C# is a proprietary programming language ??

[Matt]

Some people identify Microsoft C# is Proprietary programming language.
What is Proprietary programming language then? How does it differ
from other languages such as C++, or Java??

Please advise. thanks!!

[Nick Malik]

Re: C# is a proprietary programming language ??

This used to mean something... back when every company had their own Fortran
compiler, and everyone was trying to write code in one Fortran compiler that
could be used by all others... (write once, run anywhere... sound familiar?)

Java tried this too, of course. Everyone was supposed to have the same
"Java." Difference is, SUN kept the intellectual property rights for Java,
so when Microsoft added some extensions to the language to make it useful
for calling the Windows API, SUN sued, and won. Microsoft had to drop the
Java platform (even though most folks agree that the Microsoft JVM was
head-and-shoulders faster than any other JVM at the time).

So, Java is the language where you can write code on one operating system
(say LINUX) and run it on another (say WINDOWS). For the most part, it's
true.

The downside is that any changes to the language have to be made either by
the mothership (SUN) or they have to be delivered in Java class libraries,
written in Java itself. This effectively prevents the language from
changing to meet new needs. Java is done. Either it's perfect, or it
isn't, but it isn't changing.

C# is the brainchild of Microsoft. MS owns it. True, a spec for the
language has been released as a standard, and MS doesn't object to third
parties creating a C# compiler that will run on UNIX. On the other hand, MS
isn't going to invest much money in any OS but Windows (with the minor
exception of the Mac). But C# is changing. A new version is about to be
released with major new features. Fundamental features that couldn't be
done by just adding a library. This is the strength of a language that one
company owns, and cares for.

Of course, if you write code in C# on Windows, you can't run it on UNIX.
It's proprietary. One company owns the language, and they have decided not
to support UNIX, so your code doesn't run there. You are restricted. This
is the limitation of "proprietar y." In theory, anyway. In practice, there
are C# implementations growing on UNIX, written by open source folks. So
while the charge is true, it doesn't mean much.

Given the fact that over 90% of all desktop machines run Windows, the point
is pretty thin. Java's ability to run on multiple platforms has effectively
unified all the UNIX flavors, and has allowed some software companies to
deliver to both UNIX and Windows customers. This is the greatest challenge
to the Microsoft dominance of PC-based software. But it doesn't really
matter when it comes to the language you should choose to do your work.

These days, the notion of "proprietar y" doesn't mean "locked in" like it
used to. One can say that Java is proprietary, since it is owned by SUN.
One can say that a Java programmer is locked in, in that you cannot develop
some libraries in VB, some in C#, some in COBOL, some in Forte, etc (all
available in .NET flavors), and make them all work together. You are locked
in to one language on many platforms. With .NET, you are locked in to one
platform, with many languages.

I know of a software company that is moving their substantial code base
(currently in COBOL) to Java. Doesn't make sense to me. If they'd move it
to .NET, they could recompile 60% of their code out of the box (Fujitsu
COBOL), and could use the skills of their existing programming staff to
complete the conversion. By moving to Java, they have to throw away working
code and start over, probably by replacing people, as well as modules. I
hope that their finances outlast their irrational behavior, because their
stuff is good, even if their company is poorly run.

Back to the original question: What is proprietary? My answer: Everything
is proprietary... it doesn't matter. Pick the language that will work for
you in the long run.

As for me, I'm sticking with .NET.

--- Nick Malik
Biztalk Bum

"Matt" <mattloude@hotm ail.com> wrote in message
news:egwWNNMYEH A.2500@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Some people identify Microsoft C# is Proprietary programming language.
> What is Proprietary programming language then? How does it differ
> from other languages such as C++, or Java??
>
> Please advise. thanks!!
>
>[/color]

[Nick Malik]

Re: C# is a proprietary programming language ??

This used to mean something... back when every company had their own Fortran
compiler, and everyone was trying to write code in one Fortran compiler that
could be used by all others... (write once, run anywhere... sound familiar?)

Java tried this too, of course. Everyone was supposed to have the same
"Java." Difference is, SUN kept the intellectual property rights for Java,
so when Microsoft added some extensions to the language to make it useful
for calling the Windows API, SUN sued, and won. Microsoft had to drop the
Java platform (even though most folks agree that the Microsoft JVM was
head-and-shoulders faster than any other JVM at the time).

So, Java is the language where you can write code on one operating system
(say LINUX) and run it on another (say WINDOWS). For the most part, it's
true.

The downside is that any changes to the language have to be made either by
the mothership (SUN) or they have to be delivered in Java class libraries,
written in Java itself. This effectively prevents the language from
changing to meet new needs. Java is done. Either it's perfect, or it
isn't, but it isn't changing.

C# is the brainchild of Microsoft. MS owns it. True, a spec for the
language has been released as a standard, and MS doesn't object to third
parties creating a C# compiler that will run on UNIX. On the other hand, MS
isn't going to invest much money in any OS but Windows (with the minor
exception of the Mac). But C# is changing. A new version is about to be
released with major new features. Fundamental features that couldn't be
done by just adding a library. This is the strength of a language that one
company owns, and cares for.

Of course, if you write code in C# on Windows, you can't run it on UNIX.
It's proprietary. One company owns the language, and they have decided not
to support UNIX, so your code doesn't run there. You are restricted. This
is the limitation of "proprietar y." In theory, anyway. In practice, there
are C# implementations growing on UNIX, written by open source folks. So
while the charge is true, it doesn't mean much.

Given the fact that over 90% of all desktop machines run Windows, the point
is pretty thin. Java's ability to run on multiple platforms has effectively
unified all the UNIX flavors, and has allowed some software companies to
deliver to both UNIX and Windows customers. This is the greatest challenge
to the Microsoft dominance of PC-based software. But it doesn't really
matter when it comes to the language you should choose to do your work.

