begin quoting Andrew Lentvorski as of Wed, May 16, 2007 at 12:49:58PM -0700: > Stewart Stremler wrote: > >begin quoting Ralph Shumaker as of Wed, May 16, 2007 at 09:55:48AM -0700: > >[snip] > >>What is C#? Is it C++? I'm guessing it's something different. > > > >C# is M$'s (J++)++. > > > >When Sun kept M$ from "embracing and extending" Java, M$ went off and > >built C#. It's like Java with more bells and whistles and less > >readability, security, and portability. > > Ah, Stewart, what would we do without you ... ;)
You'd forget that there are people tilting at windmills? :) > To be fair, C#, the language, is okay. People I trust describe it as > Java done right. <shudder> God no. Then again, I don't like C++. If the people you trust like C++, then yeah, I could see how they'd prefer C#. Me... I'm still uncertain I approve of the changes in Java 1.6 -- I fear that the C++ junkies are attempting to ruin Java's _best_ feature. > The problem with it is Microsoft. Even if it weren't, I'd not like it. > First, a language is useless without libraries. So, C# is coupled with > .NET (or whatever flavor-of-the-day Microsoft is shilling). And .NET is > almost certainly covered by patents which Microsoft can defend. IMO, > this is actually why Novell needed the Microsoft deal. Could be. > Second, one of the problems with Java uptake was the fact that it has a > decent security model. It actually prevents things from unilaterally > taking over your computer. Of course, this means that it gets in the > way and you get lots of annoying "permission dialogs" to authorize > various operations. Microsoft learned the lesson and while C# *can* > present a security model, it normally runs with no protection at maximum > permission level for "ease of use". The problem with the Java security model is that it's *too* flexible; it's hard to define a decent policy without doing a lot of digging into what is necessary and how. A good, basic, graphical security model for the "average" end-user is what Java needs. The average user's security needs are simple, really. Part of the problem is also that programs can *tell* if they're allowed to do something. This is a more general problem that darn few operating systems have solved, and it wasn't one of the concerns of the JVM. Pity. > In that respect, it is like Flash and Javascript. They both run at the > native permission level of the user and can commandeer your machine. These may be features for market success, but not for my acceptance. :-/ Then again, I think owners of zombie machines ought to be liable for damages if they don't fix 'em. Put the incentive on the people who can solve the problem. But that's just me -- I'm mean. > Flash can actually access your microphone and webcam without your > permission. If that doesn't scare you, I don't know what will. Indeed it does. I'm wondering about getting a new laptop, and the new macs have this handy-dandy built-in camera.... -- I want physical switches to microphones and cameras, please. Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
