Matt Liotta wrote:
> Is C# of, related to, or suggestive of a proprietor or to proprietors
> as a group? I don't see how.
> Is C# exclusively owned? Certainly not.
> Is C# owned by a private individual or corporation under a trademark or
> patent? Again no.
>
> See what I don't think you seem to understand is that Microsoft doesn't
> own C#; no one does. Microsoft does own a specific implementation of C#
> known as Visual C#, which btw is trademarked.
Is Java of, related to, or suggestive of a proprietor or to proprietors
as a group? I don't see how not.
Is Java exclusively owned? Certainly yes.
Is Java owned by a private individual or corporation under a trademark
or patent? Again yes.
See what I don't think you seem to understand is that Sun owns Java; no
one else.
(it's like kids in the playground, no?)
> So just to be clear, C# is not proprietary; it is a ECMA standard.
> Microsoft Visual C# is proprietary and is an implementation of an ECMA
> standard.
Do you really believe that C# would be anything without Microsoft?? And
would Microsoft's abandonment of C# in favour of a new language not see
the decline of C# and the emergence of that new language?? (As we've
seen with the emergence of C#)
And if C# were abandoned on Windows by Microsoft, that would likely
spell the immediate decline and eventual demise of the language on that
platform. So the fact that the language is a "standard" and not owned
by anyone in the sense of the law, it still is nevertheless owned by
Microsoft in every other sense.
Seems to me like Java /feels/ less "proprietary" than C#. But what
would I know, eh.
Again what I tried to say in a jovial response originally with regard to
*ColdFusion* is that being "proprietary" has little bearing on the
success or failure of a programming language. Certainly we've been
given ample examples over the last decade.
-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
