C# more standard than Java?
Martin Nisshagen
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-995108.html
Best regards,
m a r t i n | n
--
Martin Nisshagen
http://194.236.153.211/
David H. McCoy
says...
far more people asking for <shudder> ASP.NET.
--
--------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
--------------------------------------
![Brad Wardell [Stardock]'s profile photo](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
Brad Wardell [Stardock]
"David H. McCoy" <fa...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.18fa9f08f...@news.stardock.com...
> In article <ggx3ScC$CHA...@prospero.stardock.local>, mn...@msn.com
> says...
> > Seems like it will get ISO approved (in addtion to it's ECMA status):
> >
> > http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-995108.html
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > m a r t i n | n
> >
> > --
> > Martin Nisshagen
> > http://194.236.153.211/
> >
> <Shrug>. I can tell you, not to many people seem to be into C#. I see
> far more people asking for <shudder> ASP.NET.
Not much interest in C# here. But we are going into ASP.NET.
Brad
Martin Nisshagen
"Brad Wardell [Stardock]" <bwar...@getridofthispart.stardock.com> wrote in
message news:SbTmwv9...@prospero.stardock.local...
: > > Seems like it will get ISO approved (in addtion to it's ECMA status):
: > >
: > > http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-995108.html
: > <Shrug>. I can tell you, not to many people seem to be into C#. I see
: > far more people asking for <shudder> ASP.NET.
:
: Not much interest in C# here. But we are going into ASP.NET.
C# is a very new language (only about 1 single year, which is nothing for
such things as a new language), and as .NET (in difference to Java) isn't
tied to one language it really doesn't matter if you prefer to develop in
VB, C++ or any other language you are more familiar with.
I personally like C#, but must at the same time admit that it's not anything
radically new, and more of a combination and evolution of C++, Java and
Delphi. The difference doesn't seems to be *that* big.
I think however that it's only a *good* thing that it gets to be a common
open standard like ECMA and ISO.
So no, I don't <shrug> at standards of languages I want to use... :-)
David H. McCoy
says...
At the risk of rehashing old arguments, few seem to be all that
interested in the multi-language abilities of .NET. I would love to see
the project that was written in even 3 of the languages .Net supports.
In addition, as I stated, as I've heard from several recruiters, ASP.NET
is gaining the biggest share and from what I've seen of the few projects
that are using it, they may be a bit...messy.
So again, <shrug>.
Martin Nisshagen
: At the risk of rehashing old arguments, few seem to be all that
: interested in the multi-language abilities of .NET. I would love to see
: the project that was written in even 3 of the languages .Net supports.
The idea isn't that you necessary must use all different languages at the
same time within the same project, but that you simply can choose the
language you find most appropriate.
: So again, <shrug>.
So even much more <shrug>,<shrug>,<shrug> & <shrug>.
;-)
David H. McCoy
says...
>
> "David H. McCoy" <fa...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1907c1326...@news.stardock.com...
>
> : At the risk of rehashing old arguments, few seem to be all that
> : interested in the multi-language abilities of .NET. I would love to see
> : the project that was written in even 3 of the languages .Net supports.
>
> The idea isn't that you necessary must use all different languages at the
> same time within the same project, but that you simply can choose the
> language you find most appropriate.
I know. And the language that most are overwhelmingly use is ASP.NET.
Pass.
> : So again, <shrug>.
>
> So even much more <shrug>,<shrug>,<shrug> & <shrug>.
>
> ;-)
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> m a r t i n | n
>
> --
> Martin Nisshagen
> http://194.236.153.211/
>
>
--
Martin Nisshagen
: > : At the risk of rehashing old arguments, few seem to be all that
: > : interested in the multi-language abilities of .NET. I would love to
see
: > : the project that was written in even 3 of the languages .Net supports.
: >
: > The idea isn't that you necessary must use all different languages at
the
: > same time within the same project, but that you simply can choose the
: > language you find most appropriate.
:
: I know. And the language that most are overwhelmingly use is ASP.NET.
