6 ms·

On C# having had an incomplete ECMA specification always lagging behind and source code made available under an obscure, non-open-source, legally tainting licen

On C# having had an incomplete ECMA specification always lagging behind and source code made available under an obscure, non-open-source, legally tainting license acting as a boobytrap for anything commercial DOES NOT count as open. Even now they are being disingenuous about license changes, witness for example the leadership of this project changing license from Apache 2.0 to MIT and being obtuse about the licensing of patents or about reasoning, not explaining clearly the drawbacks of the change: https://github.com/Microsoft/visualfsharp/issues/3440 https://github.com/Microsoft/visualfsharp/issues/3440 OpenJDK happened on May 8, 2007, that's 10 years ago and you've got companies like Red Hat and IBM collaborating on it. By comparison .NET Core was released 2016, so that's 9 years later. And the JCP might be a farce as far as standardisation efforts are concerned, but at least you've got multiple companies participating. I'm replying this because I'm getting tired of Microsoft's marketing campaigns on this forum. UPDATE: Btw I actually applaud Microsoft's open sourcing efforts, I see myself using .NET in the future and I'm actively using Visual Studio Code and TypeScript at the moment. They've got fine people there working on dev tools, they always had. But then I also see them engaging in what's basically racketeering, threatening Android phone makers with patents (i.e. if you can't innovate, litigate), having potential for becoming one of the largest patent trolls ever. And I also see them breaking user privacy in Windows 10. Therefore my view of them is balanced, as a large organization the left hand doesn't know what the right does, etc. I cannot love them and even though I may have forgiven them for their past attacks on Linux and the open web, I can't forget their past that easily. And before you mention Google, Apple, Facebook, or other media darlings, check my history to see that I'm consistently ranting about all of them and the malevolence of one does not excuse the rest. What I'm saying is that "Microsoft changed" messages make me feel nausea because it's been a clear marketing campaign and people fell for it. Let their actions speak, applaud and reward them when they do good, but don't put them on a pedestal and don't do marketing for them without getting paid for it.

staticelf 9y ago
> I'm replying this because I'm getting tired of Microsoft's marketing campaigns on this forum. I just think you're simply underestimating how many people actually like .net and spreads the love by free will. :)
- liesmarketing 9y ago
  they probably shouldn't lie in such transparent ways, then
  - hele7 9y ago
    Do you have sufficient proof to back your argument? Further, can you prove that they lie any more than others?
hele7 9y ago
> OpenJDK happened on May 8, 2007, that's 10 years ago and you've got companies like Red Hat and IBM collaborating on it. By comparison .NET Core was released 2016, so that's 9 years later. You're comparing unequal things. OpenJDK was a community effort, while .NET Core is maintained primarily by Microsoft themselves. The correct comparison would be to .NET's community based alternative, which is Mono. Mono in turn had it's initial release in June 30, 2004, which is _13 years ago_, and 3 years before OpenJDK itself. Further, note that Oracle only open sourced Java a year after Microsoft did .NET Core. One might even argue that Oracle only did so _because_ of .NET Core. I'll note that I'm replying because I'm getting tired of Oracle's marketing campaigns on this forum.
- dtech 9y ago
  > You're comparing unequal things. OpenJDK was a community effort > The correct comparison would be to .NET's community based alternative, which is Mono. This is disingenuous at best. OpenJDK was started with a huge codebase from the existing Sun JDK at the time, similar to how .Net core was started with with a Microsoft codebase. Meanwhile Mono had to be written from scratch and was a far cry from being somewhat compatible for years after it started (e.g. capable of running a Visual Studio compiled .NET GUI program) > Further, note that Oracle only open sourced Java a year after Microsoft did .NET Core I'm not sure what you mean by "open source Java" in this context. The Java Community Process was started in 1998, and as said OpenJDK started in 2007. Java EE being open sourced like now would be much more comparable to Microsoft releasing something like Windows Presentation Foundation as open source, as it's a oft-used part of .NET but not part of the language per se.
- jsiepkes 9y ago
  If you want to take mono into account as the first free .net implementation you should take GCJ into account as free Java implementation. GCJ was started in 1998....
- filomeno 9y ago
  No, you're wrong. You can compare Mono to GNU Classpath (1998) and the like. But OpenJDK was backed by Sun. They started releasing the source code in 2007. So it's 10 years ago. You can read it all here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenJDK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenJDK
0xbear 9y ago
.NET is far beyond Java as a platform for building languages though, and it's been that way right from the start. Reified generics, value types, structs, unsigned integer type support, intermediate language actually optimized for compilation. It's pretty nice. For some reason Java people have a near allergic reaction to it though.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  Sun had an allergic reaction to it. Oracle has improved it quite a bit and all those features are being worked on for Java 10.
  - 0xbear 9y ago
    And they will be worked on for at least the next decade. Meanwhile .NET had them for 16 years now.
    - pjmlp 9y ago
      Meanwhile .NET is only fully usable in Windows for many types of applications, because .NET Core and Mono don't support all the platforms that Java does and .NET Standard 2.0 does not yet cover APIs like WPF, Systems.Drawing, WCF, ADO.NET drivers for all relevant enterprise databases. So it is not like everything is better on the other side. Note that I do enjoy using both of them since their early versions.
      - 0xbear 9y ago
        Java is not really usable anywhere for e.g. GUI, so there's that as well.
        pjmlp 9y ago
        Android, UNIX and embedded devices (Ricoh printers and medical devices, factory controls for exemple) prove otherwise. The only problema with Swing (JavaFX not so much) is developers coding away withouth bothering to learn how to use them. Yes, out of the box they are harder to use than Windows Forms, but anyone that bothers to read books like "Filthy Rich Clients" is able to tame Swing. When .NET Core starts supporting a standard GUI (eventually Xamarin.Forms) than runs in all platforms that Java GUIs run today, then you can complain.
bdcravens 9y ago
> I'm replying this because I'm getting tired of Microsoft's marketing campaigns on this forum. Can you substantiate that claim?