These days, the notion of "proprietar y" doesn't mean "locked in" like it
used to. One can say that Java is proprietary, since it is owned by SUN.
One can say that a Java programmer is locked in, in that you cannot develop
some libraries in VB, some in C#, some in COBOL, some in Forte, etc (all
available in .NET flavors), and make them all work together. You are locked
in to one language on many platforms. With .NET, you are locked in to one
platform, with many languages.

I know of a software company that is moving their substantial code base
(currently in COBOL) to Java. Doesn't make sense to me. If they'd move it
to .NET, they could recompile 60% of their code out of the box (Fujitsu
COBOL), and could use the skills of their existing programming staff to
complete the conversion. By moving to Java, they have to throw away working
code and start over, probably by replacing people, as well as modules. I
hope that their finances outlast their irrational behavior, because their
stuff is good, even if their company is poorly run.

Back to the original question: What is proprietary? My answer: Everything
is proprietary... it doesn't matter. Pick the language that will work for
you in the long run.

As for me, I'm sticking with .NET.

--- Nick Malik
Biztalk Bum

"Matt" <mattloude@hotm ail.com> wrote in message
news:egwWNNMYEH A.2500@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Some people identify Microsoft C# is Proprietary programming language.
> What is Proprietary programming language then? How does it differ
> from other languages such as C++, or Java??
>
> Please advise. thanks!!
>
>[/color]

[Christopher Kimbell]

Re: C# is a proprietary programming language ??

Nick,
Claiming that writing C#, or any .NET language, code prevents it from
running on UNIX is not true. C# will be compiled to Intermediate Language
(IL), similar to Java's bytecode. It is then a question of JIT compiling the
IL code to the actual machine code. The MONO project on Linux is in the
process of doing this, so it shouldn't be a problem of doing the same on
UNIX.

Chris

"Nick Malik" <nickmalik@hotm ail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vetFc.613$ JR4.466@attbi_s 54...[color=blue]
> This used to mean something... back when every company had their own[/color]
Fortran[color=blue]
> compiler, and everyone was trying to write code in one Fortran compiler[/color]
that[color=blue]
> could be used by all others... (write once, run anywhere... sound[/color]
familiar?)[color=blue]
>
> Java tried this too, of course. Everyone was supposed to have the same
> "Java." Difference is, SUN kept the intellectual property rights for[/color]
Java,[color=blue]
> so when Microsoft added some extensions to the language to make it useful
> for calling the Windows API, SUN sued, and won. Microsoft had to drop the
> Java platform (even though most folks agree that the Microsoft JVM was
> head-and-shoulders faster than any other JVM at the time).
>
> So, Java is the language where you can write code on one operating system
> (say LINUX) and run it on another (say WINDOWS). For the most part, it's
> true.
>
> The downside is that any changes to the language have to be made either by
> the mothership (SUN) or they have to be delivered in Java class libraries,
> written in Java itself. This effectively prevents the language from
> changing to meet new needs. Java is done. Either it's perfect, or it
> isn't, but it isn't changing.
>
> C# is the brainchild of Microsoft. MS owns it. True, a spec for the
> language has been released as a standard, and MS doesn't object to third
> parties creating a C# compiler that will run on UNIX. On the other hand,[/color]
MS[color=blue]
> isn't going to invest much money in any OS but Windows (with the minor
> exception of the Mac). But C# is changing. A new version is about to be
> released with major new features. Fundamental features that couldn't be
> done by just adding a library. This is the strength of a language that[/color]
one[color=blue]
> company owns, and cares for.
>
> Of course, if you write code in C# on Windows, you can't run it on UNIX.
> It's proprietary. One company owns the language, and they have decided[/color]
not[color=blue]
> to support UNIX, so your code doesn't run there. You are restricted.[/color]
This[color=blue]
> is the limitation of "proprietar y." In theory, anyway. In practice,[/color]
there[color=blue]
> are C# implementations growing on UNIX, written by open source folks. So
> while the charge is true, it doesn't mean much.
>
> Given the fact that over 90% of all desktop machines run Windows, the[/color]
point[color=blue]
> is pretty thin. Java's ability to run on multiple platforms has[/color]
effectively[color=blue]
> unified all the UNIX flavors, and has allowed some software companies to
> deliver to both UNIX and Windows customers. This is the greatest[/color]
challenge[color=blue]
> to the Microsoft dominance of PC-based software. But it doesn't really
> matter when it comes to the language you should choose to do your work.
>
> These days, the notion of "proprietar y" doesn't mean "locked in" like it
> used to. One can say that Java is proprietary, since it is owned by SUN.
> One can say that a Java programmer is locked in, in that you cannot[/color]
develop[color=blue]
> some libraries in VB, some in C#, some in COBOL, some in Forte, etc (all
> available in .NET flavors), and make them all work together. You are[/color]
locked[color=blue]
> in to one language on many platforms. With .NET, you are locked in to one
> platform, with many languages.
>
> I know of a software company that is moving their substantial code base
> (currently in COBOL) to Java. Doesn't make sense to me. If they'd move[/color]
it[color=blue]
> to .NET, they could recompile 60% of their code out of the box (Fujitsu
> COBOL), and could use the skills of their existing programming staff to
> complete the conversion. By moving to Java, they have to throw away[/color]
working[color=blue]
> code and start over, probably by replacing people, as well as modules. I
> hope that their finances outlast their irrational behavior, because their
> stuff is good, even if their company is poorly run.
>
> Back to the original question: What is proprietary? My answer: Everything
> is proprietary... it doesn't matter. Pick the language that will work for
> you in the long run.
>
> As for me, I'm sticking with .NET.
>
> --- Nick Malik
> Biztalk Bum
>
> "Matt" <mattloude@hotm ail.com> wrote in message
> news:egwWNNMYEH A.2500@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...[color=green]
> > Some people identify Microsoft C# is Proprietary programming language.
> > What is Proprietary programming language then? How does it differ
> > from other languages such as C++, or Java??
> >
> > Please advise. thanks!!
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

[Christopher Kimbell]

Re: C# is a proprietary programming language ??

