Re: C# is a proprietary programming language ??

From: Chua Wen Ching (chua_wen_ching_at_nospam.hotmail.com)
Date: 07/03/04 

Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 08:45:01 -0700

Hi Nick Malik,

I initially thought that C# is an ECMA standard as Microsoft submitted to them. It is open to everyone to create a compiler for C# or anything.

So why is it propiertary anymore? Not like if you want to use C#, you need to buy this and that. I don't think it is a must to buy visual studio .net, and .net framework is free to download.

Example, rpg language. If you want to use it, you need to have a mainframe. I think this is more to propietary.

Please correct me if i am wrong. Thanks. 

-- 
Regards,
Chua Wen Ching :)
"Nick Malik" wrote:
> This used to mean something... back when every company had their own Fortran
> compiler, and everyone was trying to write code in one Fortran compiler that
> could be used by all others... (write once, run anywhere... sound familiar?)
> 
> Java tried this too, of course.  Everyone was supposed to have the same
> "Java."  Difference is, SUN kept the intellectual property rights for Java,
> so when Microsoft added some extensions to the language to make it useful
> for calling the Windows API, SUN sued, and won.  Microsoft had to drop the
> Java platform (even though most folks agree that the Microsoft JVM was
> head-and-shoulders faster than any other JVM at the time).
> 
> So, Java is the language where you can write code on one operating system
> (say LINUX) and run it on another (say WINDOWS).  For the most part, it's
> true.
> 
> The downside is that any changes to the language have to be made either by
> the mothership (SUN) or they have to be delivered in Java class libraries,
> written in Java itself.  This effectively prevents the language from
> changing to meet new needs.  Java is done.  Either it's perfect, or it
> isn't, but it isn't changing.
> 
> C# is the brainchild of Microsoft.  MS owns it.  True, a spec for the
> language has been released as a standard, and MS doesn't object to third
> parties creating a C# compiler that will run on UNIX.  On the other hand, MS
> isn't going to invest much money in any OS but Windows (with the minor
> exception of the Mac).  But C# is changing.  A new version is about to be
> released with major new features.  Fundamental features that couldn't be
> done by just adding a library.  This is the strength of a language that one
> company owns, and cares for.
> 
> Of course, if you write code in C# on Windows, you can't run it on UNIX.
> It's proprietary.  One company owns the language, and they have decided not
> to support UNIX, so your code doesn't run there.  You are restricted.  This
> is the limitation of "proprietary."  In theory, anyway.  In practice, there
> are C# implementations growing on UNIX, written by open source folks.  So
> while the charge is true, it doesn't mean much.
> 
> Given the fact that over 90% of all desktop machines run Windows, the point
> is pretty thin.  Java's ability to run on multiple platforms has effectively
> unified all the UNIX flavors, and has allowed some software companies to
> deliver to both UNIX and Windows customers.  This is the greatest challenge
> to the Microsoft dominance of PC-based software. But it doesn't really
> matter when it comes to the language you should choose to do your work.
> 
> These days, the notion of "proprietary" doesn't mean "locked in" like it
> used to.  One can say that Java is proprietary, since it is owned by SUN.
> One can say that a Java programmer is locked in, in that you cannot develop
> some libraries in VB, some in C#, some in COBOL, some in Forte, etc (all
> available in .NET flavors), and make them all work together.  You are locked
> in to one language on many platforms.  With .NET, you are locked in to one
> platform, with many languages.
> 
> I know of a software company that is moving their substantial code base
> (currently in COBOL) to Java.  Doesn't make sense to me.  If they'd move it
> to .NET, they could recompile 60% of their code out of the box (Fujitsu
> COBOL), and could use the skills of their existing programming staff to
> complete the conversion.  By moving to Java, they have to throw away working
> code and start over, probably by replacing people, as well as modules.  I
> hope that their finances outlast their irrational behavior, because their
> stuff is good, even if their company is poorly run.
> 
> Back to the original question: What is proprietary?  My answer: Everything
> is proprietary... it doesn't matter.  Pick the language that will work for
> you in the long run.
> 
> As for me, I'm sticking with .NET.
> 
> --- Nick Malik
>      Biztalk Bum
> 
> "Matt" <mattloude@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:egwWNNMYEHA.2500@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Some people identify Microsoft C# is Proprietary programming language.
> > What is Proprietary programming language then? How does it differ
> > from other languages such as C++, or Java??
> >
> > Please advise. thanks!!
> >
> >
> 
> 
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: porting from C++Builder
    ... the java was growing and, obviously, microsoft initially ... they made their own programming language, in this case, c#, ... inhouse programming for data entry forms, fat client applications, ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vc)
  • Re: casts
    ... I don't revere Nash as a computer science genius or whatever. ... compiler in a later edition of Visual Basic, ... and your front end GUI in any language that makes ... I've worked in Java before. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: casts
    ... and was asked to teach it to prospective computer science majors at ... compiler in a later edition of Visual Basic, ... and your front end GUI in any language that makes ... I've worked in Java before. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: casts
    ... This is why most shit programmers refuse to learn languages including ... C Sharp and Java. ... compiler in a later edition of Visual Basic, ... language for processing data. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Cpp Considered Harmful
    ... >> I will observe that many Java IDEs do this rather successfully. ... > Look, if a tool author is willing to fully parse the underlying language, ... > compiler version. ... mentions a header file is in the C compatability appendix. ...
    (comp.lang.cpp)
Loading