Microsoft’s Sour Note

Unfortunately Mr Otey has done it again. Thats right, gone off an represented something in a fashion that is anything but well informed. May I suggest that you require your editors to get into the nitty gritty of the subjects on which they are charged at writing about with 'AUTHORITY'. It is all too clear that Michael does not at all understand the purpose for C# (vb included) existence and knows almost nothing about what the language is capable of.

My response may not have the benefit of much consideration, but I do think there are some important things to be gained by C# and the whole Common Language Runtime (CLR) concept. Java lacks operator overloading (big deal, right?) and the ability to simply interoperate with other Microsoft languages. C# seems to be a better Java with a different goal (i.e., not that silly cross-platform stuff). The CLR pushes the envelope in that many languages FINALLY can talk to each other in a meaningful way. COM attempted to accomplish that, but even after years of working with COM, I find I'm scratching my head all the time over its many problems.

Some things to ponder...

"So is SQL Server magazine now endorsing the John Dvorak school of writing columns?" ... "It is sad to see such poorly thought out comments in the editorial of a magazine that usually has had higher standards." - Chris Kapilla

- Does 'higher standards' mean only endorsing MS products? This is a magazine article, not a MS mouthpiece. Alternative viewpoints are allowed and appreciated.

"Who thumbed whose nose at who? MS built a superior Java run-time which Sun shut down by litigation." - Maurice WIlley

- So MS built a superior JVM. Now why doesn't anyone ask why it wasn't built so that code written to it can run on other JVMs? There _are_ other platforms which run Java. Does anyone wonder if it would have been difficult for MS to sit down with Sun and other licensees to create new JVM features which work on all platforms? I think not.

"This has enabled a MUCH HIGHER level of multi-language integration. The revolutoin is that language is no longer important, they're all syntatic sugar." - Tim Marshall

- CLR is an excellent ideal. Does the CLR 'revolution' extend to non-Windows platforms? We wont know for some time. I'll jump up and down when CLR is supported on all major platforms.

"Java did not deliver Garbage Collection, type safety and full object oriented support. Those features existed in many other languages before." -Darrel Miller

- Perhaps you're right. So why not bash MS for not bringing these features to developers first?

After attending the Microsoft Developers Network presentation on C#, I've decided it would be more accurate to call it J# rather than C#. It bears a remarkable resemblance to Java, while only having the same resemblance to C++ as Java has to C++.

This is very important to me. As a C++ Windows developer since Windows 3.0, I've had to make the decision to go with C# or Java. That really means .NET or J2EE. Contrary to the opinion of the other comments here, I find nothing compelling in .NET over J2EE. In fact the two platforms are very similar and offer most of the same functionality with one crucial difference: .NET only runs on Microsoft platforms and with Microsoft products. Period. J2EE is offered by many vendors (BEA, IBM, Sun are the biggies and there's Jakarta and JBOSS that offer open-source J2EE solutions) and runs on any platform you would care about.

Don't think the open-source community has the language and runtime engine concepts confused. They're very aware that most languages can be compiled to the JVM, allowing Perl and Python compilers to write to the JVM. Of course Microsoft promises this kind of support for their CLR, but I don't think you're going to see it. Microsoft has announced that over 80 language compilers will exist to write to the CLR. We'll see. Meanwhile the JVM has half a dozen or so languages now, today.

Over the years I've often heard the story that says the only reason Microsoft produced Windows 3.0 was so they could get a universal printer driver to use for Word. As you may recall, WordPerfect was the leading word processor at its time mainly because printer vendors would create and distribute WordPerfect drivers with their printers and not Word drivers. Without drivers you can't print, so most consumers therefore used WordPerfect. With Windows 3.0 the playing field, from a printer driver standpoint, was leveled and eventually Word out-sold WordPerfect.

I think that story may have more truth to it than I've given it credit for over the years, because now I'm thinking the only reason Microsoft has created the .NET framework is to provide for a rental model of Microsoft Office and whatever other products their busily conjuring up.

I can readily see what .NET brings Microsoft, I'm just having difficulty seeing what it brings to me, especially compared to J2EE. You see, I have choices.

Sorry, but after a 10 year ride, I'm getting off the Microsoft bandwagon.

So is SQL Server magazine now endorsing the John Dvorak school of writing columns? (i.e., make outrageous statements just so people will write angry letters in response, so you know somebody is reading your stuff.) It is sad to see such poorly thought out comments in the editorial of a magazine that usually has had higher standards.
A few of years ago it was noticed that Java and COM turned out to be a wonderful fit even though nobody planned it that way. Sun put an end to that with there lawsuit, and I am very happy that Microsoft didn't let that stop them. If you see this whole effort as simply Microsoft 'thumbing their nose at Sun' you are really missing the point.