Nick,
Claiming that writing C#, or any .NET language, code prevents it from
running on UNIX is not true. C# will be compiled to Intermediate Language
(IL), similar to Java's bytecode. It is then a question of JIT compiling the
IL code to the actual machine code. The MONO project on Linux is in the
process of doing this, so it shouldn't be a problem of doing the same on
UNIX.

Chris

"Nick Malik" <nickmalik@hotm ail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vetFc.613$ JR4.466@attbi_s 54...[color=blue]
> This used to mean something... back when every company had their own[/color]
Fortran[color=blue]
> compiler, and everyone was trying to write code in one Fortran compiler[/color]
that[color=blue]
> could be used by all others... (write once, run anywhere... sound[/color]
familiar?)[color=blue]
>
> Java tried this too, of course. Everyone was supposed to have the same
> "Java." Difference is, SUN kept the intellectual property rights for[/color]
Java,[color=blue]
> so when Microsoft added some extensions to the language to make it useful
> for calling the Windows API, SUN sued, and won. Microsoft had to drop the
> Java platform (even though most folks agree that the Microsoft JVM was
> head-and-shoulders faster than any other JVM at the time).
>
> So, Java is the language where you can write code on one operating system
> (say LINUX) and run it on another (say WINDOWS). For the most part, it's
> true.
>
> The downside is that any changes to the language have to be made either by
> the mothership (SUN) or they have to be delivered in Java class libraries,
> written in Java itself. This effectively prevents the language from
> changing to meet new needs. Java is done. Either it's perfect, or it
> isn't, but it isn't changing.
>
> C# is the brainchild of Microsoft. MS owns it. True, a spec for the
> language has been released as a standard, and MS doesn't object to third
> parties creating a C# compiler that will run on UNIX. On the other hand,[/color]
MS[color=blue]
> isn't going to invest much money in any OS but Windows (with the minor
> exception of the Mac). But C# is changing. A new version is about to be
> released with major new features. Fundamental features that couldn't be
> done by just adding a library. This is the strength of a language that[/color]
one[color=blue]
> company owns, and cares for.
>
> Of course, if you write code in C# on Windows, you can't run it on UNIX.
> It's proprietary. One company owns the language, and they have decided[/color]
not[color=blue]
> to support UNIX, so your code doesn't run there. You are restricted.[/color]
This[color=blue]
> is the limitation of "proprietar y." In theory, anyway. In practice,[/color]
there[color=blue]
> are C# implementations growing on UNIX, written by open source folks. So
> while the charge is true, it doesn't mean much.
>
> Given the fact that over 90% of all desktop machines run Windows, the[/color]
point[color=blue]
> is pretty thin. Java's ability to run on multiple platforms has[/color]
effectively[color=blue]
> unified all the UNIX flavors, and has allowed some software companies to
> deliver to both UNIX and Windows customers. This is the greatest[/color]
challenge[color=blue]
> to the Microsoft dominance of PC-based software. But it doesn't really
> matter when it comes to the language you should choose to do your work.
>
> These days, the notion of "proprietar y" doesn't mean "locked in" like it
> used to. One can say that Java is proprietary, since it is owned by SUN.
> One can say that a Java programmer is locked in, in that you cannot[/color]
develop[color=blue]
> some libraries in VB, some in C#, some in COBOL, some in Forte, etc (all
> available in .NET flavors), and make them all work together. You are[/color]
locked[color=blue]
> in to one language on many platforms. With .NET, you are locked in to one
> platform, with many languages.
>
> I know of a software company that is moving their substantial code base
> (currently in COBOL) to Java. Doesn't make sense to me. If they'd move[/color]
it[color=blue]
> to .NET, they could recompile 60% of their code out of the box (Fujitsu
> COBOL), and could use the skills of their existing programming staff to
> complete the conversion. By moving to Java, they have to throw away[/color]
working[color=blue]
> code and start over, probably by replacing people, as well as modules. I
> hope that their finances outlast their irrational behavior, because their
> stuff is good, even if their company is poorly run.
>
> Back to the original question: What is proprietary? My answer: Everything
> is proprietary... it doesn't matter. Pick the language that will work for
> you in the long run.
>
> As for me, I'm sticking with .NET.
>
> --- Nick Malik
> Biztalk Bum
>
> "Matt" <mattloude@hotm ail.com> wrote in message
> news:egwWNNMYEH A.2500@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...[color=green]
> > Some people identify Microsoft C# is Proprietary programming language.
> > What is Proprietary programming language then? How does it differ
> > from other languages such as C++, or Java??
> >
> > Please advise. thanks!!
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

[Robert Kent]

Re: C# is a proprietary programming language ??


"Christophe r Kimbell" <c_kimbell@onli ne.nospam> wrote in message
news:40e67960$1 @news.broadpark .no...[color=blue]
> Nick,
> Claiming that writing C#, or any .NET language, code prevents it from
> running on UNIX is not true. C# will be compiled to Intermediate Language
> (IL), similar to Java's bytecode. It is then a question of JIT compiling[/color]
the[color=blue]
> IL code to the actual machine code. The MONO project on Linux is in the
> process of doing this, so it shouldn't be a problem of doing the same on
> UNIX.
>[/color]
I'm assuming that future versions of Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer
will be written in C#. If this happens, will they run under MONO?

