> What I don't understand is how the .NET CLI is any different from a Java
> JVM. They're still bytecode interpreters and they are both going to
> have the same problems that keep a lot of developers away from using
> Java - primarily performance-related. They're great for server-side
> apps, where it's all just sitting around and thinking about numbers, but
> try to do anything interactive, i.e. with a GUI, and Java falls on its
> face faster than an 18-month old with a shot of bourbon inside him.
Here is a link provided by De Icaza to help explain why the .NET
framework was adopted:
http://eiffel.com/doc/manuals/technology/bmarticles/sd/dotnet.html
It makes the argument that the JVM design limits itself to only using
Java-compiled code. Any app written in another language would have to
be rewritten in Java to run on the JVM. The idea behind the .NET
framework is to provide a VM that can run just about any code if
compiled through a _backend_ compiler. C# is just an add-on language,
equivalent in many respects to Java. If I'm understanding this
correctly, the .NET framework is a set of backend compilers for
different languages. And if I'm understanding this correctly, why
couldn't Sun do the same thing with the JVM? And why would you want your
app to run through a VM unless that was the only alternative (?web
service control)?
> I suspect the way the .NET stuff gets around this problem is by calling
> the Win32 GUI APIs natively and doesn't try to do any of it itself. At
> which point, you're losing most of the niceness of having a language-
> and platform-independent system like Java or the .NET stuff. So on a
> Linux platform, those .NET API calls will have to call out to GTK or
> what-have-you directly to get a similar environment.
Java has several look-and-feel tie-ins as I'm sure you already know. No
advantage here.
>clip
> > Bottom line is that while I laud Miguel's enthusiasm and his technical
> > proficiency, I think in the end he's going to get shafted by one of the
> > biggest shafters on the planet.
>
> Hard to dispute with all the evidence from past events.
>
My crystal ball says that MS will build a VM for other OS platforms if
necessary. With the improvement in hardware speed, the VM will become
the controlling layer of software, not the OS.
-Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:05:58 EDT