| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft is programming the programmers | |
|
||
| Time: 00:55 EST/05:55 GMT | News Source: InfoWorld | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
Chris Williamson, president and founder of DreamQuest, a smallish gaming company, tells me that he is getting pushed by new hires to use Microsoft C# and the .Net Framework. “It’s a smart strategy. When they come into a company like ours,” one that can’t pay the big salaries, “we listen to them,” Williamson explains. “We want them to be excited.” The smart strategy Williamson refers to is not DreamQuest’s but Microsoft’s. It revolves around intense marketing efforts at the college level to get computer science and engineering students excited about Microsoft’s programming and design products. The company holds student contests with cash prizes and Xbox giveaways to the best program written in C# for the .Net platform. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 308 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:00:09 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 12071 (203.217.64.250) at 11/28/2003 7:59:32 AM |
|
#1 "Don't say java, its propriety, not standard."
Always the same comment from you mOOzilla. How much of C# is "standard"? Exactly! How about the latest additions (generics)... are they "standard" yet? no they aren't! Yes, you're right Java is not a "standard" even though there is a recognised JCP for requesting/adding new features in. "For Windows, this will be the ONLY option for developing soon." Agree! And .NET is a great platform to write code for, make no mistake about it. Except if you want your application to run on a non-Windows OS... and don't bother mentioning mono etc, they will never fully support everything in .NET or even the important elements (GUI for example) since those are not STANDARD! "Those that live in the unmanaged era are either egotistical or old timers." Funny, it wasn't too long ago that everyone was whinging about managed code, funny how things change as soon as Microsoft get on-board! |
| #2 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 11/28/2003 8:42:46 AM |
|
kabuki,
All of C# was standardized by ECMA and ISO. The changes in C# 2.0 were submitted nearly a year ago and are in the process of adoption (from Anders at PDC 2003). I think you mean how much of the BCL is standardized. On that point, you are correct, not all of the BCL has been standardized. |
| #3 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 11/28/2003 8:46:20 AM |
|
deth,
I don't have the ref ATM, but I can get it if you want it. de Iccaza (sp?) said in his blog after PDC that Mono will never be 100% compliant with the .NET Framework. First, it'll always be playing catch up. Second, it'll only do a subset of the framework. Since NetFX 2.0 ("Whidbey") will be out in less than 12 months, I also wonder what you mean by happy few years. I'm not sure I agree (or disagree for that matter) with your assessment of Microsoft's intent in supporting Mono. Still, it's an interesting thought. |
| #4 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 11/28/2003 8:53:29 AM |
|
oops, missed one kabuki.
People didn't whine about Java (I'm assuming you were referring to Java) because it was managed. They complained because, among other things, it was slow as dirt. Many of the reasons people, myself included, had for not using Java do not exist with .NET. .NET has far better client-side perf than what you typically get with Java, even using 1.4.x. .NET apps typically look like Windows apps. They don't use custom UI widgets that make the app look out of place on the rest of the OS. .NET, so far, doesn't have compatibility issues from version to version that Java has had (this might change in the future with .NET, but so far it hasn't). .NET isn't ashamed to be specific to a platform and exploit all the functionality of that platform. It doesn't recommend that you conform to the lowest common denominator. Even if you can't find everything you need in the BCL, you can very easily do unsafe code or P/Invoke to get OS specific functionality. In the Java world, this is generally recommended against. From my perspective, .NET delivers on a good deal that Java promised, but never delivered. |
| #5 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 11/28/2003 11:07:47 AM |
|
m00,
System.* is NOT the CLI spec. Only parts of it are. I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be. I'm say what is the case right now. Kabuki is right about that. Since the Microsoft.* namespaces is a set of valid .NET assemblies, you can call it from C# and bind yourself to it. In like manner, you can write VB.NET code only using the System.* namespaces and not be bound to it. Once your VB code is compiled, it'd have no dependency other than the System.*. Standarization doesn't prevent you from loosing support. It just lessens the likelihood of it happening. There is no gaurantee that anyone else will fully implement C#, just because it is a standard. There is no gaurantee that Java won't be supported forever, just because it isn't a standard. Since there is only one full implementation of the CLI and C# at present, that really blows a hole in your argument. That said, I'm a huge .NET fan, and all my new projects are exclusively C# projects. Still, I don't misrepresent the platform. |
| #6 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 11/28/2003 12:58:24 PM |
|
m00, what are you going on about?
