What is Digg?Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
83 Comments
- Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14And if you could code C# on Windows, your comment might actually mean something. :)
- Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"I can honestly say .NET is eating Java's lunch."
I won't go that far, but having developed a number of applications in each, I can say that I prefer .NET. It's faster, and seems more streamlined.
I'd love to be able to write one .NET app, then tell VS to compile a Mac version, or a Linux version in addition to a Windows EXE. Now THAT would be a Killer App. The flexibility of Java with the speed and elegance of .NET - adolfojp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I have worked with many technologies over the years, but I must admit that I love .NET and C# above all others. Although it would be great for the developers to have the framework available on other platforms, it is clearly bad for business. The idea behind having it run only on Windows is to make people buy Windows Servers and to motivate people to write Windows only software.
- malliemcg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I like the screenshots that demonstrate this cross platform cross browser framework running in something other than IE. It shows and demonstrates that Microsoft are commited to at least working on and to cross compatibility with this product other than just saying that it supports. Credit where credit is due - this is most unlike the microsoft of old.
M - thecwin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I have to agree. Some of the .NET classes and methods have odd names, but on the whole it's a great platform, and this is coming from a linux guy.
I'd love for Java to be as open, performant and integrated as mono+libraries are, even if just for diversity and choice, but it doesn't seem to be happening -- though some progress is being made with gcj. Running Eclipse on my laptop is damn near impossible (256mb RAM) but running monodevelop is fine. They need to sort out a few stability issues with monodevelop though. I have .NET toolbar applets running well integrated to GNOME and I don't even notice. I only found out recently that one of them was running in mono.
The seperation of .NET/libraries/CLR from the programming language itself is a very nice design choice, and I haven't seen any good attempts to do this for Java. I've not used VS.NET since the express version installer failed on my system with an unknown error, so I am unable to comment on that, but I rarely use Windows now anyway. - cabazorro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8It took years for Windows to admit the presence of other software technologies and invest in Open Architectures compatibility/interoperability. In retrospective, they are their own worst enemy. Once it gets into their thick market-share-leader skulls that co-existing with other technologies is not just an advantage but a strength the computer world will be a better place.
- rsbrown, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Maybe that's because .NET is elegant, relatively easy to use and extremely well done. As an ex-Java devotee, I can honestly say .NET is eating Java's lunch.
- fleetskeet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It is far too difficult to get MonoDevelop running on OS X right now. It's possible, but very hard to do and there isn't much documentation available for installing all the dependencies. You have to use something like Gtk# to create truely cross-platform GUIs. As far as I know, the Forms namespace is not ready for public consumption yet.
- MoeB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5i think you may be a bit confused about what .net is and why its used.
- lydon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Or you could just get a MacBook Pro and install XP on it...
But then again, you don't have to. Freedom of choice man, freedom of choice. It rocks. - paulmetzger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4That may have been true in the past, but even Bill recognizes that the future isn't vendor specific OS lock-in, it's vendor specific web services lock-in.
- wifigod, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8weiran:
You want them to spend a whole lot of extra time/money to port two major apps to OS X so you can switch from their OS to their only (relatively) competitor? Don't hold your breath....... - Lynxpro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It would be nice if the Microsoft folk also ported .NET AND DirectX over to Mac OS X. I'm just saying... :)
There's gotta be something in the legal contracts that Apple could use to influence Microsoft to do so. Apple must have some intellectual property related to Sprockets that DirectX is using... Plus, Microsoft should be looking at it from a pragmatic standpoint. Wouldn't it be better for Microsoft that an anti-Microsoft programmer creating a new game write it on a Macintosh with DirectX support instead of on Linux using OpenGL since once that game is completed and sold off to a publisher that it could be easily ported to the Xbox360/720/whatever instead of a Sony Playstation 4 or the Nintendo CounterRevolution/Stop?
After all, do we have to be reminded that Microsoft's biggest game franchise - HALO - started off as being developed on the Mac? Maybe lightning will strike twice for them... - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"small, cross platform subset"
I like the term 'cross platform'.
I dislike the terms 'small' and 'subset' - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Well, the point is that you will now have a choice, and that choice is (almost) always a good thing.
- CaptRR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If I read the post correctly, MS is not bringing .net to the mac, at least not in the way most people are thinking. It looks as through they are bringing a subset of the clr and .net to the mac. That being the case, this does not mean you can start running you .net apps on the mac all of a sudden.
I could be wrong on this, if I am I am sure someone will correct me. - HumbleDialog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Heck, why not? It seems a lot of people writing C# programs these days put those overly shiny buttons on their GUIs anyway. Will fit right in with the mac community...