I think you really have misunderstood a lot of things.
ASP.NET isn't any general programming *language* (like C, C++, VB, C#, etc).
If you think about ASP.NET as the *API* in the .NET framework whose purpose
is to handle programming for HTML you perhaps get a better grip on what it
is.
It's a natural part of the *.NET Framework*, which in turn you can use with
any (or more correctly, a lot of) language.
: Pass.
Well, sorry to say; but no cigars for you. ;-)
Dan Holmes
> "David H. McCoy" <fa...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1907faa4c...@news.stardock.com...
>
> : > : At the risk of rehashing old arguments, few seem to be all that
> : > : interested in the multi-language abilities of .NET. I would love to
> see
> : > : the project that was written in even 3 of the languages .Net supports.
> : >
> : > The idea isn't that you necessary must use all different languages at
> the
> : > same time within the same project, but that you simply can choose the
> : > language you find most appropriate.
> :
While we are talking about this, i never understood the benefits of the
multi-language thing. So what. I can write in vb, c++, c#, cobol ....
Since they all compile to the intermediary code they are all basically
the same. How would LISP or Prolog do?
It would seem there would have been more advantage (from the developer's
POV) in the java approach. Vary the OS and keep the same language.
dan
Carsten Hintz
>
>
> While we are talking about this, i never understood the benefits of the
> multi-language thing. So what. I can write in vb, c++, c#, cobol ....
> Since they all compile to the intermediary code they are all basically
> the same. How would LISP or Prolog do?
>
> It would seem there would have been more advantage (from the developer's
> POV) in the java approach. Vary the OS and keep the same language.
>
> dan
>
things are only different to a certain degree comparing .NET and Java.
learning a little about the dark side these days I have to admit that
usage of one or the other, as always, is mostly a matter of personal
taste and less of project requirements.
while each advocacys' focus is a little different due to the strategic
interests of the main player behind, 'Java' stands for the language as
well as the platform and thus for a counterpart to c# as well as to .NET.
coming back to your point: you can write software for the 'Java
platform' that is, produce bytecode for the JVM in a lot more languages
than the 'Java language'. I do not know if there are more programming
languages for use with the Java or the .NET VM right now, but I have
personally seen projects using Python and NetREXX. I know that at least
Pascal[precicely Oberon I guess] and BASIC dialects exist as well. do a
Google for yourself.
I exspect that while the focus will stay on MS Windows .NET and C# both
will eveolve to technologies that could be used beyond their initial
platform. from a technical and license point of view nothing speaks
against this, but wheather the potentially interested communities on
Linux, BSD, [eCS - that, of course, is dead anyway and thus does not
matter] will jump on it remains to be seen.
until development paradigms shift again (maybe to PL/I or something
completely new) we all share at least our common design patterns.
happy eastern,
Carsten
Martin Nisshagen
"Carsten Hintz" <Carste...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:3E9EB092...@gmx.de...
: Linux, BSD, [eCS - that, of course, is dead anyway and thus does not
: matter] will jump on it remains to be seen.
Why I personally doesn't currently run either OS/2 or eCS I don't think I
really see the future for eCS as dark as that. I think the could have a
small, but realistic, chance to survive.
I'm a little bit curious how come you have this (imho) *very* pessimistic
view?
Martin Nisshagen
"Dan Holmes" <danh...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:76mW6sNB...@prospero.stardock.local...
: While we are talking about this, i never understood the benefits of the
: multi-language thing. So what. I can write in vb, c++, c#, cobol ....
: Since they all compile to the intermediary code they are all basically
: the same. How would LISP or Prolog do?
:
: It would seem there would have been more advantage (from the developer's
: POV) in the java approach. Vary the OS and keep the same language.
You could see the .NET platform as the "OS" (either as a virtual one, or on
Windows specifically as the .NET API replacing the old Win32 API -- that how
I personally view it), and I don't think too many people would think it
would "help" Windows, or for that matter other systems like Linux, if you
forbid developers to use anything other than one language you have decided
will fit everyone and all needs.
