a creator currently popular. The idea of a "prime mover" is based on nothing at all.
fallacy by ridicule to try and prove your point
Sorry, could you elaborate? Have I tried to prove a point? What point? That there is no creator? I have not. You see, I have enough education to know that you can't prove a negative. I can not prove there is no creator. Trying to would therefore be futile and infantile.
Simple, it has not been on a downward spiral. This is statistical bunk that again you have been brainwashed in to believing. A simple check of the Wiki page [wikipedia.org] will show you how wrong your statement is
You really should be careful with what you write and cite. Your article points to the following article: Which shows a statistically significant reduction in all crimes in the US in the time period I mentioned. But hey, thanks for proving my point - that you are an idiot.
Do you find it odd that instead of checking a very simple fact you lie?
Before calling people liars, you should actually read what you cite to back up your opinion. Particularly referenced articles from the same publication since they often give background information. I will not call you a liar, I will just point out that you provide ample documentation regarding your own ignorance and stupidity.
If you search independent sources, you will see that amount of inmates has steadily been increasing, not decreasing
Ah lovely. You automatically think there is a causation or strong correlation where you see some covariation. Perfect example of ignorance. Your fallacy is (a variation of) the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. Is it possible there might be other factors affecting the incarceration rate other than a rise in crime? Let's, for fun, think about what would happen if you significantly increase the incarseration time for all crimes. How will that impact the incarceration rate. If you had not been an uneducated idiot you would have pointed to an article on crime, not one on some tangental and possibly quite unrelated data set. In this case it is not quite tangental, but it shows nothing of what you assumed it to show. Please try to find valid data before continuing to argue that you are an idiot (which is the only thing you are arguing at the moment).
You see atheists believe, or perhaps only want you to believe, that Box 1, Box 2, and Box 3 can all pop up Universes just like ours full of materials, energy, and even life
Do we? Could you please point me in the direction of any articles showing this? Here is a clue: you have just proven that you know as much about atheism as you do about science. Nada. Nobody I have ever heard of believes what you just said. I am not a physicist, but I do know enough about physics to point out that nothing you claim in your "experiment" is remotely close to what atheistic scientists "believe". I have never heard anyone claim that it is likely a universe can pop into existance inside another universe. You state that this is irrelevant since a multiverse doesn't change things since it is just more of the same, but how do you know? I know of no scientist anywhere who would claim that we know anything about a theoretical multiverse. Your statement is not just incorrect, it is "not even wrong".
Some Atheists will go a bit further, and claim that there was a big giant ball of mass spinning at an incredibly fast rate which exploded
They will? You are just making shit
The more one is educated in Liberal arts, namely Philosophy, the more one tends to believe in a creator
This is incorrect. Stats show that all eduction tends to remove belief in supernatural mumbo-jumbo, but education in hard sciences such as maths and physics remove these beliefs faster and more thoroughly than other educations. However, education in general removes belief in the supernatural.
So the point you make is really not validated unless you restrict education from the liberal arts
Incorrect, even an education in Liberal Arts tend to reduce and remove belief in the supernatural. I would expect that an education in religion would also tend to reduce belief in the super natural, but I have not seen studies showing this.
Funny that you state I'm childish when you make this statement: "Adults, as opposed to sniveling children, don't need a big bogey man behind the door to scare them into moral behavior.".
How was that childish? Honestly? If you are unable to form a moral framework for your life without the threat of a bogey man, you are mentally at the level of a child. Morals do not need angry bogey men in the closet. This is proven by the fact that most systems of morality have been developed completely devoid of angry bogey men. From Socrates and onwards, moral frameworks have been developed using logic and reason. Honestly, if you can't understand that killing is wrong whether an angry bogey man will torture you forever or not, then you are not an adult. Sniveling child would be a highly appropriate description.
Also, if you want to look at a-moral beings, the Abrahamic God is a good place to start. I can't even imagine anyone being more evil than the Abrahamic God. He deserves no respect. He deserves contempt. If he ever shows up at my door, and it turns out the stories about him are true, no matter how real he is there at my door, I will spit him in the face.