staticelf 9y ago

> I'm replying this because I'm getting tired of Microsoft's marketing campaigns on this forum. I just think you're simply underestimating how many people actually like .net and spreads the love by free will. :)

liesmarketing 9y ago
they probably shouldn't lie in such transparent ways, then
- hele7 9y ago
  Do you have sufficient proof to back your argument? Further, can you prove that they lie any more than others?

hele7 9y ago

> OpenJDK happened on May 8, 2007, that's 10 years ago and you've got companies like Red Hat and IBM collaborating on it. By comparison .NET Core was released 2016, so that's 9 years later. You're comparing unequal things. OpenJDK was a community effort, while .NET Core is maintained primarily by Microsoft themselves. The correct comparison would be to .NET's community based alternative, which is Mono. Mono in turn had it's initial release in June 30, 2004, which is _13 years ago_, and 3 years before OpenJDK itself. Further, note that Oracle only open sourced Java a year after Microsoft did .NET Core. One might even argue that Oracle only did so _because_ of .NET Core. I'll note that I'm replying because I'm getting tired of Oracle's marketing campaigns on this forum.

dtech 9y ago
> You're comparing unequal things. OpenJDK was a community effort > The correct comparison would be to .NET's community based alternative, which is Mono. This is disingenuous at best. OpenJDK was started with a huge codebase from the existing Sun JDK at the time, similar to how .Net core was started with with a Microsoft codebase. Meanwhile Mono had to be written from scratch and was a far cry from being somewhat compatible for years after it started (e.g. capable of running a Visual Studio compiled .NET GUI program) > Further, note that Oracle only open sourced Java a year after Microsoft did .NET Core I'm not sure what you mean by "open source Java" in this context. The Java Community Process was started in 1998, and as said OpenJDK started in 2007. Java EE being open sourced like now would be much more comparable to Microsoft releasing something like Windows Presentation Foundation as open source, as it's a oft-used part of .NET but not part of the language per se.
jsiepkes 9y ago
If you want to take mono into account as the first free .net implementation you should take GCJ into account as free Java implementation. GCJ was started in 1998....
filomeno 9y ago
No, you're wrong. You can compare Mono to GNU Classpath (1998) and the like. But OpenJDK was backed by Sun. They started releasing the source code in 2007. So it's 10 years ago. You can read it all here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenJDK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenJDK

0xbear 9y ago

.NET is far beyond Java as a platform for building languages though, and it's been that way right from the start. Reified generics, value types, structs, unsigned integer type support, intermediate language actually optimized for compilation. It's pretty nice. For some reason Java people have a near allergic reaction to it though.

pjmlp 9y ago
Sun had an allergic reaction to it. Oracle has improved it quite a bit and all those features are being worked on for Java 10.
- 0xbear 9y ago
  And they will be worked on for at least the next decade. Meanwhile .NET had them for 16 years now.
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    Meanwhile .NET is only fully usable in Windows for many types of applications, because .NET Core and Mono don't support all the platforms that Java does and .NET Standard 2.0 does not yet cover APIs like WPF, Systems.Drawing, WCF, ADO.NET drivers for all relevant enterprise databases. So it is not like everything is better on the other side. Note that I do enjoy using both of them since their early versions.
    - 0xbear 9y ago
      Java is not really usable anywhere for e.g. GUI, so there's that as well.
      - pjmlp 9y ago
        Android, UNIX and embedded devices (Ricoh printers and medical devices, factory controls for exemple) prove otherwise. The only problema with Swing (JavaFX not so much) is developers coding away withouth bothering to learn how to use them. Yes, out of the box they are harder to use than Windows Forms, but anyone that bothers to read books like "Filthy Rich Clients" is able to tame Swing. When .NET Core starts supporting a standard GUI (eventually Xamarin.Forms) than runs in all platforms that Java GUIs run today, then you can complain.

bdcravens 9y ago

> I'm replying this because I'm getting tired of Microsoft's marketing campaigns on this forum. Can you substantiate that claim?