[Chua Wen Ching]

Re: C# is a proprietary programming language ??

Hi Nick Malik,

I initially thought that C# is an ECMA standard as Microsoft submitted to them. It is open to everyone to create a compiler for C# or anything.

So why is it propiertary anymore? Not like if you want to use C#, you need to buy this and that. I don't think it is a must to buy visual studio .net, and .net framework is free to download.

Example, rpg language. If you want to use it, you need to have a mainframe. I think this is more to propietary.

Please correct me if i am wrong. Thanks.
--
Regards,
Chua Wen Ching :)


"Nick Malik" wrote:
[color=blue]
> This used to mean something... back when every company had their own Fortran
> compiler, and everyone was trying to write code in one Fortran compiler that
> could be used by all others... (write once, run anywhere... sound familiar?)
>
> Java tried this too, of course. Everyone was supposed to have the same
> "Java." Difference is, SUN kept the intellectual property rights for Java,
> so when Microsoft added some extensions to the language to make it useful
> for calling the Windows API, SUN sued, and won. Microsoft had to drop the
> Java platform (even though most folks agree that the Microsoft JVM was
> head-and-shoulders faster than any other JVM at the time).
>
> So, Java is the language where you can write code on one operating system
> (say LINUX) and run it on another (say WINDOWS). For the most part, it's
> true.
>
> The downside is that any changes to the language have to be made either by
> the mothership (SUN) or they have to be delivered in Java class libraries,
> written in Java itself. This effectively prevents the language from
> changing to meet new needs. Java is done. Either it's perfect, or it
> isn't, but it isn't changing.
>
> C# is the brainchild of Microsoft. MS owns it. True, a spec for the
> language has been released as a standard, and MS doesn't object to third
> parties creating a C# compiler that will run on UNIX. On the other hand, MS
> isn't going to invest much money in any OS but Windows (with the minor
> exception of the Mac). But C# is changing. A new version is about to be
> released with major new features. Fundamental features that couldn't be
> done by just adding a library. This is the strength of a language that one
> company owns, and cares for.
>
> Of course, if you write code in C# on Windows, you can't run it on UNIX.
> It's proprietary. One company owns the language, and they have decided not
> to support UNIX, so your code doesn't run there. You are restricted. This
> is the limitation of "proprietar y." In theory, anyway. In practice, there
> are C# implementations growing on UNIX, written by open source folks. So
> while the charge is true, it doesn't mean much.
>
> Given the fact that over 90% of all desktop machines run Windows, the point
> is pretty thin. Java's ability to run on multiple platforms has effectively
> unified all the UNIX flavors, and has allowed some software companies to
> deliver to both UNIX and Windows customers. This is the greatest challenge
> to the Microsoft dominance of PC-based software. But it doesn't really
> matter when it comes to the language you should choose to do your work.
>
> These days, the notion of "proprietar y" doesn't mean "locked in" like it
> used to. One can say that Java is proprietary, since it is owned by SUN.
> One can say that a Java programmer is locked in, in that you cannot develop
> some libraries in VB, some in C#, some in COBOL, some in Forte, etc (all
> available in .NET flavors), and make them all work together. You are locked
> in to one language on many platforms. With .NET, you are locked in to one
> platform, with many languages.
>
> I know of a software company that is moving their substantial code base
> (currently in COBOL) to Java. Doesn't make sense to me. If they'd move it
> to .NET, they could recompile 60% of their code out of the box (Fujitsu
> COBOL), and could use the skills of their existing programming staff to
> complete the conversion. By moving to Java, they have to throw away working
> code and start over, probably by replacing people, as well as modules. I
> hope that their finances outlast their irrational behavior, because their
> stuff is good, even if their company is poorly run.
>
> Back to the original question: What is proprietary? My answer: Everything
> is proprietary... it doesn't matter. Pick the language that will work for
> you in the long run.
>
> As for me, I'm sticking with .NET.
>
> --- Nick Malik
> Biztalk Bum
>
> "Matt" <mattloude@hotm ail.com> wrote in message
> news:egwWNNMYEH A.2500@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...[color=green]
> > Some people identify Microsoft C# is Proprietary programming language.
> > What is Proprietary programming language then? How does it differ
> > from other languages such as C++, or Java??
> >
> > Please advise. thanks!!
> >
> >[/color]
>
>
>[/color]

[Bob Grommes]

Re: C# is a proprietary programming language ??

I suppose it would all turn on your definition of "proprietar y".

The "people" you speak of probably believe that anything that isn't open
source is proprietary. Even within that crowd there would be differences of
opinion based upon the exact licensing used, etc.

To me, "proprietar y" always referred to a language that was outside the
mainstream and was limited in having wide acceptance by some combination of
being not general-purpose enough, not popular enough, and/or tying you to
one vendor's vision -- the narrower, the better. Think about PowerBuilder,
FoxPro, Magic, Revelation, and the like.

So ... in my view it's a meaningless criticism. What I want is for a
language to be reasonably general-purpose, stable, and performant, while
still being a fairly natural fit for the problem domain (in my case,
line-of-business apps). Next, it must be widely accepted enough that it's
not difficult to find experienced people to work happily using that
language, not difficult to find a healthy user community, support, etc.
And, backed by a company with enough resources to permit it to support all
the constantly changing, widely deployed APIs and technologies it must
interoperate with. Lastly, it must support the OS platform(s) that are of
concern to me. And it must have wide enough market acceptance that I don't
have to waste a lot of time justifying it as a sufficiently credible or
"safe" choice.

For my purposes, C# fits the bill. If it's "guilty" of being "proprietar y",
that is incidental.

