Your point is not very convincing, all depends what kind of application needs to created. For e.g. it may be practical to use Solr or anything else which does exist in .Net world. Otherwise each time we to have search for a substitute ( which may be non-existent even in a class of non-free applications ). As we are in Lucene list very simple example to justify JVM on one's box is Luke.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Granroth, Neal V. < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No the CLR is not pointless; but I think maybe there is a misunderstanding > about what it was intended to do. Common-language only means languages > which conform to Microsoft's Common Language Specification. Just because > some tool generates valid IL does not mean that the generated code is > CLS-compliant. > In the environment in which I work, the CLR's strategic importance is that > it provides a Microsoft alternative to the JVM. There is now no longer any > excuse (from the "IT god's" perspective) for me to have Sun's JVM installed, > or design products that depend upon it. > > -- Neal > > -----Original Message----- > From: Smiley, David W. (DSMILEY) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 3:52 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Why translated to C#? Doesn't the CLR avoid the need for > ports? > Importance: Low > > A disappointing conclusion one could draw from all the reactions to my > question is that the usefulness of a common-language-runtime is flawed and > pointless. Personally, I'm not willing to accept that. Do you guys > believe > that or is Lucene atypical or...? > > ~ David > >