- ChanKaiShi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Any MS bashers will try to bash .NET? To my surprise everything which come from MS usually bashed immediately for security, perfomance, price, monopoly or any other reasons but .NET is rarely touched. Probably one of very few products where bashers has nothing to say.
- DoctorShim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Some of the APIs you find in .NET are Windows specific. So I'm hoping those are the ones they're going to exclude...
- MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2small subset.
Somehow, I doubt they are including the Systems.Windows namespace, one of the things that sucks about mono. - Lynxpro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4
plus...if Microsoft were to port .NET officially over to Mac OS X, that would give Google more reason to buy up Sun just to gain control of Java and wrestle it away from their present management team. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You know, this is good news for everyone involved. I can't be the only one pleasantly surprised by Microsoft's more open approach to the Internet and web development, from moving IE7 closer to web standards to opening up their web tools. If WPF/E is good and catches on, this means better interoperability of rich web content between Windows and MacOS and that's a very, very good thing in my eyes.
Kudos to Microsoft on this one. If they stick to their guns on this rollout, they'll make many a cross-platform dev very happy. - tarellel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Funny things is, if you look at the image descriptions, Microsoft is using Firefox to demonstrate their examples.
- SDE06, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Good Bye Macrodobia!
- mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Very good news, C# and .net are great and this will help open up the mac to more software that was only avalible on the windows platform. - About mono- It is a great idea but .net gets updated faster than the mono devs can keep-up.
- praseodym, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2C# has garbage collection. Cocoa will get it (Apple's working on it). I however do think that Cocoa's current management system (with its reference counting). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocoa_(software)#Memory_management for some details.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wait a minute. I thought Apple was dropping OS X in favor of Windows. Maybe they'll both drop their OS's in favor of Linux. Yes, that has to be it.
- ricodued, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4YES YES YES YES!
I heard this was happening around the time of the official WPF/WWF/WCF name announcements, but didn't bother holding my breath. Now it seems it actually IS happening, and this should keep me on my Mac as my main machine. I only use my Windows one more because I crave C#. And Carbon and Cocoa and XCode all suck compared to VS2005, even with just plain old C and C++.
It will actually be interesting to see a lot of WPF apps and .NET apps being cross-platform with the Mac. WPF can produce absolutely beautiful, fast, gorgeous applications even with the CLR. You could write an interface like Front Row in a fraction of the time it took for the Apple devs to do it, and I'm not even exaggerating.
/hooray for Microsoft and OS X
//... wait. whats the catch? - CatcherInTheWhy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2MS is a software company, and OSX couldn't run on most hardware out there.
I hope you're joking. - bluehouse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3good comeback. http://bluehouse.wordpress.com/tag/coding/
- JohnnySoftware, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Microsoft had its opportunity to run a full/interoperable/uniform runtime environment in IE and Windows in 1997.
Instead, they took the standard Java classes and: deleted public fields, added different public fields (in their implementation, unilaterally, in violation of their license/contract), and changed public method signatures.
In short, they did everything possible to make sure things written for one Java environment world not work on theirs - and vice-versa. Thankfully, they failed.
Now what. Are we supposed to believe they are chasing their long repressed desire for a portable platform? I don't buy it. Java exists and delivers now: Java applets/apps/webapps run fine unchanged on Linux+OSX+Windows. Microsoft already struck out in this game. Apple has got Java as its cross platform API, support for all the de facto standard multiplatform scripting languages, rich native OOP APIs for C/C++ and Objective-C, and AppleScript/Automator for easier automation than Windows has.
Sounds like a desperate attempt to get Mac developers to not pay attention to the Mac's own APIs and technologies. Or maybe to keep Windows developers from doing it. Meanwhile, free beer tomorrow and Vista next year. Onward, ho! - vinny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm asking seriously. Not sure why I'm getting modded down for asking a question. I'm a Java developer and I'm really curious if there are any advantages to C# over Java. Serious responses would be welcomed.
- JohnnySoftware, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, then. I guess there is no chance of it running on anything in 2006.
- DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You've actually been able to embed .NET apps within a web page for awhile, at least on IE. It's just completely impractical because the default security context is so limiting you can't do anything.
- MoeB, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3this is sick! really good news
- tomkroening, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1.NET is very bittersweet. It's great for business/enterprise and rapid development, but when it comes to small, efficient, fast code you need to watch out. Not only do your potential customers need to have the framework installed but you will take a performance hit with the runtime code.
At this point in time if I paid for a piece of software I would sure hope it wasn't developed with .NET or Java for that matter. We just aren't at that level yet and who knows when and if we will ever get there. If you want some good examples just look at all the new symantec products that are .NET... very slow and very bloated. One other problem I see down the road is a DLLhell like problem with .NET frameworks. I know I currently have 1.1 and 2.0 installed... when does that end?
