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

"Ingo Pakleppa" <ingo-immigration_at_kkeane.com> wrote in message news:s8tY9.15210$LA4.1126284_at_news1.west.cox.net...
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 18:50:10 +0000, Chad Myers wrote:
>
> >
> > "Ingo Pakleppa" <ingo-immigration_at_kkeane.com> wrote in message
> > news:Ze5Y9.12695$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.

It's easier to say ".NET Development Framework" then "ECMA CLI and C# spec"

I don't doubt that it's their goal to implement as much as possible, indeed it is.
The core is to implement the EMCA, though and then branch out from there.

> > 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 ;-)

Reality. The ECMA group has an approval and ratification process. There are several members on the group besides Microsoft (including HP and Fujitsu and Intel too, IIRC).

The trust part comes in when/if MS decides it doesn't like the ECMA (and now ISO too, the CLI and C# are weeks away from ISO certification last I checked) and decides to fork it <g>.

So far, the MS people I've heard talking about such things are adamant that they won't do that because MS has several vested interests in keeping the CLI and C# standardized.

> >> 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.

I'm not terribly familiar with the Samba thing, but IIRC the problem was with NTLM, not with the basic SMB protocol, right? Or CIFS as it's called?

Samba found several bugs in MS' implementation and MS has fixed most of them last I bothered to check. It seems the Samba folks whine a lot if one
little thing goes wrong. I'm not sure why they expect MS to bend over backwards for them. From what I've seen, I'd say MS has been very responsive.
The fact that SMB is an RFC is a huge step for a company the size and stature
of MS. How many RFCs does Oracle have? Sun's products are mostly based on
Unix, so that's a little different situation. For all of Sun's proprietary
works, how many RFCs have they produced?

I would say comparatively, MS has done a fair, not poor or good, but fair
job of trying to stay up on such things.

>
> > 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.

We shall see, I guess. So far, it seems MS has a very good reason to support Mono since it has done so in earnest lately.

-c Received on Fri Jan 31 2003 - 21:30:10 CST