If I were supporting a UNIX/Linux or mixed OS environment I would probably
go with J2EE, but I'd still be casting a lustful eye on the Mono project and
wishing it would be to a useable release level. So, I'm pretty happy with
C#. It meets all the above requirements. Your requirements and conclusions
may vary.

--Bob

"Matt" <mattloude@hotm ail.com> wrote in message
news:egwWNNMYEH A.2500@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Some people identify Microsoft C# is Proprietary programming language.
> What is Proprietary programming language then? How does it differ
> from other languages such as C++, or Java??
>
> Please advise. thanks!![/color]

[Niki Estner]

Re: C# is a proprietary programming language ??

"Chua Wen Ching" <chua_wen_ching @nospam.hotmail .com> wrote in
news:8530BEEC-2CE8-4FD2-AAE9-0AC833679EC4@mi crosoft.com...[color=blue]
> Hi Nick Malik,
>
> I initially thought that C# is an ECMA standard as Microsoft submitted to[/color]
them. It is open to everyone to create a compiler for C# or anything.

It is.
[color=blue]
> So why is it propiertary anymore? Not like if you want to use C#, you need[/color]
to buy this and that. I don't think it is a must to buy visual studio .net,
and .net framework is free to download.

Correct.
[color=blue]
> Example, rpg language. If you want to use it, you need to have a[/color]
mainframe. I think this is more to propietary.

Well, if you want to use C# you need a Windows box. You see the similarity?

I know about Mono and DotGNU, but currently they are not yet comparable with
the MS .NET implementation. (lacking Windows forms and other important parts
of the framework, not even mentioning speed and reliability concerns...).

Niki
[color=blue]
> Please correct me if i am wrong. Thanks.
> --
> Regards,
> Chua Wen Ching :)
>
>
> "Nick Malik" wrote:
>[color=green]
> > This used to mean something... back when every company had their own[/color][/color]
Fortran[color=blue][color=green]
> > compiler, and everyone was trying to write code in one Fortran compiler[/color][/color]
that[color=blue][color=green]
> > could be used by all others... (write once, run anywhere... sound[/color][/color]
familiar?)[color=blue][color=green]
> >
> > Java tried this too, of course. Everyone was supposed to have the same
> > "Java." Difference is, SUN kept the intellectual property rights for[/color][/color]
Java,[color=blue][color=green]
> > so when Microsoft added some extensions to the language to make it[/color][/color]
useful[color=blue][color=green]
> > for calling the Windows API, SUN sued, and won. Microsoft had to drop[/color][/color]
the[color=blue][color=green]
> > Java platform (even though most folks agree that the Microsoft JVM was
> > head-and-shoulders faster than any other JVM at the time).
> >
> > So, Java is the language where you can write code on one operating[/color][/color]
system[color=blue][color=green]
> > (say LINUX) and run it on another (say WINDOWS). For the most part,[/color][/color]
it's[color=blue][color=green]
> > true.
> >
> > The downside is that any changes to the language have to be made either[/color][/color]
by[color=blue][color=green]
> > the mothership (SUN) or they have to be delivered in Java class[/color][/color]
libraries,[color=blue][color=green]
> > written in Java itself. This effectively prevents the language from
> > changing to meet new needs. Java is done. Either it's perfect, or it
> > isn't, but it isn't changing.
> >
> > C# is the brainchild of Microsoft. MS owns it. True, a spec for the
> > language has been released as a standard, and MS doesn't object to third
> > parties creating a C# compiler that will run on UNIX. On the other[/color][/color]
hand, MS[color=blue][color=green]
> > isn't going to invest much money in any OS but Windows (with the minor
> > exception of the Mac). But C# is changing. A new version is about to[/color][/color]
be[color=blue][color=green]
> > released with major new features. Fundamental features that couldn't be
> > done by just adding a library. This is the strength of a language that[/color][/color]
one[color=blue][color=green]
> > company owns, and cares for.
> >
> > Of course, if you write code in C# on Windows, you can't run it on UNIX.
> > It's proprietary. One company owns the language, and they have decided[/color][/color]
not[color=blue][color=green]
> > to support UNIX, so your code doesn't run there. You are restricted.[/color][/color]
This[color=blue][color=green]
> > is the limitation of "proprietar y." In theory, anyway. In practice,[/color][/color]
there[color=blue][color=green]
> > are C# implementations growing on UNIX, written by open source folks.[/color][/color]
So[color=blue][color=green]
> > while the charge is true, it doesn't mean much.
> >
> > Given the fact that over 90% of all desktop machines run Windows, the[/color][/color]
point[color=blue][color=green]
> > is pretty thin. Java's ability to run on multiple platforms has[/color][/color]
effectively[color=blue][color=green]
> > unified all the UNIX flavors, and has allowed some software companies to
> > deliver to both UNIX and Windows customers. This is the greatest[/color][/color]
challenge[color=blue][color=green]
> > to the Microsoft dominance of PC-based software. But it doesn't really
> > matter when it comes to the language you should choose to do your work.
> >
> > These days, the notion of "proprietar y" doesn't mean "locked in" like it
> > used to. One can say that Java is proprietary, since it is owned by[/color][/color]
SUN.[color=blue][color=green]
> > One can say that a Java programmer is locked in, in that you cannot[/color][/color]
develop[color=blue][color=green]
> > some libraries in VB, some in C#, some in COBOL, some in Forte, etc (all
> > available in .NET flavors), and make them all work together. You are[/color][/color]
locked[color=blue][color=green]
> > in to one language on many platforms. With .NET, you are locked in to[/color][/color]
one[color=blue][color=green]
> > platform, with many languages.
> >
> > I know of a software company that is moving their substantial code base
> > (currently in COBOL) to Java. Doesn't make sense to me. If they'd move[/color][/color]
it[color=blue][color=green]
> > to .NET, they could recompile 60% of their code out of the box (Fujitsu
> > COBOL), and could use the skills of their existing programming staff to
> > complete the conversion. By moving to Java, they have to throw away[/color][/color]
working[color=blue][color=green]
> > code and start over, probably by replacing people, as well as modules.[/color][/color]
I[color=blue][color=green]
> > hope that their finances outlast their irrational behavior, because[/color][/color]
their[color=blue][color=green]
> > stuff is good, even if their company is poorly run.
> >
> > Back to the original question: What is proprietary? My answer:[/color][/color]
Everything[color=blue][color=green]
> > is proprietary... it doesn't matter. Pick the language that will work[/color][/color]
for[color=blue][color=green]
> > you in the long run.
> >
> > As for me, I'm sticking with .NET.
> >
> > --- Nick Malik
> > Biztalk Bum
> >
> > "Matt" <mattloude@hotm ail.com> wrote in message
> > news:egwWNNMYEH A.2500@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
> > > Some people identify Microsoft C# is Proprietary programming language.
> > > What is Proprietary programming language then? How does it differ
> > > from other languages such as C++, or Java??
> > >
> > > Please advise. thanks!!
> > >
> > >[/color]
> >
> >
> >[/color][/color]

