Re: Comparison of Java, C# for development on Windows and future for them

From: Ingo Pakleppa <ingo-immigration_at_kkeane.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 09:53:28 GMT
Message-ID: <s8tY9.15210$LA4.1126284@news1.west.cox.net>

On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 18:50:10 +0000, Chad Myers wrote:

>
> "Ingo Pakleppa" <ingo-immigration_at_kkeane.com> wrote in message
> news:Ze5Y9.12695$LA4.655734_at_news1.west.cox.net...

>> > To everyone talking about c# being windows only, have you checked

> out

>> > mono lately?
>> >
>> > http://www.go-mono.org/
>> >
>> > It's some pretty cool stuff!
>> >
>> > Michael
>>
>> Mono is extremely controversial, and likely to fail eventually.

>
> Posh.
>

>>
>> There are two main problems with it.
>>
>> First, it promotes the .NET framework that is controlled by one vendor

> who

>> doesn't exactly have a track record of cross-platform compatibility.

> In

>> other words, it is controversial because it does the wrong thing.

>
> Wait, Mono isn't implementing the .NET framework, it's implementing
> the ECMA C# and CLI specs (specs which have been approved preliminarily
> by ISO as well). There are some add-on Mono projects for Microsoft .NET-
> specific things like Windows Forms, VB.NET, and ASP.NET, but they
> are not core to mono.

The first paragraph on the page you gave says:

>>
Ximian announced the launch of the Mono project, an effort to create an open source implementation of the .NET Development Framework. <<

While I admit that "development framework" is not the same as .NET, it at least seems to suggest that the emphasis of Mono is .NET rather than the languages.

> The specs are specs and cannot change easily. MS can ignore them,
> but as the ECMA-compliant crowd grows, MS would shoot themselves in the
> foot. They have said they will continue to work within the ECMA and
> any new changes will be submitted and so far this has been the case
> and there's not a strong reason to believe it will stop anytime soon.

Optimist ;-)

>> Second, there are patent and copyright issues in .NET and C# that

> would

>> allow Microsoft to pretty much at any time they like stop the work

> dead in

>> its tracks (there are similar issues surrounding Samba, btw).

>
> Not quite. SMB is different, it's not an ECMA or ISO standard like C#
> and CLI.

Actually, SMB is an RFC (RFC 2708). More importantly, there are many instances of patented technologies being submitted for standardization. There recently was some uproar about Rambus trying to do that in the memory chip arena.

> If Mono attempted to sell their product, then there might be an
> issue, but I'm not sure.

Patent law is more strict. Even if Mono was only used by Ximian itself, it would still be a patent violation unless they purchase a license (or prove that Ximian had developed and used the technology before Microsoft filed the patent claim).

Obviously, Mono is more ambitious and would be distributed to the public - it doesn't matter whether it is sold or given away free of charge.

>> So, despite mono, it is still safe to say that C# and .NET are still
>> Microsoft-only technologies that may be available on other platforms -

> but

>> I wouldn't trust it with anything that a business depends on unless I

> also

>> wanted to commit to Windows.

>
> Well, then perhaps you should read up then.
>
> -c
Received on Sat Jan 25 2003 - 03:53:28 CST