The moral play field in the US is the lowest it has ever been
It is? So why has crime in the US been in a downward spiral since 1990? Does a lowered "moral play field" reduce crime?
I make that in less than 30 minutes of working.
Liar. It would take you at least two hours to make that, and then you'd have to pay rent to your mother, and pay for the child you produced last year with your sister who is also your cousin.
I agree, the keyboard thingy is not going to be as good as the laptop in places where there is no surface to put the Surface on. In such cases you have they stylus and the on-screen keyboard. There are always trade offs. The trade off with the Surface is insignificant compared to the iPad though. On the iPad I can not do (much) real work. No matter what. I need Citrix and a fast network connection.
and your tablet is full
A, but the surface supports external drives, so the 1G travel drive I have in my photo bag comes with me. The Surface has 100% laptop functionality. I can bring that, and only that. With the iPad I am forced to also bring my laptop. This is why the surface is $599 cheaper than the iPad. The Surface replaces both my iPad and my laptop. The iPad is not a laptop replacement, I always need to bring my laptop. Not so with the Surface.
Anyway, which tablets support Canon Raw?
The Microsoft Surface Pro. Did you not see the Lightroom demo?
Ah, yes, that is practical. I just downloaded the 400 pictures I took with my Canon 7D to my tablet so that the wife and I could gush over 400 pictures of a little girl having fun at the park. I am now going to put these (all Canon Raw of course) into the cloud. Start uploading now over the 3G connection I have available on my vacation in Rome ... ah, I am running out of space here... upgrade to more space... a week later ... disconnect the pad. Move the pics onto a USB alternative ... fly home ... upload to main computer. Hell, waiting a week then flying home with the stick was faster than pushing it to the cloud.
Come home ... receive cell-phone bill from Rome resulting from my non-complete upload of pictures to the cloud ... mortgage house again to pay cell phone bill for data-usage abroad. "Use wi-fi!" you said? Have you ever been on a vacation in Italy, Spain or Greece?
They can't..
Sure they can, it will probably be significanly cheaper than the iPad. The Pro model that is. I expect the RT model to be priced about the same as the iPad and the Pro model to be perhaps $599 cheaper. How so? Well, let's look at the price for me, taking my iPad to Rome this summer, and a hypothetical trip to Paris in 2013 with the Surface Pro. What is the cost of equipping me for this trip?
2012 - Rome
2013 - Paris
See, the Surface beats the iPad by about $599. That's significant. It isn't just an alternative to my iPad, it is an alternative to my iPad and my laptop combined. The two-fer if you will. If I, as so many are, am a corporate user, the numbers are more attractive (though not substantially different). Total cost 2012: $599, total cost 2013: $0. I am still going to being the iPads (or Surface RT) for kids an others, but quite frankly, this should be somewhat scary days for Apple. I am the IT decision maker in my household. If my company equips me with a Pad alternative that works, I'm going to standardize on versions of that device. That only makes sense.
I, as most people in my situation, own a couple of iPads. Wife. Children. Me. All cool. The iPad is a fantastically useful consumption device with minor possibilities for content modification. It's not ideal or even convenient, but definitely possible. This means that when I head off to Rome this summer on vacation, I will bring my iPad on the plane, but I'll probably check my laptop. I will of course bring the laptop. I can do things on that (such as develop software) that simply isn't possible, or at least practical on the iPad.
When the Windows Surface Pro comes out, if it has the specs it looks like it's going to have, my laptop will be retired. I will no longer bring it anywhere, since the Surface Pro will be a fully functional substitute for my laptop. I look forward to not having to travel with my laptop. Oh, and my iPad will be retired at the same time, since the Surface will have 100% of the functionality of my iPad also.
Microsoft is a little slow to the party, but not too late. This offering, if it works as advertised, will simply kill the iPad in the enterprise. Is that important? Yes it is. Once most of us get a Surface at work, why would we need an iPad?