[Mark Broadbent]

Re: C# is a proprietary programming language ??

This is what I think (dont quote me!).
C# (and any other .NET language) is by design platform independant.
Obviously there is several namespaces/ class libraries which are specific to
Windows platform and on other implementations (like MONO) there will no
doubt be parts specific to them.
However the key thing is that there is a core which all implementations of
..NET must comply to.

But lets get real, something coded for the windows platform is almost
certainly going to use classes which have not been implemented on another
platform's .NET runtime, so recompilation of source to another platform is
not really going to be applicable. I dont even think Anders has designed C#
(or .NET in general) for this anyway. It is not Java -and doesnt want to be.

I believe what .NET gives us is the ability to program any OS (that
implements .NET) using our .net language of choice (learn once) and leverage
the maximum amount of features that specific OS provides only needing to be
concerned with what specific functionality we want to consume (it is however
exposed in exactly the same way meaning a very sharp learning curve.

--


Br,
Mark Broadbent
mcdba , mcse+i
=============
"Matt" <mattloude@hotm ail.com> wrote in message
news:egwWNNMYEH A.2500@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Some people identify Microsoft C# is Proprietary programming language.
> What is Proprietary programming language then? How does it differ
> from other languages such as C++, or Java??
>
> Please advise. thanks!!
>
>[/color]

[Nick Malik]

Re: C# is a proprietary programming language ??

Hello Chua Wen Ching,

I am going to disagree with one other responder on this thread. My
apologies.
[color=blue]
> I initially thought that C# is an ECMA standard as Microsoft submitted to[/color]
them. It is open to everyone to create a compiler for C# or anything.

Don't be silly. If Microsoft stopped supporting C# tomorrow, that ECMA
standard would be meaningless. If a third party commercial corporate
decided to really try to compete with Microsoft by producing a viable C#
compiler on the Windows platform, Microsoft would probably attack them and
destroy them. Don't be fooled with a notion that C# is "open." The
definition is public and stable. The definition is released and others are
free to create bits, but it is still proprietary. If MS makes a change,
without asking anyone else, no one will mind. If anyone else makes a
change, without asking Microsoft, they will be ridiculed, ignored, or
attacked. Control is with Microsoft. SUN behaves exactly the same way with
Java. Both languages are completely proprietary.
[color=blue]
>
> Not like if you want to use C#, you need to buy this and that. I don't[/color]
think it is a must to buy visual studio .net, and .net framework is free to
download.

If Microsoft decided to charge money for the .NET framework, what would you
do? You'd pay it. You'd have no choice. That is what proprietary means.
Microsoft won't. But other companies have done this in the past, including
IBM. That's what makes folks jittery. Microsoft is not guilty of this sin,
but a lot of folks are wary...
[color=blue]
>
> Example, rpg language. If you want to use it, you need to have a[/color]
mainframe. I think this is more to propietary.

Are you comparing C# to RPG? That's funny. Yes, RPG is proprietary, but if
you purchased a mainframe, you are going to use a proprietary OS, Database,
Application languages, Productivity suites, etc. Everything is proprietary.
If the company that creates the package decides to stop, you are sunk.
(Just ask former customers of Wang, or Data General).

C# is proprietary, plain and simple. It doesn't matter, but there it is.
So is Java. I don't care. Most others don't care either.

If you pick something other than a .NET language, or Java, for new
application development for typical business applications, you should have a
very good reason for doing so (like 100,000 lines of working code in another
language that you NEED to use). Niche markets and applications still need
niche languages. But for most of us, that's the only two choices left.

Hope this helps,
--- Nick

[Mark Broadbent]

Re: C# is a proprietary programming language ??

I dont believe Microsoft would be legally able to charge for the Framework
now it has been submitted (or) at very least would be unable to prevent an
open source implementation of the .net runtime for Windows and windows
classes. Anyhow Microsoft are not about to start trying to stiffle uptake of
this technology now or in the future -it opens up too many revenue
possiblilties with cross Application integration of their product line (e.g.
SQL, Exchange, Office etc). Oracle/ Java initiative would love to be in that
position.

As for whether it is proprietary well...
You now dont need Microsoft OS and/or their .NET runtime distribution and/or
their Development tools (see Linux/ Mono). They cannot prevent this usage
and never will.

