begin quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] as of Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 03:32:05PM -0800: > On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 12:21:11PM -0800, Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > > I'll bet this is all about Mono. There are almost certainly some things > > in C# that you cannot implement without stomping on Microsoft patents. > > Good point! I was wondering why Novel was worried about patents. > Then you reminded me of Mono. Does this deal mean Mono has no worries now? Only for Novell customers.
> > People warned the Mono guys about this. I never did understand why they > > thought C# was so much better than Java to warrant reimplementing it > > from scratch. Sun wouldn't let 'em embrace-and-extend. > I think the CLR is more suited to other languages then the JVM. I don't know > enough about innards of either to know if that holds water. I did talk to Jim > (Jython implementer) at PYCON and he was very impressed with CLR FWIW. Looking at the list of "other languages" for the JVM or wrapped around Java, I'd think the "more suited" argument is rather weak. Then again, it's my understanding that the security mechanisms in the CLR are more of the code-signing-for-full-access (required if you're going to support C code, I suspect) rather than the fine-grained control available with the JVM. A little poking of the web didn't reveal any interesting articles on CLR security. Oh, well. > Personally I don't find either language very exciting. Seems to me > a dynamically typed language is a better idea at this level. Depends on what you're trying to do, and who you're doing it with, and how long you expect your code to be used, and by whom. I'm getting to where I don't even like the implicit conversions of types; but then, this is working with other's code, rather than my own. When I'm working with my own code, of course I don't want types... it's *perfectly* clear what I'm trying to do, innit? > Sure, write all > your system code in C but write all your VM code in a dynamic language to save > developer time. Parrot is yet another VM that optimizes for dynamically typed > languages. > I'd love to see that succeed instead. Why "instead"? Why not "as well"? > I'm still waiting to actually see these mythical .NET apps that combine > libraries from 5+ languages seemlessly. I've mixed Fortran, C, and Pascal. Adding in C++ and Objective C gives you five languages with the standard .o format -- and then wrap it all up with TCL, and you get six! The advantage of .NET is entirely to Microsoft. -- _ |\_ \| -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