I haven't seen Sun forbidding everything else but Java for Solaris
developers.
The reality isn't so simple that you always can use just one language
optimally for all solutions and in all cases. That's why you in addition to
C have such languages as Pascal, Perl, Smalltalk, Prolog, Lisp, REXX,
JavaScript, PHP, ML, TCL, Gopher, Eiffel, etc. Each one has different
advantages in different situations and are more or less optimal at solving
specific type of problems (be it general business client server,
mathematical, text manipulation, AI, natural languages, etc).
To think that one language (like Java, for example) can solve all
programming needs optimally in the whole world is just as stupid as thinking
that one operating system (like Windows XP, for example) can solve all OS
needs in the whole world.
David H. McCoy
says...
>
> "David H. McCoy" <fa...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1907faa4c...@news.stardock.com...
>
> : > : At the risk of rehashing old arguments, few seem to be all that
> : > : interested in the multi-language abilities of .NET. I would love to
> see
> : > : the project that was written in even 3 of the languages .Net supports.
> : >
> : > The idea isn't that you necessary must use all different languages at
> the
> : > same time within the same project, but that you simply can choose the
> : > language you find most appropriate.
> :
> : I know. And the language that most are overwhelmingly use is ASP.NET.
>
> I think you really have misunderstood a lot of things.
You would think incorrectly.
> ASP.NET isn't any general programming *language* (like C, C++, VB, C#, etc).
>
> If you think about ASP.NET as the *API* in the .NET framework whose purpose
> is to handle programming for HTML you perhaps get a better grip on what it
> is.
I understand exactly what ASP.NET is. This is why I don't want to use
it. If you want to, knock yourself out.
> It's a natural part of the *.NET Framework*, which in turn you can use with
> any (or more correctly, a lot of) language.
>
> : Pass.
>
> Well, sorry to say; but no cigars for you. ;-)
I'll live.
> Best regards,
>
> m a r t i n | n
>
> --
> Martin Nisshagen
> http://194.236.153.211/
>
>
--
Martin Nisshagen
: In article <6fqJ8bKB...@prospero.stardock.local>, mn...@msn.com
[ snip on discussion about C# and the possibility to use other languages i .
NET ]
: > : I know. And the language that most are overwhelmingly use is ASP.NET.
: >
: > I think you really have misunderstood a lot of things.
:
: You would think incorrectly.
*ROTFL*
As you compare ASP.NET (.NET FW API) as an alternative to C#, and calls it a
language it's quite obvious for anyone who has followed this thread (and has
some clue about .NET) that your talking horse manure.
: > ASP.NET isn't any general programming *language* (like C, C++, VB, C#,
etc).
: >
: > If you think about ASP.NET as the *API* in the .NET framework whose
purpose
: > is to handle programming for HTML you perhaps get a better grip on what
it
: > is.
:
: I understand exactly what ASP.NET is. This is why I don't want to use
Obviously *NOT*.
It's quite fascinating how you continues to make fool of your self, even if
you completely lost your self in the discussion.
: it. If you want to, knock yourself out.
That has nothing to do with it. Bad and completely irrelevant argument.
I'm not trying to advocate ASP.NET. I'm just trying to correct the very
basic misconceptions you have about it.
: > It's a natural part of the *.NET Framework*, which in turn you can use
with
: > any (or more correctly, a lot of) language.
: >
: > : Pass.
: >
: > Well, sorry to say; but no cigars for you. ;-)
:
: I'll live.
So does Tim Martin.
Carsten Hintz
> "Carsten Hintz" <Carste...@gmx.de> wrote in message
> news:3E9EB092...@gmx.de...
>
> : Linux, BSD, [eCS - that, of course, is dead anyway and thus does not
> : matter] will jump on it remains to be seen.
>
> Why I personally doesn't currently run either OS/2 or eCS I don't think I
> really see the future for eCS as dark as that. I think the could have a
> small, but realistic, chance to survive.