As to who controls the changes to the language with regards to syntax and
semantics Im a little unsure about but I would have thought anything would
have to be submitted to the ECMA -and the final say is down to them.
--


Br,
Mark Broadbent
mcdba , mcse+i
=============
"Nick Malik" <nickmalik@hotm ail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:K3KFc.2131 1$Oq2.12437@att bi_s52...[color=blue]
> Hello Chua Wen Ching,
>
> I am going to disagree with one other responder on this thread. My
> apologies.
>[color=green]
> > I initially thought that C# is an ECMA standard as Microsoft submitted[/color][/color]
to[color=blue]
> them. It is open to everyone to create a compiler for C# or anything.
>
> Don't be silly. If Microsoft stopped supporting C# tomorrow, that ECMA
> standard would be meaningless. If a third party commercial corporate
> decided to really try to compete with Microsoft by producing a viable C#
> compiler on the Windows platform, Microsoft would probably attack them and
> destroy them. Don't be fooled with a notion that C# is "open." The
> definition is public and stable. The definition is released and others[/color]
are[color=blue]
> free to create bits, but it is still proprietary. If MS makes a change,
> without asking anyone else, no one will mind. If anyone else makes a
> change, without asking Microsoft, they will be ridiculed, ignored, or
> attacked. Control is with Microsoft. SUN behaves exactly the same way[/color]
with[color=blue]
> Java. Both languages are completely proprietary.
>[color=green]
> >
> > Not like if you want to use C#, you need to buy this and that. I don't[/color]
> think it is a must to buy visual studio .net, and .net framework is free[/color]
to[color=blue]
> download.
>
> If Microsoft decided to charge money for the .NET framework, what would[/color]
you[color=blue]
> do? You'd pay it. You'd have no choice. That is what proprietary means.
> Microsoft won't. But other companies have done this in the past,[/color]
including[color=blue]
> IBM. That's what makes folks jittery. Microsoft is not guilty of this[/color]
sin,[color=blue]
> but a lot of folks are wary...
>[color=green]
> >
> > Example, rpg language. If you want to use it, you need to have a[/color]
> mainframe. I think this is more to propietary.
>
> Are you comparing C# to RPG? That's funny. Yes, RPG is proprietary, but[/color]
if[color=blue]
> you purchased a mainframe, you are going to use a proprietary OS,[/color]
Database,[color=blue]
> Application languages, Productivity suites, etc. Everything is[/color]
proprietary.[color=blue]
> If the company that creates the package decides to stop, you are sunk.
> (Just ask former customers of Wang, or Data General).
>
> C# is proprietary, plain and simple. It doesn't matter, but there it is.
> So is Java. I don't care. Most others don't care either.
>
> If you pick something other than a .NET language, or Java, for new
> application development for typical business applications, you should have[/color]
a[color=blue]
> very good reason for doing so (like 100,000 lines of working code in[/color]
another[color=blue]
> language that you NEED to use). Niche markets and applications still need
> niche languages. But for most of us, that's the only two choices left.
>
> Hope this helps,
> --- Nick
>
>[/color]

[Pollux]

Re: C# is a proprietary programming language ??

In article <K3KFc.21311$Oq 2.12437@attbi_s 52>,
nickmalik@hotma il.nospam.com says...[color=blue]
> Hello Chua Wen Ching,
>
> I am going to disagree with one other responder on this thread. My
> apologies.
>[color=green]
> > I initially thought that C# is an ECMA standard as Microsoft submitted to[/color]
> them. It is open to everyone to create a compiler for C# or anything.
>
> Don't be silly. If Microsoft stopped supporting C# tomorrow, that ECMA
> standard would be meaningless. If a third party commercial corporate
> decided to really try to compete with Microsoft by producing a viable C#
> compiler on the Windows platform, Microsoft would probably attack them and
> destroy them. Don't be fooled with a notion that C# is "open." The
> definition is public and stable. The definition is released and others are
> free to create bits, but it is still proprietary. If MS makes a change,
> without asking anyone else, no one will mind. If anyone else makes a
> change, without asking Microsoft, they will be ridiculed, ignored, or
> attacked. Control is with Microsoft. SUN behaves exactly the same way with
> Java. Both languages are completely proprietary.
>[color=green]
> >
> > Not like if you want to use C#, you need to buy this and that. I don't[/color]
> think it is a must to buy visual studio .net, and .net framework is free to
> download.
>
> If Microsoft decided to charge money for the .NET framework, what would you
> do? You'd pay it. You'd have no choice. That is what proprietary means.
> Microsoft won't. But other companies have done this in the past, including
> IBM. That's what makes folks jittery. Microsoft is not guilty of this sin,
> but a lot of folks are wary...
>[color=green]
> >
> > Example, rpg language. If you want to use it, you need to have a[/color]
> mainframe. I think this is more to propietary.
>
> Are you comparing C# to RPG? That's funny. Yes, RPG is proprietary, but if
> you purchased a mainframe, you are going to use a proprietary OS, Database,
> Application languages, Productivity suites, etc. Everything is proprietary.
> If the company that creates the package decides to stop, you are sunk.
> (Just ask former customers of Wang, or Data General).
>
> C# is proprietary, plain and simple. It doesn't matter, but there it is.
> So is Java. I don't care. Most others don't care either.
>
> If you pick something other than a .NET language, or Java, for new
> application development for typical business applications, you should have a
> very good reason for doing so (like 100,000 lines of working code in another
> language that you NEED to use). Niche markets and applications still need
> niche languages. But for most of us, that's the only two choices left.
>[/color]

I agree with most of what you've said, but you also need to take into
account the case of Java where SUN is relatively a small player in the
Java market compared to companies like IBM, BEA, ... The language being
"open" allowed other players to fill in the gaps.

[Nick Malik]

Re: C# is a proprietary programming language ??

