ActiveMac - The Most Activated mac Resource

ActiveMac

User Controls

New User

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

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Links

Member Pages

Site Search

Awards

Credits
�1997/2004, Active Network. All Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by Designer Dream. Content written by the Active Network team. Please click here for full terms of use and restrictions or read our Privacy Statement.

Microsoft to score new C# standard

Time: 14:15 EST/19:15 GMT | News Source: News.com | Posted By: Byron Hinson

Microsoft on Tuesday said that the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in April will certify Microsoft's programming language C# (pronounced C sharp) and the Common Language Infrastructure (CLI), which is underlying software "plumbing" that can run applications written in different programming languages. The ISO standardization will ease Microsoft's entry into large corporations or governments that prefer certification of commercial products from international standards bodies, Microsoft executives said.

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying 1 through 25 of 325
Last | Next

The time now is 11:26:58 AM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us

#1 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 4/2/2003 5:42:04 PM

Score another one for the "proprietary" .NET.

But remember, Java is open because it has exactly zero standards.

#2 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at 4/2/2003 7:03:18 PM

Another score for C# and the CLI yes, there's a lot more in .NET that isn't being submitted to the standards board.

#3 By 2459 (24.170.151.19) at 4/2/2003 7:13:11 PM

It's more than what Sun has submitted (3 times nothing).

This, like C/C++ provides a base standard that can be implemented and extended by anyone. With Java, there is no such standard. If you want to build off of it, you have to go to Sun.

#4 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at 4/2/2003 7:43:43 PM

#3 I never said that it wasn't more than what Sun have done. But this story has nothing to do with Sun, daz decided to throw in a cheap shot for no apparent reason. My response to that was to say that .NET is still as propietary as it ever was, only C# and CLI, and I believe only parts of the CLI are actually standardized.

But if we were to talk about Sun, for argument's sake, then yes if you want to modify a key part then you have to go via the JCP. However if you just want to extend it then you can very easily do so but just including the extensions in your own package.

#5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/2/2003 8:18:53 PM

chris_kabuki - "But this story has nothing to do with Sun"

Well it obviously does, since .Net is a competitor to J2EE.

"My response to that was to say that .NET is still as propietary as it ever was"

But still less proprietary than Java.

"I believe only parts of the CLI are actually standardized"

The core grammar and CLR concepts. But everything else derives from that, so those are platform implementation issues, not standards issues.

That is the key difference between .Net and Java. What you don't seem to grok is that that is a good thing.

#6 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at 4/2/2003 8:37:13 PM

#5 So because .NET is a competitor to J2EE we should use every opportunity we get to try and create yet another .NET vs J2EE war? I guess that explains why you bring up Linux anytime anything gets mentioned about Windows or Microsoft in general.

"What you don't seem to grok is that that is a good thing."
I never said it wasn't a good thing. I do indeed see this as a very good thing, I think just about everyone does. I just do not see the need to try and turn it into yet another pointless and meaningless debate on the benefits of .NET vs J2EE and vice versa. Both have their strong points and neither does everything better than the other so what you will most likely find is that big business will use a mixture of the two.

#7 By 2459 (24.170.151.19) at 4/2/2003 8:49:02 PM

Actually, all of the CLI is standardized. The CLI is a subset of the CLR. The CLR is MS' implementation of the CLI, along with added functionality like COM interop and Windows Security Policy.

#8 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at 4/2/2003 10:09:26 PM

George, daz, whoever you are with two posts so far.... try and stay on topic and off trying to insult people. Do grow up.

As for what has been standardized, have a look at the standards yourself, they are available online:

C# Language Specification
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/ecma-334.htm

Common Language Infrastructure (CLI)
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/ecma-335.htm

As for what isn't standardized? Well everything but those two bits! e.g. Windows Forms, meaning that a project like Mono or dotGNU can implement their own Windows Forms package but it won't be standardized and Microsoft will be able to modify it whenever and however they see fit. What does this mean for the end developer if he/she is targetting both Windows and Mono (as an example) - it means they are practically limited to non GUI applications. And that's just one of the things that isn't standardized. Now I'm not saying that Microsoft should be made to standardize everything or nothing, but if you are going to say that Microsoft released something to that standards board keep it to C# and CLI rather than .NET - .NET is as prioprietary as it was.

This post was edited by chris_kabuki on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 at 22:25.

#9 By 2459 (24.170.151.19) at 4/2/2003 11:00:14 PM

.NET implements the CLI standard. If it is an implementation of the CLI standard, it isn't fully proprietary. There is a level of interop which can be achieved, and with the use of cross-platform GUI/sound libraries, etc., it is possible to create cross-platform apps. This is no different than the C/C++ standards.

If you want cross-platform apps, use widely available libraries/APIs like OpenGL or gtk#.
In practice, however, things like GUIs, audio, and other things close to an OS's architecture, are best implemented on a platform specific basis. This avoids having a too greatly generalized implementation that doesn't optimally map to the platform's native functionality. Although these things, and others, can always be implemented and submitted to the standards organization for consideration.

Example: DirectX 9 has a managed runtime which was built using the .NET Framework, but resides in a Microsoft namespace. This is not part of the CLI, and any applications utilizing the classes in this namespace will not run on non-Microsoft platforms. Should DX also be a part of the CLI? I say no because this is effectively a 3rd-party library. Just because Microsoft is the originator of the platform doesn't mean that anything they build for their implementation to support their OS should be part of the standard. Including librarys that are not a part of the CLI doesn't make the entire implementation proprietary because the implementation still maintains compliance with the standard. Again, this is no different that C/C++ compilers that include extra libraries, but can still create ANSI/ISO code.

