Wed Jun 30 17:35:41 NZST 2004
> Mono sounds like an excellent idea, and a better option for "write
> once, publish on Windows and Linux" which could well mean we can
> migrate software away from depending on a Windows platform.
You have a problem: what software would you like to move from Windows
to non-Windows that is currently written in C#. On the other hand,
Java is a mature platform supported on most operating systems.
> It was always Microsoft's "stated goal" to let other people build
> .NET VM's, and the specs are published.
Same for Sun and the JVM. There is no shortage of high-quality JVMs.
> I realise that the major
> complaint is that Microsoft could take it all away at any time, but
> to someone who hasn't looked in detail, it sounds that "C# is more
> open than Java".
They don't have to take it all away, they just have to add proprietory
extensions. What's Miguel gonna do then? Reverse engineer? I comment
on CIFS below.
How is "C# more open than Java"?
> I believe that what they've implemented of the Mono class libraries
> are from the published spec; what Samba have implemented is largely
> reverse engineered.
IIRC, MS published the CIFS and then added their propriety extensions.
Catchup time. They will do the same with .NET. And I don't blame them
-- their reason for being is to make money. So if they succeed in
making Java software less pervasive, good on them. By the way, can we
export Word documents to XML yet? More than 5 years since MS said
that feature would be available.
To MS: thanks for coming, but I prefer my freedoms.
To Craig: I think you've bought it buddy :-)
More information about the wlug
NOTICE: This is an archive of a public mailing list. The University of Waikato is not responsible for its contents.