>
> I'm a little bit curious how come you have this (imho) *very* pessimistic
> view?
>
sorry, I should have given it a smiley, but giving this statement
myself, I was (successfully as it seems) hoping to avoid being jumped
upon by people who belive whoever takes eCS serious cannot be right at all.
this wouldn' thave been the first time, you know?
anyway, back to the point: while I am not against C# or .NET from a
technical point of view, I disagree a bit with the oppinion you stated
in the OS/2 newsservers about .NET and OS/2 / eCS. I think it will not
be as easy as you seem to think and I think (until now, at least) it
will not be as usefull as you seem to think.
and while for the stratigic advantage for eCS I would perhaps like to be
proven wrong, personalle I do not, because my 6,5 years of Java know-how
would be loosing value rapidly. :-)
kind regards,
Carsten
Martin Nisshagen
: sorry, I should have given it a smiley, but giving this statement
: myself, I was (successfully as it seems) hoping to avoid being jumped
: upon by people who belive whoever takes eCS serious cannot be right at
all.
:
: this wouldn' thave been the first time, you know?
Yes, I can fully understand that (some people in this group somtimes tends
to be very single minded and often see things as only black or white)! On
the *positive* side it looks like eCS 1.1 has got some good reviews (unless
your Tim Martin who reads them, that is) and soon will be out as a packaged
product for sale.
: anyway, back to the point: while I am not against C# or .NET from a
: technical point of view, I disagree a bit with the oppinion you stated
: in the OS/2 newsservers about .NET and OS/2 / eCS. I think it will not
: be as easy as you seem to think and I think (until now, at least) it
I agree it migth not be easy. It probabaly won't.
I just think it has a more realistic chance than Win32 (that is fully and
error free implemented) ever will have on OS/2 and eCS. On the good side the
Linux (by KDE people) and BSD (by Microsoft) implementations seems to be
open source and provide a good starting point. It also helps that the
documentation about it is very open (and standard) in difference to Win32.
It also helps that it's a lot "cleaner" (not as many messy and disorginaized
API's as Win32).
: will not be as usefull as you seem to think.
I also agree it's of very little value today, but I think it has a very good
chance to be of great value in the future. And buildning a good
implementation could take a couple of years (just look how long Odin has
been a work in progress, and even today it's very incomplete for direct use
by normal end users, which was it's original goal -- not to be a porting
tool kit like it's main use is today).
: and while for the stratigic advantage for eCS I would perhaps like to be
: proven wrong, personalle I do not, because my 6,5 years of Java know-how
: would be loosing value rapidly. :-)
No risk at all I would say. In difference to perhaps other ".NET advocates"
I actually don't think .NET have any chance to kill of Java (especially at
the server side). I think Java will continue to grow in the market even
more.
What I do think is that (for most normal projects) .NET will gradually (and
slowly in the beginning) replace todays Win32 API for buildning applications
for Windows. For most sensible Windows developers it's value over Win32 will
be too great to ignore.
That said I don't think Win32 will die for any forseeable future. Even if
normal desktop productivity applicartions will benefit from it, you will
still have some areas who need the more system-closer Win32 API ,like for
example Anti-Virus applications, games who needs maximum performance, disk
utilties, graphical enhancers of the type Brad develops, etc.
But those type of applications (who absolutley needs to use Win32) will
probably not be so interesting to run on OS/2 or eCS anyway. But (imho that
is) running more office type or in house client-server applications build
for "Windows" .NETwould on the other hand (my opinion again) make or break
the future for OS/2 and eCS as a normal desktop OS.
David H. McCoy
says...
>
> "David H. McCoy" <fa...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.190932be8...@news.stardock.com...
> : In article <6fqJ8bKB...@prospero.stardock.local>, mn...@msn.com
>
> [ snip on discussion about C# and the possibility to use other languages i .
> NET ]
>
> : > : I know. And the language that most are overwhelmingly use is ASP.NET.
> : >
> : > I think you really have misunderstood a lot of things.
> :
> : You would think incorrectly.