#10 By 2459 (24.170.151.19) at 4/3/2003 12:15:04 AM

Here's some old links concerning standardization of CLI (in a java advocacy group no less):

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=MPG.1423a3eadb123c67989681%40news.mrcr1.wa.home.com&rnum=2

"...it's in the domain of ECMA to decide
what is in or out of a standard. Again unlike our competitors we're not
trying to seek a rubber stamp, We'll work with ECMA to define a real,
international standard controlled by an international standards body
rather than just define ourselves as a standards org."

"ECMA (and hence the members) will decide what is needed in the standard.

we will, simply as a member of those groups, work to define what the
standard entails."

ECMA Working group for the CLI/C#/etc.:
Fujitsu Software, Hewlett-Packard, Intel Corporation, International Business Machines, ISE, Microsoft Corporation, Monash University, Netscape, OpenWave, Plum Hall, Sun Microsystems

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22C%2B%2B%22+CLI+CLR+Gunnerson&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3b3fc2ba%241%40news.microsoft.com&rnum=1

"it's true that CLI != CLR. The intention is that CLI will be a useful subset of CLR,
and that with the CLI and C# you get *roughly* what you get with C and the C
Runtimes (or perhaps the C++ runtimes minus STL)."

Fast-forward to now, and MS' intentions of submitting generics gives you the equivalent of STL, thus adding (value) to the standard. Microsoft has shown further commitment to standards compliance and importance with the changes made in their upcoming 1.1 release.

This post was edited by n4cer on Thursday, April 03, 2003 at 00:19.

#11 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at 4/3/2003 12:53:49 AM

"I'm also pretty current on the 1.0 Framework on the changes that 1.1, 2.0, and 3.0 will offer."
Could you fill me in on what 3.0 will offer?

"What I asked you for was what Microsoft had that wasn't in the standard."
No, what you asked for and I will quote you is "since you seem to know so much about .NET and what is standardized and what isn't, why don't you do us all a favor and outline it for us." I outlined for you what was standardized and rather than delving into everything that isn't I made it quite simple by saying that EVERYTHING other than those two things are NOT standardized! That includes the features that the CLR provides (e.g. database connectivity) and the Class Libraries (as mentioned Windows Forms, Web Forms etc.)

"Your lack seems to indicate that you repeat what you've heard in the news, and that you really don't know anything about it firsthand. "
No my lack seems to indicate that I don't necessarily want to spent a lot of time explaining things to people who would rather insult someone rather than put forward something meaningful. I have not used everything in the .NET framework but I can assure you that I have (and do use) Visual Studio .NET which I have used to create several small gui'sh type applications for my own use and a couple of example WebServices to compare against J2EE for the company at which I work.

"I'm sick to death of the insanely stupid attack on so called propietary software."
Who's attacking .NET for being proprietary? I'm just pointing out that just because the CLI and C# are open standards it doesn't change the fact the .NET is still proprietary. I've never said this was a bad thing. Nor have I said that J2EE is bad because it's proprietary either.

"your attack on proprietary software"
Please point to where I attacked proprietary software. Please stop assuming/making stuff up.

"the likely hood of Microsoft doing what you have suggested lacks any character evidence"
You're quite right, there's been no evidence whatsoever in the past of Microsoft making it so that a competitor's product will malfunction.

"I'd be interested to know exactly what percentage of the 1.0 framework is ECMA compliant."
It'd be interesting to know... How would you calculate it though? Lines of code? additional features?

"You sound too bitter to actually know what you are talking about. "
There's you assuming again. I'm bitter?

#12 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 4/3/2003 1:48:50 AM

The fact is, MS have made a good faith effort and submitted the IMPORTANT and RELEVANT parts of the framework for specification and standardization. They kept certain value-add implementation features (like ASP.NET and ADO.NET) as just that, implementation features.

ASP.NET and ADO.NET are not core to making a .NET implementation. What's core is the CLI spec. If you plan on making a CLR that will run .NET binaries, you need to implement the CLI. Whether you support all the libraries thereafter is up to you and 3rd parties to create their own value-add.

Indeed this is proven by the Rotor and Mono projects. The Mono team has not only set out to emulate the MS features like ASP.NET and ADO.NET, but they've produced or contributed to their own value-add in things like GTK+ for Linux and I'm sure more things to come.

My original point, which kabuki, in his blindness failed to see, is that there are many ignorant MS-bashers saying that Java is "open" simply because it's not Microsoft which is as assinine as it is misinformed.

Java is 100% pure proprietary and is 100% purely controled by Sun. They take input from other companies and MOST OF THE TIME implement requests made through the formal JCP, but Sun has absolute veto power over every change and has, in the past, exercised it.

It can, at any point, disband the JCP.

MS cannot go back now. C# and the CLI are standards and MS can veer from the standards jue like anyone else can, but there could just as easily be a group of companies that implement those specs and turn MS into a black sheep in the .NET world. This CANNOT happen in the Java world as Sun will always be the sole controller of Java and the Java Framework (unless they change their mind in the future, but as of their current stance, that doesn't appear likely to change).

#13 By 4240821 (45.149.82.86) at 10/26/2023 5:16:30 AM