You are right... Microsoft (a) wants to encourage .NET, and (b) has made
choices that favor the growth of .NET, even if they restrict Microsoft from
every being able to "close the door" on third parties, and (c) This is a
good thing.

One note, though: Since the changes to C# are completely backward
compatible, and since ECMA has no teeth with regards to the language
(Microsoft owns the intellectual property), changes to C# do not need prior
approval from anyone else.

My only point was to make it clear that the charge of "proprietar y" was
simply another case of the pot calling the kettle black. Not to criticise
Microsoft from truly saavy business and technical decisions.

--- Nick

"Mark Broadbent" <no-spam-please@no-spam-please.com> wrote in message
news:eDapJHbYEH A.3664@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> I dont believe Microsoft would be legally able to charge for the Framework
> now it has been submitted (or) at very least would be unable to prevent an
> open source implementation of the .net runtime for Windows and windows
> classes. Anyhow Microsoft are not about to start trying to stiffle uptake[/color]
of[color=blue]
> this technology now or in the future -it opens up too many revenue
> possiblilties with cross Application integration of their product line[/color]
(e.g.[color=blue]
> SQL, Exchange, Office etc). Oracle/ Java initiative would love to be in[/color]
that[color=blue]
> position.
>
> As for whether it is proprietary well...
> You now dont need Microsoft OS and/or their .NET runtime distribution[/color]
and/or[color=blue]
> their Development tools (see Linux/ Mono). They cannot prevent this usage
> and never will.
>
> As to who controls the changes to the language with regards to syntax and
> semantics Im a little unsure about but I would have thought anything would
> have to be submitted to the ECMA -and the final say is down to them.
> --
>
>
> Br,
> Mark Broadbent
> mcdba , mcse+i
> =============
> "Nick Malik" <nickmalik@hotm ail.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:K3KFc.2131 1$Oq2.12437@att bi_s52...[color=green]
> > Hello Chua Wen Ching,
> >
> > I am going to disagree with one other responder on this thread. My
> > apologies.
> >[color=darkred]
> > > I initially thought that C# is an ECMA standard as Microsoft submitted[/color][/color]
> to[color=green]
> > them. It is open to everyone to create a compiler for C# or anything.
> >
> > Don't be silly. If Microsoft stopped supporting C# tomorrow, that ECMA
> > standard would be meaningless. If a third party commercial corporate
> > decided to really try to compete with Microsoft by producing a viable C#
> > compiler on the Windows platform, Microsoft would probably attack them[/color][/color]
and[color=blue][color=green]
> > destroy them. Don't be fooled with a notion that C# is "open." The
> > definition is public and stable. The definition is released and others[/color]
> are[color=green]
> > free to create bits, but it is still proprietary. If MS makes a change,
> > without asking anyone else, no one will mind. If anyone else makes a
> > change, without asking Microsoft, they will be ridiculed, ignored, or
> > attacked. Control is with Microsoft. SUN behaves exactly the same way[/color]
> with[color=green]
> > Java. Both languages are completely proprietary.
> >[color=darkred]
> > >
> > > Not like if you want to use C#, you need to buy this and that. I don't[/color]
> > think it is a must to buy visual studio .net, and .net framework is free[/color]
> to[color=green]
> > download.
> >
> > If Microsoft decided to charge money for the .NET framework, what would[/color]
> you[color=green]
> > do? You'd pay it. You'd have no choice. That is what proprietary[/color][/color]
means.[color=blue][color=green]
> > Microsoft won't. But other companies have done this in the past,[/color]
> including[color=green]
> > IBM. That's what makes folks jittery. Microsoft is not guilty of this[/color]
> sin,[color=green]
> > but a lot of folks are wary...
> >[color=darkred]
> > >
> > > Example, rpg language. If you want to use it, you need to have a[/color]
> > mainframe. I think this is more to propietary.
> >
> > Are you comparing C# to RPG? That's funny. Yes, RPG is proprietary,[/color][/color]
but[color=blue]
> if[color=green]
> > you purchased a mainframe, you are going to use a proprietary OS,[/color]
> Database,[color=green]
> > Application languages, Productivity suites, etc. Everything is[/color]
> proprietary.[color=green]
> > If the company that creates the package decides to stop, you are sunk.
> > (Just ask former customers of Wang, or Data General).
> >
> > C# is proprietary, plain and simple. It doesn't matter, but there it[/color][/color]
is.[color=blue][color=green]
> > So is Java. I don't care. Most others don't care either.
> >
> > If you pick something other than a .NET language, or Java, for new
> > application development for typical business applications, you should[/color][/color]
have[color=blue]
> a[color=green]
> > very good reason for doing so (like 100,000 lines of working code in[/color]
> another[color=green]
> > language that you NEED to use). Niche markets and applications still[/color][/color]
need[color=blue][color=green]
> > niche languages. But for most of us, that's the only two choices left.
> >
> > Hope this helps,
> > --- Nick
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

[Nick Malik]

Re: C# is a proprietary programming language ??

Hello,
[color=blue]
>
> I agree with most of what you've said, but you also need to take into
> account the case of Java where SUN is relatively a small player in the
> Java market compared to companies like IBM, BEA, ... The language being
> "open" allowed other players to fill in the gaps.[/color]

This is completely true. SUN is five years ahead of Microsoft in this
respect, and they have successfully marketed the idea of the "big bad wolf"
to many of Microsoft's competitors, many of whom were looking at possible
demise unless they banded together. The Java market is an alliance of IBM,
Oracle and a couple of smaller (yet influential) players. A potent force.

However, this doesn't have much to do with whether Java is proprietary or
not. It's excellent marketing... There's some very good technology under
it. It isn't really about openness.

--- Nick