>
> *ROTFL*
>
> As you compare ASP.NET (.NET FW API) as an alternative to C#, and calls it a
> language it's quite obvious for anyone who has followed this thread (and has
> some clue about .NET) that your talking horse manure.
C# major role in "life" is to be used for .NET programming. .NET beyond
ASP.NET has failed to garner any major or even minor interest.
Therefore, if I wanted to do say, client programming, C# is not much of
an option, from a career perspective anyway.
For web based programming, I find J2EE and thus Java a much more
compelling and mature offering and I'll wager that those who engage in
ASP.NET will avoid C#.
Therefore, I say <shrug>. Who cares if a language that isn't getting
much play is a standard?
Do you understand now, or should I spell it out for you, in between your
alternating bouts of fascination and obnoxiousness?
Steve Wendt
> I just think it has a more realistic chance than Win32 (that is fully and
> error free implemented) ever will have on OS/2 and eCS. On the good side the
Somehow I doubt there will be enough interest to do this on OS/2. Maybe
things will change in a couple years (but personally I doubt it).
> Linux (by KDE people) and BSD (by Microsoft) implementations seems to be
> open source and provide a good starting point.
If you are referring to Mono, that is done by Ximian, not "KDE people".
Martin Nisshagen
: > As you compare ASP.NET (.NET FW API) as an alternative to C#, and calls
it a
: > language it's quite obvious for anyone who has followed this thread (and
has
: > some clue about .NET) that your talking horse manure.
: Therefore, if I wanted to do say, client programming, C# is not much of
: an option, from a career perspective anyway.
Then say *that* (even if I don't necessary agree with that, as it's quite
too early for anyone to tell such things), and (1) don't compare apple with
oranges, and (2) calling things for what their obviously not. This just
confuses both me (who has to respond to all your drivel) and possibly other
readers who isn't very well versed in what .NET is (and not so strange as
it's very new).
[ snip on typical McCoy insults instead of any real arguments ]
Don't try to reverse the responsibility for your poor way of "expressing
yourself" (to put it very mildly, I see it as pure misconceptions from your
side).
It doesn't look any better for you by trying to hide or excuse that fact by
adding some poor insults to you posting.
David H. McCoy
says...
>
> "David H. McCoy" <fa...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.190a65656...@news.stardock.com...
>
> : > As you compare ASP.NET (.NET FW API) as an alternative to C#, and calls
> it a
> : > language it's quite obvious for anyone who has followed this thread (and
> has
> : > some clue about .NET) that your talking horse manure.
>
> : Therefore, if I wanted to do say, client programming, C# is not much of
> : an option, from a career perspective anyway.
>
> Then say *that* (even if I don't necessary agree with that, as it's quite
> too early for anyone to tell such things), and (1) don't compare apple with
> oranges, and (2) calling things for what their obviously not. This just
> confuses both me (who has to respond to all your drivel) and possibly other
> readers who isn't very well versed in what .NET is (and not so strange as
> it's very new).
I did say that. You are dense and I'm bored. Bye.
Martin Nisshagen
: > : Therefore, if I wanted to do say, client programming, C# is not much
of
: > : an option, from a career perspective anyway.
: >
: > Then say *that* (even if I don't necessary agree with that, as it's
quite
: > too early for anyone to tell such things), and (1) don't compare apple
with
: > oranges, and (2) calling things for what their obviously not. This just
: I did say that.
In your *last* post; yes. It "only" took you 6 posts to be able to do that.
[ snip on yet more typical insults and personal attacks from McCoy ]
You clearly seems to belong to that special part of the population who
thinks that throwing insults against each other is the same as being able to
argue and reason, while in reality it just goes to show that group of
peoples lesser capabilities compared to the rest of the population.
: Bye.
Bye, bye.
Steve Wendt
> You clearly seems to belong to that special part of the population who
> thinks that throwing insults against each other is the same as being able to
> argue and reason, while in reality it just goes to show that group of
> peoples lesser capabilities compared to the rest of the population.
