Peter da Silva wrote:
Luckily, the autobahns were open systems...
Not for Jews. Not until Hitler was dead. Well, if Microsoft dies, we'll be left
with the open specification of .NET. About as open as POSIX and more open than
Java, isn't it?
In practice, it doesn't matter today, since the only practically usable
implementation is on Windows. But that has to do with maturity, not with the
"open systems" mantra.
Of course C++ is more like a bunch of temporary military roads and emergency
pontoon bridges that you drive over in convoys so you've got all the kit you
need for field-expedient repairs. But at least anyone can hitch a ride.
If these were the only options I would be in despair, rather than simply
depressed that people honestly think these are the only options.
Of course there are other options. I just happened to mention Visual C++ as an
example and got a reply about C#. Since apparently we have another thread
converging to a programming language flame war, perhaps you can share your tools
of choice for the job of implementing large software systems with GUI and
networking, for example.
Good tools are a good thing, if they're not part of a lock-in strategy.
"Good roads are a good thing, if they're not part of a Nazi strategy".
Anyway, I replied to a "whole new broken development environment" claim, not "a
good tool which is made by Microsoft and is thus evil" claim.
Why isn't any system with a language (such as x86-compatible hardware, or any
operating system exposing system calls, or any editor with it's set of commands
and menus) "a part of a lock-in strategy"? I can only easily switch to a program
if it's compatible to the one I use today.
So MS Office is surely a part of a lock-in strategy, since the formats are not
documented, and it's hard to make a compatible program. But C# and .NET are
documented, so why are they a part of a lock-in strategy more than C and Unix,
or any program for that matter?
