Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #9374

Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils?

Show all headers | View raw

On 11/2/2011 12:17 AM, Cindy wrote:
> On 02/11/2011 1:35 AM, BGB wrote:
>> On 11/1/2011 7:18 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 10/28/2011 4:29 PM, jebblue wrote:
>>>> With Oracle on one side suing Google over Android
>>>> and on the other cooing about how many phones
>>>> run Java; I'm wondering if it might be worth it
>>>> to put my ideological views about Microsoft aside
>>>> and consider going back to .Net.
>>>
>>> Why should the question whether Google infringed on
>>> Oracle copyright or patents affect your choice of
>>> programming language?
>>>
>>
>> maybe because it asserts that Java is not a free/open technology, and is
>> essentially a proprietary product owned by Oracle?...
>>
>> granted, .NET has the same basic issue (it is owned by MS, ...).
>
> .NET is much worse. Anyone can write a conforming Java implementation
> that people can use and anyone else can code for it, without permission
> from Oracle. With OpenJDK, there is a complete open source conforming
> implementation, in particular. The one restriction I'm aware of is that
> you can't actually call it "Java" unless it passes certain tests or else
> you're looking at a trademark infringement lawsuit, whereas you could,
> say, write a Lisp interpreter and call it C if you wanted to.
>

yeah. however, one can't really make subsets or add extensions, which is 
lame.

an example of a major subset would be to use a simplified class library, 
and extensions would be things like properties, late-binding, structs or 
value-classes, ...

whereas with C, the standard API is much smaller, and adding 
compiler/implementation specific extensions is fairly normal...

also, the language and bytecode are (implicitly?) coupled, meaning it 
would be less "acceptable" to make an implementation which, say, 
compiles directly to native code, or uses a different bytecode. granted, 
there are implementations which do both.


> On the other hand, Microsoft doesn't officially support the existence of
> any implementation of .NET than their own, or any instance running under
> any operating system other than Windows, and presumably won't license
> the trademark to anyone on any terms; the one attempt at an open source
> implementation that I know of, Mono, is partial and buggy at best.
>

yeah.

Mono also can't run C++/CLI code last I checked, which sort of screws 
over my personal motivation to use it.

I suspect another issue is that, at the VM level, .NET is a good deal 
more complicated than the JVM. one can load/run JBC mostly by writing a 
reasonably straightforward class-loader and an interpreter for the bytecode.

similar does not work as easily for MSIL / CIL, as in many respects it 
is more complicated, and assumes the use of type-inference by a JIT, 
meaning a plain interpreter would also need to use dynamic type-checking 
while also faking static-type semantics.

otherwise, one would have to internally recompile to a different 
bytecode, to native code, or to threaded code.

funny: there are a few partial .NET VM's I had looked at, which had 
claimed to use "JIT", but internally just converted to threaded code. I 
personally consider threaded code to be a form of interpreter, and not a 
form of JIT, which for me implies the production of proper native code 
(via a codegen of some sort).


meanwhile, I consider my current VM as a "native-code augmented 
interpreter" or "impure interpreter", partly because its core structure 
is at this point still a plain bytecode interpreter, but in many places 
it makes use of native code generation as well.

a next step (along the path of just being lazy) would be "native code 
augmented threaded code" (or "poor man's JIT").


>> granted, there are always C, C++, assembler, ... which are not
>> particularly "owned" by anyone.
>
> Lisp, too. On the other hand, specific implementations and dialects are
> sometimes "owned", often via a trademark. That new Lisp, Clojure, is
> trademarked, though it's open source. So it's exactly as free as OpenJDK.

yep.

or such...

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

back to .Net? lesser of two evils? jebblue <n@n.nnn> - 2011-10-28 15:29 -0500
  Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-10-28 15:16 -0700
    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-02 07:05 -0300
    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 22:46 -0400
  Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-01 22:18 -0400
    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 22:35 -0700
      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Cindy <c.thurston@frell.okb.uwa.edu> - 2011-11-02 03:17 -0400
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 07:58 -0700
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:06 -0400
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 00:01 -0700
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:48 -0400
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:52 -0400
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 07:21 -0700
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-09 20:30 -0500
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 22:48 -0700
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? coder <j-code@speak.invalid> - 2011-11-02 17:36 -0400
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 17:13 -0700
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Cindy <c.thurston@frell.okb.uwa.edu> - 2011-11-03 00:49 -0400
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 00:10 -0700
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Cindy <c.thurston@frell.okb.uwa.edu> - 2011-11-03 04:41 -0400
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 05:36 -0700
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? thoolen <tholen01@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 23:13 -0700
      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-02 08:28 -0700
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 10:04 -0700
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-02 10:19 -0700
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 14:32 -0700
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 17:20 -0700
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 21:34 -0700
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:57 -0400
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 09:25 -0700
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-09 20:25 -0500
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 23:05 -0700
      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 17:26 -0400
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 15:01 -0700
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:18 -0400
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:20 -0400
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 22:30 -0700
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 21:30 -0400
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 21:40 -0400
  Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-11-01 23:42 -0700
    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 10:22 -0700
      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:02 -0400
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 20:10 -0700
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:45 -0400
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 09:56 -0700
    Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:01 -0400
      Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-02 15:26 -0700
        Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:35 -0400
          Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 20:53 -0700
            Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 21:45 -0400
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-04 05:50 -0300
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 10:39 -0700
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-04 17:38 -0400
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-04 18:47 -0300
              Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 10:11 -0700
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-09 20:24 -0500
                Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 23:42 -0700

csiph-web