Remeber too, the Surface has at least an order of magnitude more developers than does the iPad.
And Hitler liked puppies!
And, as with religious leaders and other prominent American leaders today, Hitler, deeply religious as he was, hated atheists:
We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.
- Adolf Hitler, Speech in Berlin, October 24, 1933
Now, one could say that that dude had a warped sense of religion. Most religious people today do. Did he? The lutherans, evangelicals etc in the US take their religion from the man Luther. He formed the base for their beliefs. Hitler just continued Luthers work and ideas
. In other words, the person who laid the base for most of the non-catholic Christian faiths in the US today was as rabid a Jew hater as Mr. Adolph was.
BZZZZ! WRONG!. On all accounts, but that is not surprising. There is a strong correlation between education level and religiosity. The less education one have, the more religious one tends to be. The correlation is particularly strong in hard sciences.
The most atheistic countries in the world are probably the Scandinavian countries and some of the Benelux countries. These all have significantly lower crime rates than the countries where religion has a more prominant position. If you look at the US and The Netherlands for example, it is interesting to see that the religious US has higher crime rate, higher divorce rate, higher teen pregnancy rate, more children born out of wedlock etc, than the rather atheist Netherlands. Oh, and the Dutch also have a more libereal drug legislation. So, comparing the US and and Netherlands less religion and more drugs leads to less crime, less divorce and in general more "moral" behavior as determined by the traditional Christian "moral code".
Guess what happens to people with no moral guide lines?
What a childish and inane statement. Shows a serious lack of brains right there. Moral guidelines have nothing to do with religion. Adults, as opposed to sniveling children, don't need a big bogey man behind the door to scare them into moral behavior. Thinking adults can actually act morally based on philosophy or self-interest. Please grow up. Santa doesn't exist. There is no God. stop using a divine entity as an excuse for inexcusable behavior. It is inexcusable to be unable to device a set of moral rules without the scary bogeyman forcing you to.
Oh, and if you want to take moral guildelines from someone, the Abrahamic God is the last place to look. That dude is a shitbag and deserves only contempt. Even the idea of a divine entity demanding a loyal subject murder his oldest son for him is abhorrent. If God stepped down tomorrow and asked of me what he asked of Abraham, I would spit him in the face. If he continued his insane demands I would have him comitted or I would slay him. You see, slaying divine entities is easy.
Here is some more from the article, so now you are enlightened:
C# and Visual Basic are also abstracted from hardware differences. They compile to MSIL, which is platform neutral. Therefore, Metro style apps using C# or Visual Basic can be compiled once to run on x86/x64/ARM.
The story about how we engineered for ARM begins one decade ago, when we ported the .NET Framework to 64-bit. ... A group in Microsoft Research did an experiment running the main desktop .NET Framework on a smartphone, and found that it performs well. Their experience made us confident that our work to port the desktop .NET Framework to ARM would be successful.
As a result of our existing product designs, we were able to support the ARM chip in a relatively straight-forward way.
Yeah, I agree. It all started when they added "sound" to the pictures. Ridiculous. Later they added this thing called "color". Absurd. Just trying to fleece the audience.
My understanding from that link you posted is that WinRT will NOT run .NET apps.
Your understanding is wrong it seems.
From the article:
When it comes time to upload your app to the store, you can build a “Neutral” package if you only have managed code in your app (C#, VB, JavaScript). This indicates that the package contains code that will run on either x86, x64 or ARM
You sure?
This seems to suggest otherwise - quote: "Metro style apps in the Windows Store can support both WOA and Windows 8 on x86/64. Developers wishing to target WOA do so by writing applications for the WinRT"
Moron
How does changing rapidly (also known as the "bleeding edge") make C# mature?
