C# and its CLI stamped as ISO standard, Java left in dust

[Harovan]

Funny link. Gave me some good giggles. Oh Sancta Simplicita.

Asher, I'm not a UNIX developer, I write (among other stuff) portable libraries and am familiar with both worlds. If it doesn't come to GUI stuff, that is. And this post I write on WinXP using IE6, so far for being religious. C# still stinks. And before you protest: Java stinks too. They are both resource wasting crap.

[Yog-Sothoth]

Originally posted by Asher
And I would disagree that ISO certification doesn't mean squat. It means the people pissed off about MS possibly changing things on them to make their implementations incompatible now have to put up and shut up...

The certification only covers C# and the CLI. When all the API's, libraries etc that .Net consists of is submitted to a standard organization and certified, then we have something to talk about. As of now only a small part of the environment is open. Seems more like PR bull**** than anything else...

[Mercator]

You sinners! Submit to Perl!

I don't know either Java or C#, but anything's fine by me.

Tim Toady

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Yog-Sothoth
The certification only covers C# and the CLI. When all the API's, libraries etc that .Net consists of is submitted to a standard organization and certified, then we have something to talk about. As of now only a small part of the environment is open. Seems more like PR bull**** than anything else...

Exactly.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
C# still stinks. And before you protest: Java stinks too. They are both resource wasting crap.

Did you forget that C# acts like C++++ when you tell it to just compile like a normal program?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Yog-Sothoth
The certification only covers C# and the CLI. When all the API's, libraries etc that .Net consists of is submitted to a standard organization and certified, then we have something to talk about. As of now only a small part of the environment is open. Seems more like PR bull**** than anything else...

Nonsense, I don't think you understand how the CLI works in C#.

I've heard this argument profusely on Slashdot, too, and it gets modded up by people who also don't know what they're talking about.

The .NET API is built into the C# CLI. The CLI parses the API. It's not just a code interpreter like you seem to be under the impression of it being, it's an environment which contains both the libraries, APIs, and the interpreter.

Under this ISO flag, the libraries, its APIs, and the actual interpreter itself are ISO standards.

I'll put it this way: C# code doesn't compile in all of the libraries when you compile a code. Those libraries exist pre-compiled in the CLI environment, and all the code does is call them remotely as an object. Those objects and libraries (and correspondingly, the APIs) are a critical component of the CLIs and are covered under the ISO standard.

Now, of course it's possible for someone to make their own library and use it, but it wouldn't be an ISO standard then, and MS is using their own libraries which are included in the CLI.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
And I would disagree that ISO certification doesn't mean squat. It means the people pissed off about MS possibly changing things on them to make their implementations incompatible now have to put up and shut up...

It doesn't matter. MS can still make changes to make new versions incompatible with the old, and call it C## or some such. It doesn't make a bit of difference. The whole thing is the controls are still in the hands of MS, not ISO.

If MS turns over the process to a standards body such as IEEE or ANSI, that's a different story altogether.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It doesn't matter. MS can still make changes to make new versions incompatible with the old, and call it C## or some such. It doesn't make a bit of difference. The whole thing is the controls are still in the hands of MS, not ISO.

How does THAT matter, even IF they do it?

For their old programs to work, it'd need to be backwards compatible. I don't see why people couldn't just keep doing the "ISO" C# in the first place.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
They are both resource wasting crap.

That's what I thought about anything that wasn't
human coded assembler or poked code.

Damn loonies keep writing new languages, after I
told them it was a waste of time.

As for ISO, i'll paid attention to it WHEN americans stop using MM/DD/YY.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ozz
That's what I thought about anything that wasn't
human coded assembler or poked code.

Damn loonies keep writing new languages, after I
told them it was a waste of time.

That's a very valid point.

At one point, C was "resource wasting crap".
Then it was C++.
And now it's Java/C#.

Let's face it, as languages become more advanced and powerful they use more resources. Thankfully hardware is plenty fast enough now for Java/C# type applications.

You can even write fast 3D engines in C#, provided you have it set in JIT mode or pre-compiled a-la standard C/C++.

[Amesjustin]

I am actively writing applications at work using C#, (along with VFP 7, VB.NET, and tSQL). We are using both VFP 7 and C# with their respective Mere Mortals Framework (By Oak Leaf).

There are a few things about C# I don't like, and it still needs to grow up a bit, but all in all it is a very powerful language.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Asher
Did you forget that C# acts like C++++ when you tell it to just compile like a normal program?

C++++... You mean with yet more overhead and tenfold more runtime libraries, making it able to run a "Hello World" program with only one installation CD?

Btw, as far as I remember (that's over 20 years of computer programming), C was never resource wasting crap. Au contraire, the original language is beautiful lean.

[Yog-Sothoth]

Originally posted by Asher

Nonsense, I don't think you understand how the CLI works in C#.

I've heard this argument profusely on Slashdot, too, and it gets modded up by people who also don't know what they're talking about.

The .NET API is built into the C# CLI. The CLI parses the API. It's not just a code interpreter like you seem to be under the impression of it being, it's an environment which contains both the libraries, APIs, and the interpreter.

Under this ISO flag, the libraries, its APIs, and the actual interpreter itself are ISO standards.

The .NET API is not build into the C# CLI. The .NET Framework Components are:

- ASP .NET: Web Forms & Services
- User Interface (System.WIndows.Forms, etc)
- ADO .NET: Data & XML
- .NET Framework CLass Library
- Common Language Runtime

And as I understand it, the ISO standard will only cover the CLR (and C#).

Edit: read the damn thing wrong, its in fact the CLI that is submitted.

Y-S

[Asher]

Originally posted by Yog-Sothoth


The .NET API is not build into the C# CLI. The .NET Framework Components are:

- ASP .NET: Web Forms & Services
- User Interface (System.WIndows.Forms, etc)
- ADO .NET: Data & XML
- .NET Framework CLass Library
- Common Language Runtime

And as I understand it, the ISO standard will only cover the CLI (and C#).

Y-S

The CLI includes what's in your list.

I think you're confusing CLI with CLR.

[Asher]

CLI = Common Language Infrastructure (infrastructure being the key word)
CLR = Common Language Runtime (the VM itself)