 |
| |
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:27
|
|
http://news.com.com/2100-1007-995108.html?tag=fd_top
quote:
Microsoft to score new C# standard
By Martin LaMonica
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
April 2, 2003, 9:14 AM PT
Microsoft is continuing its efforts to standardize its C# programming language, the software giant's competitor to Java and a foundation for its next-generation Internet services.
Microsoft on Tuesday said that the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in April will certify Microsoft's programming language C# (pronounced C sharp) and the Common Language Infrastructure (CLI), which is underlying software "plumbing" that can run applications written in different programming languages.
The ISO standardization will ease Microsoft's entry into large corporations or governments that prefer certification of commercial products from international standards bodies, Microsoft executives said.
C# is a programming language that Microsoft created as an alternative to Java, which was developed by rival Sun Microsystems. C# and CLI are fundamental components to Microsoft's Visual Studio. Net development tool and the company's strategy for selling development tools for building Web services applications.
Sun, by contrast, has not taken the path of submitting the Java language and the associated software to an international standards body. Instead, Sun has established the Java Community Process, a structure by which Java software companies can develop and certify the Java 2 Enterprise Edition specification.
While Microsoft said that its efforts demonstrate the company's willingness to work with standards bodies, Sun officials have noted that C# and CLI only represent a subset of Microsoft's overall application development software.
The ISO certification is a result of Microsoft's ongoing standardization work with the European Computer Manufacturers Association (ECMA), a Geneva-based standards organization that publishes information technology standards. Nearly three years ago, Microsoft submitted C# and the CLI to the ECMA in an attempt to appeal to companies and government agencies that prefer to buy standardized software.
ECMA published C# and CLI as standards in December 2001. But by gaining ISO standardization, Microsoft gains a broader reach and potential appeal with companies concerned with standardization.
"There are a number of governmental organization that recognize ISO as a standards body but (don't recognize) ECMA," said Tony Goodhew, product manager with Microsoft's .Net Framework group. "This means that governmental organization can look at the ECMA standards and say, 'Yes, it's a true standard.'"
For example, Australia has a rule that allows any specification that is an ISO standard to be automatically deemed an Australian standard, Goodhew explained.
Founded in the 1947, ISO is a standards organization that addresses a huge array of products and issues, ranging from common formats for credit cards to freight containers and high-quality management techniques.
On top of an ISO seal of approval, companies can also look at the published specifications of C# and the CLI to better understand the underlying products once they purchase them, Goodhew said.
The academic community benefits perhaps more from the published specifications to do computer science research than do companies, he added. |
Another sign of impending death for Java?
God bless Sun and their glorious ineptitude. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
The ISO standardization will ease Microsoft's entry into large corporations or governments that prefer certification of commercial products from international standards bodies, Microsoft executives said. |
Who are these mythical corporations/governments? The US Gov't has no problem with Java. Could it be that Msoft is once again solving a problem that doesn't exist?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Did you read the article? It clearly gave an example with Australia.
|
Did you read it? It only said that ISO Standard = Austrailian Standard. Big whoop. Nothing in there about preferences.
Even preferences are mostly a joke. It wasn't all that long ago that the major software client in the US Govt, DOD, "prefered" Ada.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Hello? What do you think that means?
Governments have technology reviews before they can accept something as a standard. C# and its CLI were not a standard in a country like Australia, but thanks to their law where ISO standard = Australian standard, it now is.
|
In other news today, Budweiser has been declared the Official Beer of the NFL. The beer drinking world is rocked by the consequences.
quote:
What's the relevence of this? |
It's just beyond your grasp apparently. Read on.
quote:
Of course they'd prefer Ada, it's THEIR language that THEY developed. |
Yes yes. But WHY did they develop it? To improve reliability, reduce costs, increase maintainability, etc. As shocked bureaucrats quickly discovered, gov't standardization in the area of languages solved none of these problems.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yaroslav
|
 |
Madrid, Spain, Europe
Jun 2001
time: 06:27
|
|
Asher, I've read the article you have post about the diferences of C# and Java, and I've some questions 
1) Do you like preprocessors? If I read it correctly, C# reintroduces the preprocessor, a thing that I think is old-fashioned. I prefer, by far, to use a static constant that a #define. What do you prefer? In my humble opinion, the preprocesor is very error-prone
2) Method signature and params: I see it as very confusing. Can you declare a procedure that takes two or three ints but no one or four? Or must you define two params? Do you believe it is a big improvement about a Java function that takes an array?
