Fortunately Java could not break any.NET patents for what it is now because it was the firstcomer ("prior art"). Only in future developments there might be some problems. But Mono isn't on safe ground for sure.
I did not encounter situations during development in Java when I had to use a com.sun.* class and wasn't something alternative already available. But do you happen to have some examples on this?
My main problem with the Java API is rather of a different nature. There are several cases of missing native operating system bindings that should be hidden behind a standard API. And that's the point where native code (maintained for every target OS) needs to be developed. That's a real problem. But this is due to its platform independence and might get solved in time one step at a time.
You are right that you did not directly talk about free.NET but rather about a free-ish one. In any case, I hope that it has been made clear for outsiders why.NET isn't free.
Since when is borrowing potentially patented technology from Microsoft can be considered free-ish? Not to mention that the whole.NET is a copy of Java (it really is). And how can Mono be uniform if it must keep pace with Microsoft's spec changes?
Honestly, how can someone be that silly to even put the terms.NET and free in the same sentence? I suppose Microsoft might have a special fund for this kind of misinformation.
I'm not sure how could it be easier to write "platform independent" applications in.NET than in "partially" implemented open-source Java implementations. Just look at the comparison between GNU Classpath and the JDK 1.4 API (http://www.kaffe.org/~stuart/japi/htmlout/h-jdk14 -classpath.html) and see it for yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Avast does have 64 bit versions for at least 1 year and a half. I'm using it for my Vista x64 install since February 2007.
Fortunately Java could not break any .NET patents for what it is now because it was the firstcomer ("prior art"). Only in future developments there might be some problems. But Mono isn't on safe ground for sure.
.NET but rather about a free-ish one. In any case, I hope that it has been made clear for outsiders why .NET isn't free.
I did not encounter situations during development in Java when I had to use a com.sun.* class and wasn't something alternative already available. But do you happen to have some examples on this?
My main problem with the Java API is rather of a different nature. There are several cases of missing native operating system bindings that should be hidden behind a standard API. And that's the point where native code (maintained for every target OS) needs to be developed. That's a real problem. But this is due to its platform independence and might get solved in time one step at a time.
You are right that you did not directly talk about free
Since when is borrowing potentially patented technology from Microsoft can be considered free-ish? Not to mention that the whole .NET is a copy of Java (it really is). And how can Mono be uniform if it must keep pace with Microsoft's spec changes?
Honestly, how can someone be that silly to even put the terms .NET and free in the same sentence? I suppose Microsoft might have a special fund for this kind of misinformation.
I'm not sure how could it be easier to write "platform independent" applications in .NET than in "partially" implemented open-source Java implementations. Just look at the comparison between GNU Classpath and the JDK 1.4 API (http://www.kaffe.org/~stuart/japi/htmlout/h-jdk14 -classpath.html) and see it for yourself.