[OT] .NET (was: Re: JAVA on DebianPPC)
jtv wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 01:08:31PM +0200, David N. Welton wrote:
<snip>
>> This leaves you free to create derivates, but means that you can't
pollute
>> the standard.
>>
>
> Going by what little I've seen of C#, Eiffel# etc., Microsoft now
> seems to have gone this way, calling their version of the Java
> vision and runtime .NET and claiming to support a bunch of
> programming languages that had already been ported to the JVM
> anyway.
>
> Of course those "supported" languages were castrated to fit a
> JVM-like model and have lost some of their best features, but
> let's not get into that...
Right, nice FUD here. Usually it's the other way around... Read the FAQ
on go-mono.com and on http://www.southern-storm.com.au/portable_net.html
C# is a language on its own, which has as much to do with C as C++ does.
Other languages are wrapped using the CLI (Common Language Interface),
they're not a different language (same syntax, different standard
library and system calls, just like when you use bindings, but at a
lower-level). And programs can either be compiled native, or in a
bytecode that could run in a JIT, the JVM approach having been dismissed.
And better stop talking about this on this list.
Cheers
--
/Bastien Nocera
http://hadess.net
Reply to: