[rescue] Perverse Question

Eric Josephson ericj at speakeasy.org
Sun Jun 15 19:56:05 CDT 2003

On Sun, 15 Jun 2003, Frank Van Damme wrote:

> On Sunday 15 June 2003 22:23, Andrew Weiss wrote:
> > Yes and I might add the last MS OS to have no product (de)activation
> > technology built-in, but still compatible with .NET stuff (if you'd
> > ever want it...blech)... i.e. it's extremely flexible and makes none of
> > their newer stuff compelling... good job MS...
> >
> > hehhehe
> >
> > I still use it primarily for training (certs) and games.  It just
> > doesn't exude good karma otherwise.
> Well, .NET sounds to me as the first non-braindead MS technology. There may be
> a lot of application development frameworks, but if .net lives up to the
> claims of language independence (doubtful) or platform independence (MS -
> also doubtful) it might actually be neat.

The .NET framework is much cleaner than the legacy APIs, but still not
as elegant as what I've seen in Java.  I thought the abuse of exceptions
to indicate termination conditions was an icky, though I don't know if
java does that.  Another I objected to was a preference for 'pull'
frameworks over 'push' frameworks.  To me, the flexibility and
responsiveness of push-driven machines is an overwhelming advantage
over the easier to use but entirely inflexible pull machines.

Think lex and yacc.  Those are examples of 'pull' architecture.
SAX I understand is an example of a 'push' architecture.  I always
structure my state machines as push architectures.

The good news is that people still seem to be very confused as to what
.NET is, and many are reluctant to use or deploy it, but that will change.

As for language independence, I read a paper linked from a lisp group
recently that indicates the .NET CLR has some serious deficiencies
for interpreted languages (I think they were porting python). I'll
dig up the link if you're interested.

Platform independence?   I'd be more worried about potential MS
patents interfering with free clones like mono.  I've seen no reason
technically that .NET couldn't be portable except for the stuff that
allows calling win32 dlls.

> Otoh, I recently read in Linux Magazine (nl) a letter from a reader who said
> python allready offers everything .net has. True or not, I can't tell...

More information about the rescue mailing list