 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The kindly Rev. overheard "Ben Martens" <bma### [at] purdue edu> saying
on 02 Nov 2001:
> I'm tossing around ideas for a .NET programming contest. One idea
> was to build a distributed POV system based on .NET.
You have, I trust, seen the latest jolly little prank where somebody
can snarf your whole Passport wallet, credit cards and all, by having
you read a message in hotmail?
If you've put any credit card data into Passport, cancel the cards now.
If you've put your email address into Passport, close your account and
get another ISP. If you've put your snailmail address into Passport,
burn down your house and move. It's the only way to be sure.
It *might* be sensible for people to use .NET if we could be sure it
would never be connected to any network. In fact, it was designed to
operate exactly that way, but when the security wizards at Microsoft
tried to lock it down, it somehow appeared on every website on the net.
I'd write more temperate, sensible reasons why I'd rather have my
privates squeezed in a vise than have anything to do with .NET, but the
NIMDA worm is clobbering my router again.
--
Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen
crispen at hiwaay dot net
Chaos, panic, & disorder - my work here is done.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ben Martens wrote:
>
> This is great. Thank you for all the advice (and I'm always open to more!)
> I just wanted to address the .NET question...
>
> Chris wrote:
> >> .NET? Cross Platform? I didn't think these could be held in the same
> thought.
>
> .NET, contrary to what the anti-Microsoft press would lead you to believe,
> IS very cross platform. That is the beauty of it. I'm still learning about
> it, but basically you can write in any language. Those chunks you make from
> different languages can all interact in the same program seemlessly. This
> is because .NET compiles to an intermediate language. After the program is
> in that intermediate language, any platform with the .NET framework can run
> it. Obviously they the Windows one is already working. I know a Linux port
> is in the works, and I think a Mac one may be finished already(?). It's
> really very neat technology. As I mentioned, I'm just starting to learn, but
> the bottom half sounds similar to Java. Except that this actually works.
> Sun had so many chances with Java but screwed them all up and never
> delivered on their promises about true cross-platform, etc... but I don't
> want to start a flame war.
>
> Thanks again for the help,
> -Ben
Not very nice to write an ultra-polemical text and then say
"But please don't answer".
Today, .NET is mono-platform. Dot. No other OS supports today. Dot.
What other OS will support in the future is unknown and should not
be relied upon.
You can't write in any language. You can write in a lot of .NETted
languages. Yes, they resemble a lot the languages they derived from
(Cobol.NET, ha!), but they're not the same. Important note: you
just can't use an existing program, even if it is written in a
langugage the .NET platform supports: You have to rewrite some parts
(or most?) of its code.
As you said, you're just starting to learn. .NET might well be a
nice platform, but don't take everything Microsoft marketing
tells you for granted. C#.NET, the existing .NET platform and
Windows, and ASP.NET. This is what is working right now, and it's
rather good. The rest of it is still a bit... vaporous.
The part about Java is pure Microsoft-induced non-sense. Java
is not perfectly cross-platform, granted. But it is infinitely
more than .NET. And it works (.NET too).
--
Adrien Beau adr### [at] freefr http://adrien.beau.free.fr/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The kindly Rev. overheard Adrien Beau <adr### [at] freefr> saying on
09 Nov 2001:
> You can't write in any language. You can write in a lot of .NETted
> languages. Yes, they resemble a lot the languages they derived from
> (Cobol.NET, ha!), but they're not the same. Important note: you
> just can't use an existing program, even if it is written in a
> langugage the .NET platform supports: You have to rewrite some
> parts (or most?) of its code.
Somehow, I think the rush into C# may be something well short of a
stampede. Can you say "Visual J++" boys and girls? Too many bright
young kids developed great little applications in VJ++ and were shocked
to discover they'd have to do a port to Java if they expected their
apps to interoperate with web browsers or run on other platforms, and
that the port was far from straightforward or easy.
Still, having learned Forth and the assembly language for several
vanished machines, I don't suppose I can reasonably say that it's a bad
idea to learn any programming language.
--
Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen
crispen at hiwaay dot net
Nature abhors a vacuum. Then again, so does my dog.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen" wrote:
>
> Somehow, I think the rush into C# may be something well short of a
> stampede.
I think it will happen, perhaps not as fast as Microsoft
marketing dreams of it. Of course, everybody knows that
C# is roughly Java, but without those bastar-- err nice
people at Sun going to court everytime you try to "innovate".
I have not tried it, but know colleagues who have, and it
is a vast improvement over VB they say. This is actually
one of the few good technologies of .NET.
> Still, having learned Forth and the assembly language for several
> vanished machines, I don't suppose I can reasonably say that it's a bad
> idea to learn any programming language.
Why program when Microsoft and friends can do it for you? ;-)
Just click there, please. And no, this is only possible to
do in the pro version...
Followup set to off-topic, but I don't read it, so mail me
directly if you prefer.
--
Adrien Beau adr### [at] freefr http://adrien.beau.free.fr/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
