Unknown W. Brackets wrote:

> Also, I disagree with your comments on C#; I don't believe it was designed as the way to access the framework.  In fact, I think .NET smells much stronger of Visual Basic .NET than of C#.  But that's really an opinion.

And the smell of "NotJava .NET" is pretty strong too.

--bb

Bill Baxter wrote:
> Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
> 
>> Also, I disagree with your comments on C#; I don't believe it was designed as the way to access the framework.  In fact, I think .NET smells much stronger of Visual Basic .NET than of C#.  But that's really an opinion.
> 
> And the smell of "NotJava .NET" is pretty strong too.
> 
> --bb

Funny thing is, I think that most of the runtime and big chunks of the .NET library can trace their roots back to MS Visual J++ <g>

Was .NET announced before or after Sun won the judgement? (I can't remember). It may turn out that MS lost the battle but won the war on that one, if losing Java was the impetus for .NET anyhow.

antonio wrote:

> D community never will implement this "platform/framework" because they are interested in a practical exploration of possibilities not really in a serious productive alternative... this is work for other people... D is only the tool.

That is certainly a wrong conclusion. There is just so much infrastructure needed to build this framework, that it hasn't really been a viable possibility until maybe about now. Heady progress could possibly have been made, if the structure of the JDK or .Net had been more or less copied, but I think most people understand that this would put D ahead in anyway, even if the language itself was superior. D needs a framework that takes D and it's strengths into account.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource & #D: larsivi

Julio César Carrascal Urquijo wrote:
> ...  I wish D had a yield operator. Maybe for D 2.0.

Afraid I don't have the links on me, but Google for and look at StackThreads; specifically the coroutine module.  That lets you write coroutines that use a yield *function*.  D doesn't need yield to be an operator: we get by just fine writing it as a library.

And I'm fairly sure you can't do that in C# :3

	-- Daniel

Dave wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
>>
>>> Also, I disagree with your comments on C#; I don't believe it was designed as the way to access the framework.  In fact, I think .NET smells much stronger of Visual Basic .NET than of C#.  But that's really an opinion.
>>
>> And the smell of "NotJava .NET" is pretty strong too.
>>
>> --bb
> 
> Funny thing is, I think that most of the runtime and big chunks of the .NET library can trace their roots back to MS Visual J++ <g>
> 
> Was .NET announced before or after Sun won the judgement? (I can't remember). It may turn out that MS lost the battle but won the war on that one, if losing Java was the impetus for .NET anyhow.

It was definitely round about the same time Sun was suing them over their non-standard extensions to Java.  I think folks at Microsoft liked Java the language, but if Sun wasn't going to let them add COM extensions and win32 APIs and such, then it was never going to be a viable replacement for VB.  So they did what they had to do in my view.  C# .NET seems to be a pretty sweet thing for anyone willing to swallow the Microsoft Kool-aid.

--bb

"Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup@billbaxter.com> wrote in message news:ekd9kg$1e89$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Dave wrote:
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>> Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
>>>
>>>> Also, I disagree with your comments on C#; I don't believe it was designed as the way to access the framework.  In fact, I think .NET smells much stronger of Visual Basic .NET than of C#.  But that's really an opinion.
>>>
>>> And the smell of "NotJava .NET" is pretty strong too.
>>>
>>> --bb
>>
>> Funny thing is, I think that most of the runtime and big chunks of the .NET library can trace their roots back to MS Visual J++ <g>
>>
>> Was .NET announced before or after Sun won the judgement? (I can't remember). It may turn out that MS lost the battle but won the war on that one, if losing Java was the impetus for .NET anyhow.
>
> It was definitely round about the same time Sun was suing them over their non-standard extensions to Java.  I think folks at Microsoft liked Java the language, but if Sun wasn't going to let them add COM extensions and win32 APIs and such, then it was never going to be a viable replacement for VB.  So they did what they had to do in my view. C# .NET seems to be a pretty sweet thing for anyone willing to swallow the Microsoft Kool-aid.
>
> --bb

Almost right. It was really the virtual machine that Microsoft was interested in. The JVM team felt increasingly stifled by Sun, and wanted to take the VM places it couldn't go (whether for legal or other reasons). Ambitions for multiple-language support, plus deeper interoperation with COM and native code, motivated them to join forces with the existing COM team.

COM 2.0 was born ... but it was a brief marriage. Apparently they fell out over how they should implement memory management. One half wanted to continue with explicit management (reference counting via AddRef/Release) while the other was interested in garbage collection. So they parted company. Soon, the GC guys gave birth to the CLR (acquiring a company who'd developed a research VM along the way).

Meanwhile, the C++ team was investigating meta data. With the new CLR team, they developed Microsoft Intermediate Language, and soon had a prototype GC and runtime. All they needed now was a language. C# started life in the late nineties as the weird offspring of C++ and IDL. It was codenamed "Cool" (C-based Object Oriented Language).

C# was announced in mid-2000 along with .NET (which grew out of ASP+), and the first public release followed in 2002.

Now, where'd I put that bottle of Kool Aid?

Unknown W. Brackets escribió:
> Antonio,
> 
> Even at Microsoft, I would hazard the guess that different people implemented the .NET Framework classes than actually developed the CLR, or even VB.NET, C#, J#, etc.  Each probably even had its own project manager, but that's really a guess.
> 
> Microsoft has the resources to put into this, but D doesn't have it all yet.  If you are comparing infrastructures, D will not win against C#. It is true that it is not ready for that fight yet.
No, obiouslly I'm not comparing them.
Otherwise, people is producing heterogeneous small solutions:  Some
"guided" work (a "unique" guided work) must be interesting in a common
library production.

> 
> That said, comparing it to C/C++ is a much easier win for much the same reasons.
> 
> Some programmers do not need the full class library written for them, though.  If I need to parse xml, I'll either use a C library or write my own (which I have done.)  You're very correct that D is not a RAD language, and I don't think it's intended to be one.
> 
I agree... but I don't need a RAD, I need "hight abstraction" (unified vision of the system resources): D is promissing a lot... really promissing good levels of abstraction without performance losting. I should be really confortable changing C# by D.


> Over time, different class or library frameworks will emerge for D, and one will become popular.  Since this has not yet happened, most people are not interested in the obvious comparison you've made - rather, in the comparison for the future.
> 
Actually I use Mango and PostgreSQL acces for a "small" solutions
(server side)... Mango support for servlets is really a pleasure... this is my example about standards... why not to grow to other "server side" common resources (i.e. Data Base access,...)


> 
> Just my opinion.
> 
> Also, I disagree with your comments on C#; I don't believe it was designed as the way to access the framework.  In fact, I think .NET smells much stronger of Visual Basic .NET than of C#.  But that's really an opinion.
> 
> Further, C#'s syntax and features are actually represented in a standard which would theoretically be framework agnostic, much like JavaScript. AFAIK.

I'ts true, but I allways use de same example: .Net/Java Virtual Machine is to Machine the same than Framework is to de Operative System.
¿Who wants to program without S.O. support?

No one I know works with C# without framework (no one I know :-/ )

> 
> -[Unknown]
>