[Raynes]

AdamSpeight2008, on 13 July 2010 - 06:34 PM, said:

Raynes, on 14 July 2010 - 02:11 AM, said:

I don't mind you defending C# and .NET, because it's a fine language and a fine platform, but it's *windows-only* and that is a limitation no matter how you skin it.

But this where you are wrong, as many members have pointed out you can use c# on
Windows, Linux and Mac, with the use of Mono. Admit-tingly it itsn't yet compatible with the latest version of .net

And there is nothing official about it, and funding could disappear at anytime. Did I mention that it's not Microsoft's doing?

[YasuoDancez]

NoBrain, on 12 July 2010 - 08:47 AM, said:

in my opinion the biggest problem here is that Java will run on everything while C# need Windows OS.

Agreed, If Microsoft and windows goes down, so does all languages that are dependent on a certain OS.

This post has been edited by YasuoDancez: 13 July 2010 - 07:42 PM

[AdamSpeight2008]

Raynes, on 14 July 2010 - 02:38 AM, said:

And there is nothing official about it, and funding could disappear at anytime. Did I mention that it's not Microsoft's doing?

I never mentioned Microsoft, I was rebutting your claim that it not cross platform. Also Novell sponsor the development of Mono.

[Raynes]

Novell isn't Microsoft, and Mono has nothing to do with Microsoft. It is a .NET alternative, and isn't anywhere near the level that .NET is on, and doesn't have the manpower to keep up. Using it in an argument is silly. Sure, some applications run, and some applications can be developed for Mono, but .NET is still not cross-platform. Mono doesn't change that.

@PsychoCoder (re: IPhone): I'm pretty sure this thread wasn't about the iPhone OS vs Android, but instead was about the relative merits of C# over Java and the disadvantages of both. I'm not attacking .NET or it's languages (I played with F# back in my Windows days, and I have respect for the ML family of languages), but the fact that .NET just isn't cross-platform, and that it is a limitation, and just liking Windows yourself doesn't change that. I don't want to fight with you over this.

This post has been edited by Raynes: 13 July 2010 - 07:59 PM

[AdamSpeight2008]

So it's just like Oracle pulling manpower off the development of Java.

[programble]

Microsoft isn't all too happy about Mono either (are they ever?). It is possible that Mono will get into problems with M$, and that would be bad.

[Raynes]

AdamSpeight2008, on 13 July 2010 - 06:58 PM, said:

So it's just like Oracle pulling manpower off the development of Java.

What in the fuck teddybears are you even talking about, and what does what you said have anything to do with anything in this thread that I've said?

This post has been edited by Raynes: 13 July 2010 - 08:04 PM

[KYA]

That's not really a good example since Oracle "owns" Java now.

[AdamSpeight2008]

KYA are you sure? Even Jeet Kaul, Oracle's vice president thinks Java has an image problem.

InfoWorld Article

Even the father of Java, James Gosling left Oracle.

[KYA]

I read it as an analogy: if Microsoft owned the Mono project and then took manpower away from it.

[Raynes]

Dude, the JVM is cross-platform. .NET isn't. The JVM isn't not cross-platform with a half-assed unofficial cross-platform version laying around. Are we even arguing about that now, or are you just butthurt because I mentioned the .NET platform in a negative light? I'm not saying ".NET isn't cross-platform, so Java is better." I'm saying ".NET isn't cross platform."

I'm sure there are all sorts of issues with Java. I'm a JVM guy, not a Java guy.

My whole point from the beginning was that saying that being nailed to a single platform is a limitation, by definition. Are we arguing about that, or whether the JVM is better than .NET?

This post has been edited by Raynes: 13 July 2010 - 08:23 PM

[programble]

http://esoteric.voxe...t.net/wiki/Java

[programble]

This is supposed to be about C# and Java. C# and Java are both languages, with specifications, and are not tied to any one platform. Let us compare them purely as languages, not the most popular platform they are implemented on.

[AdamSpeight2008]

Raynes: Is it the same reason you get bitsy when some disses Clojure, hmm?

.net code is compiled into CIL (the common intermediate langauge).
This is run by the DLR or the CLR. (DLR Sourcecode, The sourcecode for CLR is also available)
The CLR could have be developed on to of the DLR, if the DLR had been developed first.

The binary can be run (unaltered) on any platform that supports the CLI

[Tom9729]

Raynes, on 13 July 2010 - 10:21 PM, said:

Dude, the JVM is cross-platform. .NET isn't. The JVM isn't not cross-platform with a half-assed unofficial cross-platform version laying around. Are we even arguing about that now, or are you just butthurt because I mentioned the .NET platform in a negative light? I'm not saying ".NET isn't cross-platform, so Java is better." I'm saying ".NET isn't cross platform."

...

My whole point from the beginning was that saying that being nailed to a single platform is a limitation, by definition. Are we arguing about that, or whether the JVM is better than .NET?

For once I am in 100% agreement with you.

OT
I am a little curious why you're so in love with the JVM however. IMO Parrot is more interesting. It's obviously less mature than the JVM though and to be honest I haven't played extensively with either (besides just doing Java development).

AdamSpeight2008, on 13 July 2010 - 10:40 PM, said:

.net code is compiled into CIL (the common intermediate langauge).
This is run by the DLR or the CLR. (DLR Sourcecode, The sourcecode for CLR is also available)
The CLR could have be developed on to of the DLR, if the DLR had been developed first.

The binary can be run (unaltered) on any platform that supports the CLI

I'm a little over my head here, but being able to run bytecode doesn't mean you magically have support for all the .NET stuff that isn't implemented in Mono (or that people are afraid to use because the patents might come crashing down).