> continuance of their Java fork. Their license precludes them
> from calling it Java, but that's where it comes from.
While there's some merit to what you say, I think it's a bit too much of an
oversimpification. A lot of the ideas implemented by the .NET Framework are
similar to those in Java, but they couldn't call it Java no matter what
their license says. It's not Java. It's not a continuance of a "Java fork".
Instead, it's a completely separate implementation of many of the best ideas
in Java.
> Heck, early releases of the .NET classes could be ran on a JVM.
I've never seen or heard of that, actually, but I suppose anything's
possible! However, while the .NET Framework and Java both have VMs, they're
different VMs.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
phone: 202-797-5496
fax: 202-797-5444
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
