6 ms·

MS never has been a great innovator. This is one of the best examples of that.

by obtino 16y ago

eagleal 16y ago
I'm sure that's a mockup, or a prototype at best.
- riffraff 16y ago
  I believe grandparent may have intended that they have come as a far second in the os-cum-app-store club. EDIT: which I still find _huge_ news anyway
  - eagleal 16y ago
    Definitely more likely, wasn't sure if he was referring to the software quality only.
mickeyben 16y ago
Oh common ... Kinect, C#, F#, Linq, Office, Win7 (this one is debatable but I really think it's full of innovations even if I'm using OSX principally). Of course some of them are here through acquisitions but they made them great products.
- masklinn 16y ago
  > Kinect, C#, F#, Linq, Office, Win7 (this one is debatable but I really think it's full of innovations even if I'm using OSX principally). Erm... Kinect is the only product even remotely innovative there. Office has never been innovative in all its lifetime (apart from the Ribbon if you stretch it), C# is as innovative as mud (== it was innovative a few billion years ago), F# is an OCaml crappified by making it compatible with the .Net framework and LINQ is a bunch of collection methods, a preprocessor and a common interface (yeah that was innovative about 30 years ago). > Of course some of them are here through acquisitions but they made them great products. Obtino was talking about innovation. Apart from Kinect, none of the things you mentioned is even remotely innovative.
  - statictype 16y ago
    F# is an OCaml crappified by making it compatible with the .Net framework It's very difficult to take you seriously when your argument is that a piece Microsoft technology is crap based solely on the fact that it happens to be compatible with another piece of Microsoft technology. If you had any actual critique of F#, the language, you might make more sense. You could start by explaining how F#'s support for monads doesn't already make it a superior language to O'Caml. and LINQ is a bunch of collection methods, a preprocessor and a common interface Even worse, it's all just a bunch of 1s and 0s!
    - masklinn 16y ago
      > It's very difficult to take you seriously when your argument is that a piece Microsoft technology is crap based solely on the fact that it happens to be compatible with another piece of Microsoft technology. That's a weird statement to make. I'm not saying it does not make business sense, I'm saying F# is worse than it could be because it needed to be compatible with the .net framework. Furthermore, I didn't say F# was crap, I said it was a crappified (aka worse) OCaml due to that. And as a result it would have a hard time being innovative (due to being an inferior version of a 16 years old language) > If you had any actual critique of F#, the language, you might make more sense. That it's compatible with the .net framework and its imperative APIs, with all it entails (such as nulls or mutability galore) is very much my critique of F#. It's a worse language (than it could have been and that its ancestor) because of that. > Even worse, it's all just a bunch of 1s and 0s! Wonderfully missing the point, which is the part between the parens. Building a library is not innovative in and of itself, and there is nothing in linq's concepts or execution which is novel or innovative. You seem to have taken an extremely defensive stance on my view that, apart from Kinect, none of the things mentioned is innovative. I guess that you disagree, do you have any argument as to why those things would be innovative (outside of a microsoft-driven world)? What makes LINQ innovative exactly? Or F#?
      - statictype 16y ago
        I'm saying F# is worse than it could be because it needed to be compatible with the .net framework. I disagree. I would say the opposite: That F# is a better language because it can access the rich set of libraries that already exist in the .NET ecosystem. You seem to think that's a bad thing. I don't think many would agree with that. I think it's certainly innovative to have created a functional, static type-inference based language that can sit on top of the .NET runtime as a first-class citizen. Building a library is not innovative in and of itself, and there is nothing in linq's concepts or execution which is novel or innovative. Incidentally, LINQ is not 'just' a library. It can translate code written in a higher level language by examining the expression-tree that the code compiles down to. This is sort-of a poor man's lisp macros built into a statically typed language.

MS never has been a great innovator. This is one of the best examples of that.

by obtino 16y ago

MS never has been a great innovator. This is one of the best examples of that.

eagleal 16y ago

I'm sure that's a mockup, or a prototype at best.

riffraff 16y ago
I believe grandparent may have intended that they have come as a far second in the os-cum-app-store club. EDIT: which I still find _huge_ news anyway
- eagleal 16y ago
  Definitely more likely, wasn't sure if he was referring to the software quality only.

mickeyben 16y ago

Oh common ... Kinect, C#, F#, Linq, Office, Win7 (this one is debatable but I really think it's full of innovations even if I'm using OSX principally). Of course some of them are here through acquisitions but they made them great products.

masklinn 16y ago
> Kinect, C#, F#, Linq, Office, Win7 (this one is debatable but I really think it's full of innovations even if I'm using OSX principally). Erm... Kinect is the only product even remotely innovative there. Office has never been innovative in all its lifetime (apart from the Ribbon if you stretch it), C# is as innovative as mud (== it was innovative a few billion years ago), F# is an OCaml crappified by making it compatible with the .Net framework and LINQ is a bunch of collection methods, a preprocessor and a common interface (yeah that was innovative about 30 years ago). > Of course some of them are here through acquisitions but they made them great products. Obtino was talking about innovation. Apart from Kinect, none of the things you mentioned is even remotely innovative.
- statictype 16y ago
  F# is an OCaml crappified by making it compatible with the .Net framework It's very difficult to take you seriously when your argument is that a piece Microsoft technology is crap based solely on the fact that it happens to be compatible with another piece of Microsoft technology. If you had any actual critique of F#, the language, you might make more sense. You could start by explaining how F#'s support for monads doesn't already make it a superior language to O'Caml. and LINQ is a bunch of collection methods, a preprocessor and a common interface Even worse, it's all just a bunch of 1s and 0s!
  - masklinn 16y ago
    > It's very difficult to take you seriously when your argument is that a piece Microsoft technology is crap based solely on the fact that it happens to be compatible with another piece of Microsoft technology. That's a weird statement to make. I'm not saying it does not make business sense, I'm saying F# is worse than it could be because it needed to be compatible with the .net framework. Furthermore, I didn't say F# was crap, I said it was a crappified (aka worse) OCaml due to that. And as a result it would have a hard time being innovative (due to being an inferior version of a 16 years old language) > If you had any actual critique of F#, the language, you might make more sense. That it's compatible with the .net framework and its imperative APIs, with all it entails (such as nulls or mutability galore) is very much my critique of F#. It's a worse language (than it could have been and that its ancestor) because of that. > Even worse, it's all just a bunch of 1s and 0s! Wonderfully missing the point, which is the part between the parens. Building a library is not innovative in and of itself, and there is nothing in linq's concepts or execution which is novel or innovative. You seem to have taken an extremely defensive stance on my view that, apart from Kinect, none of the things mentioned is innovative. I guess that you disagree, do you have any argument as to why those things would be innovative (outside of a microsoft-driven world)? What makes LINQ innovative exactly? Or F#?
    - statictype 16y ago
      I'm saying F# is worse than it could be because it needed to be compatible with the .net framework. I disagree. I would say the opposite: That F# is a better language because it can access the rich set of libraries that already exist in the .NET ecosystem. You seem to think that's a bad thing. I don't think many would agree with that. I think it's certainly innovative to have created a functional, static type-inference based language that can sit on top of the .NET runtime as a first-class citizen. Building a library is not innovative in and of itself, and there is nothing in linq's concepts or execution which is novel or innovative. Incidentally, LINQ is not 'just' a library. It can translate code written in a higher level language by examining the expression-tree that the code compiles down to. This is sort-of a poor man's lisp macros built into a statically typed language.