Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #25409
| From | Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.arch.embedded |
| Subject | Re: C# for Embedded ?... |
| Date | 2016-11-06 19:49 +0200 |
| Organization | Tidorum Ltd |
| Message-ID | <e898puFfcnvU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <c4bp1cpe6l5jguimetlc935ost10qgo5tc@4ax.com> <wy4Tz.288407$EN.133126@fx30.am4> <f6bq1c5aggaper0manmu8t6u6lif52h85k@4ax.com> <QTgTz.2327542$SA.940694@fx44.am4> <b0ut1c1vnro7chpr2qbt12fj2dueln8ona@4ax.com> |
On 16-11-06 11:50 , George Neuner wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Nov 2016 08:38:08 +0000, Tom Gardner
> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 05/11/16 02:00, George Neuner wrote:
>>
>>> C# was designed to compete head-to-head with Java. They did this
>>> because Sun's lawsuit forced them to abandon J++.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> Don't forget that MS already had a reasonably
>> good JVM and could have continued to offer Java,
>> but decided not to on business grounds and out
>> of hubris.
>
> The "business grounds" were Sun suing to stop Microsoft from
> distributing their JVM clone. Sun claimed Microsoft's enhancements
> made the J++ machine non-conformant and a copyright infringement.
> Microsoft chose drop the product rather than fight about it..
>
> The only "hubris" on the part of Microsoft was daring to make their
> JVM better than Sun's.
It seemed fairly apparent at the time that Microsoft tried to follow
their traditional "embrace, extend and extinguish" strategy in order to
force the open, portable, standard Java off MS-Windows platforms and
replace it with a Microsoft-owned "MS-Java" limited to MS-Windows platforms.
According to Wikipedia
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish),
Microsoft did not make a "better JVM", they removed the Java Native
Interface (JNI) and replaced it with their own "J/Direct" interface,
harming the portability of Java programs between MS-Windows and other
systems. Further according to Wikipedia, there were two lawsuits against
Microsoft over this issue, for which Microsoft paid over US$2 billion in
out-of-court settlements.
--
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
. @ .
Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
C# for Embedded ?... Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2016-11-04 13:12 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-11-04 15:16 +0200
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2016-11-04 13:39 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Jack <jack4747@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 07:52 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Luke A. Guest <laguest@archeia.com> - 2016-11-30 12:47 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com> - 2016-11-04 06:44 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2016-11-04 14:30 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-04 11:54 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-04 12:10 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Mike Perkins <spam@spam.com> - 2016-11-06 14:55 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-06 12:46 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Mike Perkins <spam@spam.com> - 2016-11-06 20:48 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-06 14:25 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... kalvin.news@gmail.com - 2016-11-04 12:11 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-04 15:17 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2016-11-05 09:24 +1100
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2016-11-04 22:38 +0100
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-04 15:12 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2016-11-05 09:21 +1100
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2016-11-05 07:21 +0100
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-04 23:39 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-04 23:52 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-05 00:44 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... kalvin.news@gmail.com - 2016-11-05 04:03 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-05 04:41 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2016-11-06 10:03 +0100
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-06 14:32 -0800
Re: C# for Embedded ?... upsidedown@downunder.com - 2016-11-05 15:39 +0200
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-05 11:12 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-05 11:35 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-05 11:46 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Luke A. Guest <laguest@archeia.com> - 2016-11-30 12:47 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-04 15:37 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2016-11-04 11:32 -0500
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-04 18:19 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-11-04 12:07 -0400
Re: C# for Embedded ?... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-04 17:54 +0100
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2016-11-04 12:54 -0500
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-04 18:36 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-11-04 22:00 -0400
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-04 21:02 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-05 08:45 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-05 08:38 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-11-06 04:50 -0500
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2016-11-06 19:49 +0200
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 19:05 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2016-11-06 19:52 +0100
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-06 11:10 -0800
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 22:44 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 19:12 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-06 11:33 -0800
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 22:59 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-06 15:48 -0800
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 07:45 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-07 00:09 -0800
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 09:56 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2016-11-07 18:38 +0100
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 19:17 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-07 21:29 -0800
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-08 08:07 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-08 01:00 -0800
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-08 10:19 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... John Speth <johnspeth@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-04 10:03 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-04 12:04 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2016-11-05 09:13 +1100
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Ed Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 11:16 -0800
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2016-11-08 21:39 +1100
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Ed Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 15:25 -0800
Re: C# for Embedded ?... kalvin.news@gmail.com - 2016-11-04 11:22 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-04 18:50 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... kalvin.news@gmail.com - 2016-11-04 11:58 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... kalvin.news@gmail.com - 2016-11-04 12:17 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-04 12:51 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-04 23:23 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-04 17:35 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-05 09:04 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2016-11-04 22:55 +0100
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Luke A. Guest <laguest@archeia.com> - 2016-11-30 15:55 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-04 11:48 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... asdf <asdf@nospam.com> - 2016-11-05 12:40 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-05 15:48 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-05 11:41 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-05 20:20 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-05 19:14 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... upsidedown@downunder.com - 2016-11-05 20:15 +0200
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-05 20:25 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-05 17:15 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Mike Perkins <spam@spam.com> - 2016-11-05 21:04 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 00:31 +0000
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com> - 2016-11-05 18:11 -0700
Re: C# for Embedded ?... Luke A. Guest <laguest@archeia.com> - 2016-11-30 12:43 +0000
csiph-web