Sigh. C# hasn't changed rapidly. It has changed though. It has incorporated some well-tested and well-founded new language constructs. There is nothing "bleeding-edge" as such about C#. It has incorporated an SQL-like structure into the language, something others did decades ago, it has incorporated functional programming constructs, functional programming is hardly bleeding edge, it has also incorporated aspects of dynamic programming languages, which is also nothing new. You are again talking out of your ass with absolutely no knowledge about the topic of conversation. C# has changed where it makes sense. Java has hardly changed at all. The JCP is to blame.
The Java language changes slowly because it doesn't need to
Balderdash. Java changes slowly because of the in-fighting in the JCP and the insane focus on forward and backwards compatibility of (once) Sun. Java needs a new implementation of generics. The current one sucks big time. Java needs new basic types or a new implementation of autoboxing, the current one is a bug. Java should incorporate aspects of functional programming since it makes parallel easier, safer and more testable. Future hardware developments is going to center around adding cores to CPUs, so parallel programming is of paramount importance. Java sucks at it compared to C#, F# and a whole host of functional programming languages. Java has barely changed at all since 2001. Not because it is perfect but because it takes a decade for the JCP to agree on anything.
instead a conservative approach to change
Seriously? Have you been following the Java development at all? The JCP is broken. That's the reason for the slow development. Here are some blog postings on how utterly broken the JCP is. This was in 2007. It's not better today. By any stretch of the imagination. Java isn't moving slowly because of a conservative attitude, Java is moving slowly because it is "stuck in committee". I am surprised that a Java programmer is ignorant of the serious problems plaguing the JCP. Have you been living in a cave for all this time?
Are you then trying to assert that Java cannot integrate with Active Directory
Have you ever tried? It is a pain. Huge pain. We had to drop it from our JBoss project since it could not co-exist with the Apache SOAP libraries and Smooks. You could have two of them, but all three and AD would stop working. At random intervals. So. yes, I have done it. No, it wasn't pain-free by any stretch of the imagination. We had to move the solution to IIS since integration with AD was mandatory. BTW, this was JBoss 4.2.3, might have changed since then.
Actually I have a PhD in Astrophysics
Well, rocket science isn't exactly rocket science...
much of it was doing software development and computational work for some very hard scalability and data processing problems
Cool. Can you optimize an Oracle query? Seriously. Maths is important in software development (I took maths) but it isn't important in the day-to-day work of the enterprise developer. It is a good way to develop an analytic mind though.
the Windows phones will still have no traction
I do development on phones, so I have a few. Two iPhones, only one Windows Phone and a couple of Samsungs with Android. I much prefer the Windows paradigm, it is a significant change in the right direction for a phone. iOS is just a desktop OS metaphor on a phone. It sucks compared to Metro, but so be it. Strangely Win Phone has a signif
Here I give a *scientific* paper evaluating the performance of Java
Sigh. Here is what you did. You sited a paper, correct, that says, among other things "e first perform some micro benchmarks for various JVMs" (my emphasis), then you said "Only n00bs believe marketing spiels and microbenchmarks". See the problem?
Incorrect. Java is much older than C#
Sigh. If you don't understand the difference between "old" and "mature" then you need to stop conversing with adults. Yes, Java is (obviously) older than C#, but development in Java, that is, the development of the language it self, has been extremely slow, and Java has not incorporated newer and better language constructs at the pace C# has. Java was at the forefront of popularization of certain things like VMs etc, but that was long ago. Java has basically not evolved at all since Sun added (in a terrible way) Generics to the language. C# has evolved significantly faster, and now leaves Java in the dust. C# generics are done right, Java - wrong. Java auto boxing is basically a bug, not a feature. Java has nothing like the dynamic aspects of C#, functional programming is (basically) totally absent from Java. Java has nothing like the async support of C#. Hell, I can only say LINQ, and Java is instantly old, decrepit and from the 1990s.
If by more developed you mean more complicated and with a rapidly increasing number of constructs then C# is indeed ahead
I guess that is what adding modern programming constructs looks like to someone who is unable to learn.
