Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> > I think portability isn't a binary quality.  You seem to be saying that
> > any turing-complete language is equally portable because you could write
> > an interpreter for it in some other language.  So why do people complain
> > about C# being microsoft-only? :-)
>
> Because they're lazy-a** b****es who would rather complain about ideals
> than get real work done?

No, I'd say it's because C# the language is about as useful as Java the
language:  not at all!  Both don't work outside their humongous associated
libraries/frameworks.

So, commiting to implemente said "languages" -- for them to be useful to
developers -- is commiting to implement not just a parser anb compiler but also
all the cruft people expect.  And guess what?!  C# is an ECMA standard, but not
..NET!  Thus, implementing a C# compiler by itself is not that useful.  Unless
you wish to follow a "standard" dictated by a single company with its
well-known forced upgrade cycle and be always left way behind.

Or simply ship a free compiler and help spread C# apps that require a licensed
framework to run.

Post a reply to this message