This is why it is pointless to have a discussion with him. Although, I
do happen to agree with him on this particular topic - but all I really
have to offer at the moment are some links:
http://builder.com.com/article.jhtml?id=u00220030407R4B01.htm
http://www.arctecgroup.net/articles.htm
David H. McCoy
spa...@forgetit.org says...
For the record, if you go back in read the post you'll see that Martin
said several times that I was making a fool of myself. It is interesting
that he can call me a fool, but when I say he's obnoxious for this, I'm
being insulting.
Regardless, despite his obnoxious edit of my point, I stand behind my
reasons for the shrugging off of C#. As for Martin, I don't argue with
dicks.
Martin Nisshagen
: In article <Ig7fPyw...@prospero.stardock.local>,
: For the record, if you go back in read the post you'll see that Martin
: said several times that I was making a fool of myself. It is interesting
Yes, as you typically "argue" with name calling, and not any real arguments
I do happens to think that you, and for that matter all other people who
resort to the same thing, do make a fool of themselves. I also happens to
think that I'm probably not the only person who feels that way.
: that he can call me a fool, but when I say he's obnoxious for this, I'm
: being insulting.
See my comment above -- see your comment below.
: As for Martin, I don't argue with dicks.
Well, here we go again... (case proved once more).
Martin Nisshagen
"Steve Wendt" <spa...@forgetit.org> wrote in message
news:EesRqvgB...@prospero.stardock.local...
: Martin Nisshagen wrote:
:
: > I just think it has a more realistic chance than Win32 (that is fully
and
: > error free implemented) ever will have on OS/2 and eCS. On the good side
the
:
: Somehow I doubt there will be enough interest to do this on OS/2. Maybe
: things will change in a couple years (but personally I doubt it).
I agree 100%!
I discussed this idea over at ecomstation.advocacy, and made exactly the
point that while I think it could be done technically it will very probably
never happen due to lack of interest (too much politics and emotions at
stake).
And my second theory is that if it will ever get any interest (say that OS/2
and eCS people happens to wake up in five years and see a lot of .NET
applications for Windows) it will be way too late to be useful in time to
help OS/2 and eCS.
While it's fully technical possible to do such a thing (and as I claimed I
think the task is much easier than a full Win32 implementation), it will
take a lot of time, especially as the OS/2 and eCS community and it's
resources are much smaller than the Linux/BSD one -- and time is something
who is running out for them.
To sum it up: while I think the idea to be able to run .NET applications on
OS/2 and eCS would be of great future value for it's desktop users, I
absolutely don't think it will ever happen.
: > Linux (by KDE people) and BSD (by Microsoft) implementations seems to be
: > open source and provide a good starting point.
:
: If you are referring to Mono, that is done by Ximian, not "KDE people".
Yes, thanks for the correction.
Even if it has some relations to possible future KDE development, I fully
agree it was the wrong term used by me here.
I did however provide (much earlier in this thread) the link to the Ximian
Mono site. They have a very good FAQ at their site describing this.
Martin Nisshagen
: Martin Nisshagen wrote:
:
: > You clearly seems to belong to that special part of the population who
: > thinks that throwing insults against each other is the same as being
able to
: > argue and reason, while in reality it just goes to show that group of
: > peoples lesser capabilities compared to the rest of the population.
:
: This is why it is pointless to have a discussion with him. Although, I
Indeed. He seems to be notorious.
But as I tried to communicate to him (but he as usual didn't manage to get
it at all); the only person he makes a fool of by resorting to that type of
name calling is actually himself.
: do happen to agree with him on this particular topic - but all I really
I actually don't happen to agree or disagree with regards to the value of
ASP.NET -- I haven't used it myself and have no base to make up any personal
opinion about it.
What I don't like is when people either lie or (out of knowledge) mixes up
things and concepts (as he clearly has been doing in this thread -- as
pointed out earlier by me) -- that's not for the gain of anyone --
regardless if they happens like or dislike the products and/or concepts
being discussed.