Will third parties access your back end
I build enterprise apps. The answer to that is "always".
there is nothing to fear with a JSON interface so it is strange you do
Sigh. Why do you think I do? I specifically mention REST above. REST returns XML or JSON (or ATOM or...) based on what the client asks for. Assume you hava a method that returns a list of customers from either from an Oracle database (using EF, Hibernate or similar here). You need a REST API that returns that filtered by the start of the customer name (overly simplified here). The code (all that is needed) would look like this: ... connect to the DB;
public void CustomersController() {
theDB =
}
public List<Customer> Get( string nameStartsWith) {
return theDB.Customers.Where( cust => cust.Name.StartsWith( nameStartsWith )).ToList();
}
This code will respond to a request to http://host/api/Customers?nameStartsWith=John
As I said, this code will return JSON if the client asks for JSON, XML if the client asks for XML etc. It also shows some LINQ above. LINQ is excellent and a huge time saver. You can use an SQL-like syntax to querey anything. Whether the object "theDB" above was a Hibernate construct connecting you to an Oracle DB, or it was an in-memory XML stream read from a config file (for example for testing) or a List<Customer> or anything else that is queryable, the code is identical. I'd like to see you do this in Java. Seriously, I thought everybody knew that REST typically was JSON. Luckily I won't have to force my clients to chose, if they want ATOM it returns ATOM, if they want XML, it returns XML, if they want JSON it returns JSON.
make a Java webservice client
I don't have to chose. Once I build it on web api (also known as WCF), and I build it ONCE, the client decides what he wants to use for accessing the data. SOAP, XML serialization, JSON, ATOM, you name it.
Betting the farm on Microsoft and Microsoft tech is a strategy that people used to do a decade ago
You have never worked in an enterprise have you? AD everywhere. Exchange integration mandatory. That's the enterprise world of today.
If you *know what you are doing* then Java is very fast ... basically your statement is out of date
Which statement? Did I state Java was slow? If you think I did you need to lay of your mothers meds. Did you see me state otherwise? What are you rambling about? I said Java is old and moving slowly, not that Java programs are slow. Java is old and moving slowly (in the same way COBOL is moving slowly - it's being killed by committee).
Why would anyone torture themselves with such a ridiculous mismatch
If you are sane, in today's world, your back end is some sort of standards-based interface. REST, SOAP (ouch) or some such. What you should not do is use the default GWT-RPC communications. Once GWT-RPC is out the window, what backend your GWT program talks to is irrelevant. It would be insane to use the default GWT server for this, which means that you would have to use the Spring or JBoss or similar GWT packages. Why limit your self in such a way. REST is more fun, and it isn't limited to GWT. Only a fool would use GWT-RPC.
GWT contains both client-side and server-side components
Nope, it is only you who have problems reading. I said "The main issue for us doing GWT on .NET was that we basically had to mimic our server-side stuff in Java for the development environment" - in other words, we had to make the GWT server stuff look a little like our .NET back end.
Anyone who uses GWT knows it is truly multiplatform
Do you even read what you your self write? You just said above that it wasn't. You claimed it was not particularly easy to integrate with a .NET app. Are you just trolling or are you this stupid? Most companies have a corporate policy on what app server to use. Websphere etc. Have you tried integrating GWT with any of those? With SOAP?
Mono is hobbled ... WPF
Wow. WPF. Where in this discussion would you use that?
I did know you can write Android apps in a variety of languages, including C#. Why you would want to is beyond me
Simple. C# is a far more mature and developed language than is Java. I have done Java since 1996. C# passed Java in version 3.5 and has been speeding ahead since. Java is standing still or even doing the wrong things. Generics in Java is a disaster. Autoboxing in Java is an example of how you should never do things.
performance comes from using the *hardware* properly (eg. OpenGL ES
Really? For enterprise apps? You know, the kind that companies pay millions for? Not some silly game for children.
