Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.chainon-marquant.org!nntpfeed.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!198.186.194.247.MISMATCH!news-out.readnews.com!transit3.readnews.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Lew Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 10:39:50 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 37 Message-ID: <16014074.465.1320428390823.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqhd1> References: <5fp1b7pna8fl4rv65lklelaaqjing20h6m@4ax.com> <4eb1bda7$0$286$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4eb1c5a0$0$288$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4eb343b9$0$282$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <5HNsq.15107$rF5.5423@newsfe19.iad> Reply-To: comp.lang.java.programmer@googlegroups.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 2620:0:1000:2404:224:d7ff:fe69:5838 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1320428512 18905 127.0.0.1 (4 Nov 2011 17:41:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 17:41:52 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <5HNsq.15107$rF5.5423@newsfe19.iad> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2620:0:1000:2404:224:d7ff:fe69:5838; posting-account=CP-lKQoAAAAGtB5diOuGlDQk0jIwmH0T User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-Google-Web-Client: true Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:9522 Arved Sandstrom wrote: > Arne Vajh=F8j wrote: >> BGB wrote: > [ SNIP ] >=20 >>> >>> Android is C, C++, and Java. >>> iOS is mostly C, C++, and Objective-C. >>> Windows Phone is mostly C, C++, and C#. >>> >>> there seems maybe there is a pattern... >>=20 >> Not really. >>=20 >> Apps for Android is Java (with the possibility of using C/C++ for >> certain things) >>=20 >> Apps for [iPhone] is Objective-C >>=20 >> Apps for WP is C# or VB.NET >>=20 >> C/C++ is practically not used for apps - C/C++ is obviously used a lot >> for OS, VM's etc.. >=20 > I understand that in the context of writing phone apps that one can say > only "app" and be understood. Even so, that last sentence just sounded > wrong. :-) Better to qualify the word "app" there, since these posts may > be read by a wider audience. I thought "Apps for Android", etc., did qualify the word "app" there alread= y. It didn't seem ambiguous from here. But additional rigorous detail is not necessarily a bad thing, so in the en= d I don't disagree entirely. --=20 Lew