5 ms·

C# was made to kill Java as Apple maps were made to Kill Google Maps but they did not prevent Java from being installed, which is what apple is doing. If they w

C# was made to kill Java as Apple maps were made to Kill Google Maps but they did not prevent Java from being installed, which is what apple is doing. If they want to win by keeping the loyalty of the users they should not cut off all competition but just release a better product than the competition. Apple successed in this in the last years but the more time passes the more I see they are struggling with it, the prefer to kill off any other opportunity, but this will enrage users(at least those who were not brainwashed)

melling 14y ago
That analogy is completely wrong. When companies write apps in C# for the Microsoft platform, they are going to pretty much stay on the Microsoft platform. Those apps, for the most part, aren't ported to the Mac and Linux (please skip the Mono discussion, it's not a 100% solution). Fortune 500 companies and commercial companies are locking consumers into Windows. Maps is one product. There are thousands of C#, Windows only apps.
- dpark 14y ago
  When companies write apps in Objective-C for the Mac or iOS platforms, they are going to pretty much stay on the Apple platforms. Those apps, for the most part, aren't ported to the Windows and Linux (please skip the GCC discussion, it's not a 100% solution). Fortune 500 companies and commercial companies are locking consumers into Apple. There are thousands of Objective-C, Apple only apps.
  - melling 14y ago
    That's is correct and obvious, so I thought it went without saying. Btw, there are hundreds of thousands of little iOS only apps. If Apple had a monopoly, or even close to one, in phones then we would have a problem. However, Android leads by a wide margin and since they sell better in the rest of the world, Apple's little walled garden doesn't really matter.
    - dpark 14y ago
      My point is that creating a custom language is not necessarily a move intended to create or preserve a monopoly. Microsoft felt that the best way to innovate in the developer space was to produce a modern framework with a core set of modern languages (and to open that framework up for 3rd party integration, such as Delphi). It's unreasonable to expect that Microsoft should be limited to C++ (a non-managed and non-modern language) and Java (a language a competitor controls) for development.
      - melling 14y ago
        Microsoft writes most of its software in C++. They love C++. If C# wasn't the only case then it might be acceptable. DirectX, for example, was done to kill off OpenGL. Microsoft hired away Borland's language team, including the Delphi developer and proceeded to build a better Java that only ran well on Windows, and some might say that they accomplished this. :-) Objective C was developed before Steve Jobs and he simply adopted it, or his engineers did at NeXT. Personally, I'd like open languages/platforms that offer a little more reuse.
        dpark 14y ago
        > Microsoft writes most of its software in C++. They love C++. Microsoft writes most of its systems-level software in C++. Microsoft also writes a lot of C#. WCF and WPF are both built on the .Net stack. Bing runs on ASP.NET. Lots of stuff at Microsoft is build in C#, for the same reasons lots of stuff outside of Microsoft is build in C#: it's modern, safe, fast, and pleasant to work in. > If C# wasn't the only case then it might be acceptable. DirectX, for example, was done to kill off OpenGL. No, DirectX was written to replace WinG, which is what most games for Windows were written in prior to DirectX. I don't believe OpenGL had any traction on Windows at that time. > Microsoft hired away Borland's language team, including the Delphi developer and proceeded to build a better Java that only ran well on Windows, and some might say that they accomplished this. :-) This might be interesting if Microsoft had hired James Gosling away from Sun to work on C#, but that's not what happened. They hired staff away from Borland, who didn't design Java at all. You're conflating unrelated things. > Objective C was developed before Steve Jobs and he simply adopted it, or his engineers did at NeXT. Personally, I'd like open languages/platforms that offer a little more reuse. I fail to see the relevance here. The Objective-C used by Apple today is by no means the same as the Objective-C that NeXT started with. NeXT and Apple extended Objective-C significantly at both the language and the library level. This the the "embrace, extend, extinguish" cycle you accuse Microsoft of.

melling 14y ago

That analogy is completely wrong. When companies write apps in C# for the Microsoft platform, they are going to pretty much stay on the Microsoft platform. Those apps, for the most part, aren't ported to the Mac and Linux (please skip the Mono discussion, it's not a 100% solution). Fortune 500 companies and commercial companies are locking consumers into Windows. Maps is one product. There are thousands of C#, Windows only apps.

dpark 14y ago
When companies write apps in Objective-C for the Mac or iOS platforms, they are going to pretty much stay on the Apple platforms. Those apps, for the most part, aren't ported to the Windows and Linux (please skip the GCC discussion, it's not a 100% solution). Fortune 500 companies and commercial companies are locking consumers into Apple. There are thousands of Objective-C, Apple only apps.
- melling 14y ago
  That's is correct and obvious, so I thought it went without saying. Btw, there are hundreds of thousands of little iOS only apps. If Apple had a monopoly, or even close to one, in phones then we would have a problem. However, Android leads by a wide margin and since they sell better in the rest of the world, Apple's little walled garden doesn't really matter.
  - dpark 14y ago
    My point is that creating a custom language is not necessarily a move intended to create or preserve a monopoly. Microsoft felt that the best way to innovate in the developer space was to produce a modern framework with a core set of modern languages (and to open that framework up for 3rd party integration, such as Delphi). It's unreasonable to expect that Microsoft should be limited to C++ (a non-managed and non-modern language) and Java (a language a competitor controls) for development.
    - melling 14y ago
      Microsoft writes most of its software in C++. They love C++. If C# wasn't the only case then it might be acceptable. DirectX, for example, was done to kill off OpenGL. Microsoft hired away Borland's language team, including the Delphi developer and proceeded to build a better Java that only ran well on Windows, and some might say that they accomplished this. :-) Objective C was developed before Steve Jobs and he simply adopted it, or his engineers did at NeXT. Personally, I'd like open languages/platforms that offer a little more reuse.
      - dpark 14y ago
        > Microsoft writes most of its software in C++. They love C++. Microsoft writes most of its systems-level software in C++. Microsoft also writes a lot of C#. WCF and WPF are both built on the .Net stack. Bing runs on ASP.NET. Lots of stuff at Microsoft is build in C#, for the same reasons lots of stuff outside of Microsoft is build in C#: it's modern, safe, fast, and pleasant to work in. > If C# wasn't the only case then it might be acceptable. DirectX, for example, was done to kill off OpenGL. No, DirectX was written to replace WinG, which is what most games for Windows were written in prior to DirectX. I don't believe OpenGL had any traction on Windows at that time. > Microsoft hired away Borland's language team, including the Delphi developer and proceeded to build a better Java that only ran well on Windows, and some might say that they accomplished this. :-) This might be interesting if Microsoft had hired James Gosling away from Sun to work on C#, but that's not what happened. They hired staff away from Borland, who didn't design Java at all. You're conflating unrelated things. > Objective C was developed before Steve Jobs and he simply adopted it, or his engineers did at NeXT. Personally, I'd like open languages/platforms that offer a little more reuse. I fail to see the relevance here. The Objective-C used by Apple today is by no means the same as the Objective-C that NeXT started with. NeXT and Apple extended Objective-C significantly at both the language and the library level. This the the "embrace, extend, extinguish" cycle you accuse Microsoft of.