Only n00bs believe marketing spiels and microbenchmarks
Given your reference to INRIA above, I guess you are a noob then. Only noobs spell noobs "n00bs".
and the latest failure with the Silverlight clone - since Microsoft is letting this wither and die
Now to this one. This is actually a misunderstanding. Really. It is. Look at Win 8. WPF is everywhere. You know the original name for SL right? WPF/E, WPF Everywhere. Microsoft is probably retiring WPF as a plugin. It is no longer needed in Win8.
Yes, I meant COBOL. Java is the COBOL of this decade. Trust me, I was part of a team that developed one of the first commercial applications on Java, with our company featured in the New York Times ads Sun was running on Java back in the late 90s. Java was great then. Now it has stiff joints and is moving slowly.
Do you even know what GWT is? it makes .NET's ASP look neolithic
Wow. The amount of ignorance here is amusing. Yes, I know what GWT is. I have even deployed two in-house GWT apps on a JBoss server and I am in the process of putting a GWT app on IIS, probably late this summer. It works quite well with .NET MVC 4. The idea that it makes .NET look neolithic is like saying that the apple over there makes this car look ancient. It is an absurd statement. GWT is a client-side technology where you write Java code and compile it to Javascript. What technology you use to deploy said Javascript is irrelevant, and GWT plays well with .NET MVC, and even more so with version 4 and the REST api framework of this version. The main issue for us doing GWT on .NET was that we basically had to mimic our server-side stuff in Java for the development environment. This was not as much of an issue as one might think. I basically cross-complied a bunch of the C# code to Java. Not quite as easy as one might think since C# is a far more capable language than Java.
Would I do it again? No. GWT is a cool idea, but it is a one-platform pony. Integrating with just about any back-end is not a problem in production as such, but it is a pain in the neck to do easily in development. It is a great idea with a horrible tool kit. Would I use GWT again? No. It was a great idea whos time came and went before it caught on. Today I would use Ember, but Knockout,, SproutCore, Batman, Spine and lots of others are cool too. GWT simply was timed badly. Google is going to kill it once Dart gets traction. Darts beats GWT as a concept.
By .NET MVC do you mean WPF or ASP
Really, you don't know the MVC product from MS? Open source. Very similar (in so far as you can go similar to ruby with C#) to rails, and very clearly inspired by rails. .NET MVC is the product that the Play! Framework guys "copied" (the rendering engine) in Play! 2.0. .NET MVC puts all Java web frameworks in the rear view mirror, except Play (which is the only Java web framework I am willing to use now, Spring MVC in a pinch.)
It's cool, you stick with your .NET, but it turns out a one-platform pony is the true dinosaur these days
Even the fact that you think .NET is a one-platform pony shows how little you know. The GWT app I am talking about above is being deployed on the same Linux box that runs the JBoss server.
Android is essentially the marketing name of Java on Linux
I prefer to develop my Android applications in C#, but then again, you didn't know that C# development was possible on Android. Funny enough, it is also far more efficient and performant than Java on Android. Really. It is. But hey, you can develop slower Java apps on Android all you want.
If you are not developing solely for the Windows desktop
I wasn't saying it was not solely for Windows desktop, but you are still not correct in your assertion. .NET for web-based applications beats Java easily. .NET MVC, for example, beats every single Java framework out there. The Play! framework is getting close to .NET, but not close enough. Java is the COLBOL of this decade. Slowly murdered by slow-moving committee.
The PInvokes will typically not be a major problem for enterprise developers who build DB front-end apps that mostly collect and vizualize or integrate data. You don't need PInvoke for most of those.
IMHO Microsoft should be looking at shoring up its desktop rather than fighting Android
That is exactly what they are doing. Some time in the next years, perhaps even months, there will be tablets and phones out there which plug into docking stations with keyboard, mouse and a big screen. It will be the ultimate in portability. If it doesn't support Office software it has lost in the enterprise space. Some of the tablets will be fully WinTel compatible, and they'll be hard as hell to beat in the enterprise. I don't know if Intel will manage to put x86 on a phone, but it won't matter all that much. The enterprise is using .NET for a huge portion of their vertical software. .NET will run fine on WinRT.