Re: huge array

1) To "deprecate" 3rd-party programmers to the
level of scripters or macro writers.

I can and do still call native api calls

Yes, but the general approach is to present .Net
as cross-platform and to sell fully managed OO
programming as a superior method. The general
direction is toward moving 3rd-party programmers
out of the API, into a sandbox that can be redefined
at will. After all, what's the sense of managed code,
horrendously bloated wrappers, and the inefficiency/
decompilability of JIT compiling if you're just going to
use the API anyway? API access is meant to be
transitional.


2) To make .Net appear to be a credible cross-
platform Java competitor. Yet .Net support is limited
even on Windows, and Mono is not part of .Net.

That makes no sense. None. .NET works on all
currently supported versions of
windows. Just because you are still using 9x doesn't
mean that the majority
of the developement world hasn't long moved on.


I know from past posts that you have a lot of
experience in programming, but your intellectual
integrity goes out the window when it comes to
your .Net fetish. "All suppported versions" is a
classic Microsoft half-truth and you know it.

..Net since v. 3 supports only XP SP2+, which is what
I said. You imply that Win9x/2000/ME/XP SP1 are
irrelevant, which of course is the Microsoft party-line.
But I notice that on the .Net group people often talk
about using .Net v. 2 in order to support more
Windows versions. .Net v. 3 came out 3 years ago,
but many people are targetting .Net v. 2 with the
v. 3 tools because v. 3 lacks backward compatibility.

So is .Net 3 obsolete or before its time? I'm getting
confused. :)

What sort of company is it where their success
depends on breaking their older products? .Net
virtually installs its own OS these days, and XP is
just an update of 2000. So it's hard to see how .Net
3 can't run on 2000. That must have taken some work. :)


So one has to wonder where the theoretical
optimization comes in (that would justify JIT
compiling) when the target range these days consists
of only XP and Vista/7 running on Intel/AMD.

That isn't true. .NET runs on Windows Mobile and the
XBox as well

XBox! That's really fishing. (So .Net JIT-compilation
and bloated, redundant wrappers are now great for
writing fast games on XBox?) Who cares about XBox or
Windows mobile? Virtually everyone here is writing Windows
software. In any case, those are all still MS products. What
about Mac and Linux and "unsupported" Windows?

You like to talk about Mono on Linux but Mono is not
made by MS. They can put a wrench in the works at will.
And the design of JIT compiling with a VM was part of .Net
long before Mono, so I don't see how that addesses the
issue of what the Microsoft leadership had in mind when
they decided to make a Java clone.

And that's just Microsofts implementation.
Mono supports several hardware and os combinations...

As I said, that's not Microsoft's. Which gets back to
my original point. In creating .Net Microsoft made progress
on 2 fronts: demoting 3rd-party programmers and providing
a Java competitor. Why compete with Java? To make their
server software more attractive. As part of a system of
server-side lock-in to tools that are easier to use than the
equivalents on Unix/Linux. If Mono starts to make Linux
look just as easy for less money, do you really think MS
will stand for that?

Can you really not see the glaring inconsistency in
having a JIT-compiling Java clone that only works with
"supported" Microsoft software and allows API calls?
It's got all the downsides of Java -- requires a giant VM,
runs slow, easily decompiled, poorly suited for writing
OS or "desktop" software -- without the benefits.

It has the stink of IE about it: a product that starts
out with the appearance of cross-platform, but is really
only a tool for Windows lock-in. And don't forget, IE
was fatally damaged by adding ActiveX and tying it into
the OS. That made IE superior on Windows but rendered
it forever unsafe to use online.

Frankly, I think that you and the other DotNetter
salesmen here do sense the inconsistency. Evangelism is
an indicator that one lacks faith and is trying to get it by
convincing others. And .Net is the only programming tool
I know of where many people using it feel threatened by
the very existence of other tools.




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [OT] C# Learning Resources
    ... Windows users then download the ".NET Runtime" ... And of course SQL Server is a RDBMS, not a programming language. ... I've the "screenshots" page of the Mono project recently, ... GTK+ is the "GIMP Toolkit", which is one of the two most popular graphical ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: I got me a MacBook
    ... programming on windows now- java has the same issue on windows ... Which is why I use C# on Windows, not Java. ... will not be added to the Cocoa-Java programming interface. ... and you can develop the exact same type of applications on / for a mac. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Should I buy an Apple or Windows
    ... Windows have its own issues. ... Programming in Perl on OS X is pretty much identical to using any other ... Java on OS X is fair-to-good these days. ... Oracle 10g is certified on the Mac for all your Oracle needs. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: OT Java, C#, C++
    ... would you use Java or C++ - or something else? ... C# developed on a Windows platform and NOT using unmanaged code ... Partly this is because Mono will always be behind the latest Windows ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Whats out there for Linux?
    ... Java and Mono both supports many more platforms than Real Basic). ... More platforms than Windows, MacOS and Linux, eh? ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
Loading