And after reading this, I don't believe that C# is a revolution over Java, but, maybe, an improvement...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yaroslav
Asher, I've read the article you have post about the diferences of C# and Java, and I've some questions
1) Do you like preprocessors? If I read it correctly, C# reintroduces the preprocessor, a thing that I think is old-fashioned. I prefer, by far, to use a static constant that a #define. What do you prefer? In my humble opinion, the preprocesor is very error-prone |
You can use either/or in C#.
quote:
2) Method signature and params: I see it as very confusing. Can you declare a procedure that takes two or three ints but no one or four? Or must you define two params? |
You can do that using the traditional C++/Java way, or using the method sig/params.
The method sig/params way essentially is just using an array. You can pass in all the parameters you want, and it'll just keep being added on to a variable-sized array.
If you want to specify you only want two or three ints but not one of four, I believe you'd do this the standard way.
quote:
Do you believe it is a big improvement about a Java function that takes an array? |
It's just a convenience factor.
Much like C#'s "foreach" command.
quote:
And after reading this, I don't believe that C# is a revolution over Java, but, maybe, an improvement... |
It's not just the design of the language, but the implementation. The equivalent C# code is much faster than Java, and there's more flexibility with how you distribute it.
You can distribute it as a regular binary (like C++, etc), you can distribute it as a Just-In-Time compiling unit (The CLI will compile it down to native code the first time it's run), you can have it run like Java (entirely through the VM/CLI), or you can have segments of the code do either/or.
Not to mention, C# interfaces extremely well with VB.NET/C++, while Java doesn't. You can mix-and-match programming lanugages, Java doesn't allow that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yaroslav
|
|
Madrid, Spain, Europe
Jun 2001
time: 06:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
It's not just the design of the language, but the implementation. The equivalent C# code is much faster than Java, and there's more flexibility with how you distribute it.
You can distribute it as a regular binary (like C++, etc), you can distribute it as a Just-In-Time compiling unit (The CLI will compile it down to native code the first time it's run), you can have it run like Java (entirely through the VM/CLI), or you can have segments of the code do either/or.
Not to mention, C# interfaces extremely well with VB.NET/C++, while Java doesn't. You can mix-and-match programming lanugages, Java doesn't allow that. |
Well, then we're coming to the main point: it's a improvement over Java perfomance, not over Java concept/desing
So, if Sun, for instance (I know that it's a big "for instance"), design some compiler that generate executables (.EXE in Windows) and/or dinamically link librabries (.DLL in Windows), Will you say that there is no good reason for switch from Java to C# ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yaroslav
Well, then we're coming to the main point: it's a improvement over Java perfomance, not over Java concept/desing |
It's both. C# is more consistent in design, has more features in design (we can overload operators again, we can pass by reference...), in addition to being faster in implementation and more flexible in implementation as well.
I'd personally consider it Java++. Java was the first shot, C# is what happened when people looked at what Java did right and what Java did wrong, and add more to it.
quote:
Will you say that there is no good reason for switch from Java to C# ? |
If Java3 comes out and it implements equivalent features to C# and performs the same, then there'd be no reason to switch.
I can't see that happening, though. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yaroslav
|
|
Madrid, Spain, Europe
Jun 2001
time: 06:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
It's both. C# is more consistent in design, has more features in design (we can overload operators again, we can pass by reference...), in addition to being faster in implementation and more flexible in implementation as well.
I'd personally consider it Java++. Java was the first shot, C# is what happened when people looked at what Java did right and what Java did wrong, and add more to it.
|
I probably agree with you, although I've a little different way of see the things There are some "flexibilities" I'm not sure are worth enough (Overload operators, for instance. Although in a well designed, all objects language it should be no so error-prone as it was in C++)
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-04-2003 01:22
|