Who but Microsoft has submitted anything regarding the CLI or C#? How many imlementations but Microsoft's are there of those specs? Just because VisualStudio 6 won't be supported in a few years, doesn't mean the code won't run perfectly well. Microsoft will likely support COM for the next few version of Windows at a minimum. I'd guess at least 10 years before COM is fully unsupported in Windows. Yeah, they are moving to managed code, but pre-.NET stuff is alive and well and will be for a long time to come. There are many Java compilers. There are many J2EE implementations. There are many non-Sun JVM implementations too. |
| #7 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 11/28/2003 4:37:37 PM |
|
I can understand why in certain circumstances people would want to choose a "standard" language like C over a proprietary language like VB.
What I don't understand is this incredible attitude that standards are the only way to go. What the hell do you think is going to happen? Microsoft is going to disappear? You think they're going to do something to the language that sucks? Give me a break. It's an irrational attitude. Sometimes standards are the way to go. Sometimes they're not. |
| #8 By 2960 (68.100.36.242) at 11/28/2003 5:21:55 PM |
|
I'm sorry, but this is NOT good for the computer industry as a whole.
This plan would work fine if Windows was the only platform in use, but it's not. Standardizing the 'industry' on a Windows-Only platform is not good for anyone (except Microsoft, of course). Now, if all this stuff is cross-platform, then forget I was here. TL |
| #9 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 11/28/2003 5:46:08 PM |
|
No its not the only way to go unless you want cross platform.
First of all, using standard languages like C does not get you cross platform compatibility. It takes a hell of a lot more than that. Basic java application are cross platform, but get into any even mildly complex J2EE apps, and you can forget any cross platform hopes. Lastly, the .NET language you choose many no difference. VB.NET, C#, C++, Python... they're all the same in the end. In fact, the following languages currently have mono-happy compilers: C# Component Pascal MonoLogo Oberon Forth Mono Basic Lisp Here is more info: http://www.go-mono.com/languages.html The fact you even said "VB.net on linux CLRs" shows your complete lack of understanding of how .NET works. |
| #10 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 11/29/2003 3:19:00 PM |
|
I won't get into whether .NET is standard (there is the CLI and C# language specis which are ISO and ECMA, way more than anything Java has), but it's quite obvious that saying Java is "Open" is complete BS.
While it is true that Sun allows 3rd parties input into the future paths of Java (as does MS with the ECMA committee), Sun remains in complete control of the Java copyrights and patents and has sole veto power over the Java standards committees. You can argue over which is "more open", but neither is truly open. Which is a good thing, IMHO because then you avoid the waffling and "coolest tech first" mentality of the open community. Java, though, could probably use some of that since it's floundering in terms of the latest, greatest technology. I would argue that .NET is more open in that the standards are published and there are real, demonstrated, and downloadable examples of 3rd party implementations running on other platforms. It's true though, that MS will be adding proprietary stuff on top of .NET, why shouldn't they? But all that stuff will be built on the core .NET framework which is standardized. There is nothing in the proprietary parts that couldn't be written similarly from the core framework. It's up to the individual 3rd party implementers to provide competing "products" with Windows Forms, ASP.NET, ADO.NET, etc. It seems, though, with .NET 1.2 (VS.NET Whidbey), that some of the core parts of those "products" will indeed merge deeper into the core framework and therefore become standardized. |
| #11 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 11/30/2003 6:29:00 PM |
|
The fact is that .NET is seriously cool.
|
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 308 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:00:09 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