I use .NET for various business projects and it seems to work very well, but there is definitely a time and a place for it. We'll see what happens when Vista is released. - brownb2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And that's exactly why they won't.
- RobLoach, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Go open-source, go Mono!
http://www.mono-project.com
Mono is a Linux and Mac compatible, open-source implementation of .NET . - eric_n_dfw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm not a C# developer (Java and C/C++) but I've heard one of the things they did "right" is they use what Java calls "runtime" exceptions - no "caught" ones. Allows you to use code without handling every kind of exception that it might throw. That and I would presume their Date classes don't suck like Java's. (I'm currently migrating a large app to use Joda-Time ( http://joda-time.sourceforge.net ) )
- JohnnySoftware, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1OLE was brought to the Macintosh a decade ago. But as far as I know, nobody used it except Microsoft.
Microsoft has not fully integrated Microsoft Office with the now 5 year old Mac OS X yet. Why don't they add support for using the Macintosh dictionary inside MS-Word, since that is something every Macintosh user would welcome? Why not spend some effort supporting Macintosh text Services? That is something that makes all text-based applications work better! Those things would make Word and the other Microsoft Office apps work better on the Mac.
Microsoft Office has a much more "lost" feel to it on Mac OS X than a lot of freeware and shareware applications. It is a more impressive application than most. But in the area of taking advantage of Macintosh features, it falls down.
Those Mac features are pretty darned impressive. Other developers don't have trouble integrating them; so why not Microsoft's? Don't they want to learn the Mac APIs?
How will C# make better support for the Mac environment by Office to pass? With Office and Vista already slipping again and now not scheduled to arrive until sometime after 2006, aren't resources better spent getting those to must-do products out the door? There is always time to do things nobody can figure out a use for later.
If I want to write a cross-platform app, it is a sure-fire bet I am going to write it in Java. Java already exists, is highly advanced, the portability really works, seems safe and easy to understand, and has all the capabilities I need. The Java IDEs are without peer, and free as well.
I would be leery of a Microsoft Javascript or any other scripting language on my machine. Didn't they just drop support abruptly for IE on the Macintosh because they got at Apple for having the gall to write a standards-compliant browser a few years ago? I like the platform I stand on to not topple without notice. - ComputerGuru, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1correct, but that subset is big enoughto port most apps and non DX games.
The parts left out (a lot) ar the windows specific, such as registry acces, ntfs support, dll access, and more, are useless on Mac... I'd guess that is what is being left out. - mythz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1J# = Java + MS Windows only Embrace and Extend tactics
- Philoushka, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5You obviously aren't one of those people listening to TWiT 2 weeks ago - Laporte/Norton just bashed the snot out of .NET, and clearly highlighted that they haven't the slightest what it is. Laporte called it 'beastly', and Norton did one of his typical 'dont get me started' routines which showed that he wasn't prepared and didn't have facts.
- Hexxagonal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1no that's right, but it brings up the possiblity that someday they may.
- jschrab, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2cabazorro: Smartest (yet most obvious) thing I've read here today.
- mythz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1More reason?? You mean one more reason than the factless rumours? Exactly why would Google want to buy Java? Because they are 2 big buzzwords that are not MS?
News flash, Google provides services not development tools. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What this is is Microsoft's answer Java applets that run in your browser. This was the one piece that was always missing from .NET, and it seems they're finally implementing it.
In the old days, you would install a Java VM plug-in into your browser, then download and run .class files embedded in a web page, regardless of what browser or OS you're running. Now, Microsoft hopes, you'll install this mini-.NET VM as a plug-in for your browser, and download and run .NET assemblies embedded in a web page, regardless of what browser and OS you're running.
I guess it's not too surprising that they'd provide a reduced .NET VM for OS X. If they want to provide an alternative to Java applets they're going to have to be platform independent.
And it's light years ahead of the crappy Java 1.1 applets we're used to. I'm trying to find an evil motive to this but I'm not seeing it. It looks pretty cool. - Z_Man, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yaay! I love C# just like I love my Mac!
- Z_Man, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You wanna know why? Cause most everyone I know hates Java and so do I!!
- theJoshMeister, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm sure I'm not the only one who had no idea what WPF/E stands for. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Presentation_Foundation :
"The Windows Presentation Foundation (or WPF), formerly code named Avalon, is the graphical subsystem feature of Microsoft Windows. It will be included in Vista [...] WPF/E is a subset of WPF, and stands for "Windows Presentation Foundation Everywhere". It is basically a mobile version of WPF, based on XAML and Javascript. 3D features are not included, but XPS, vector-based drawing, and hardware acceleration, are."
See the Wikipedia article for more details. -
Show 51 - 83 of 83 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is