[wuzup101]

Originally posted by absmiths:
SUN chose to design a VM that could perform well on any OS in nearly any environment (Desktop/Server/Palm/Cell/Smart Card/Ring), whereas MS, from what I have heard, designed their runtime specifically around the Win32 design. SUN made sacrifices for portability - MS was out to make a premium platform on top of Windows.

I know what you're saying here, but if you were in the buisness world wouldn't you do the same. Microsoft has a huge part of the marketshare as far as OSes are concerned. I'm sure they want to keep it that way. Not saying it's morally right, but it makes perfect sense.

[sambeau]

Originally posted by zanyterp:
so with this i can code at home (my mac) and school (pc) for c# and have it portable? minus GUI code of course?. . .unless i just want to code it and not compile/run on both platforms?

nick

Yes. Taking into account the 1.0 version number

[sambeau]

All though I'm a bit weird about having .exe files running on my Mac..

[zanyterp]

Originally posted by sambeau:
All though I'm a bit weird about having .exe files running on my Mac..

true. . .but there is something to be said (from my perspective as a student) about being able to work on the background of the code at home on my mac and making sure it runs at least to some extent and not having to rely on the PCs at school solely for my homework.

thanks!

nick

[absmiths]

Originally posted by wuzup101:
I know what you're saying here, but if you were in the buisness world wouldn't you do the same. Microsoft has a huge part of the marketshare as far as OSes are concerned. I'm sure they want to keep it that way. Not saying it's morally right, but it makes perfect sense.

What makes business sense depends on who you are. Portability made business sense to SUN, platform tie-in makes sense to Microsoft. Neither is morally right or wrong - neither company owes anything to Linux or Linux users - but when you go outside of your business model like MS does and purchase competition just to shut them down - that is when you are walking a fine line.

On the other hand, from a consumers perspective the open platform model is the best bet long term.

[absmiths]

Originally posted by bygimis:
My understanding:

Class Library is a term for a collection of classes providing some useful functionality, a bit like an 'old style' API but presented as classes. A graphics class library might have a square class, a triangle class, a pen class. You use these classes in your app.

A Framework is the reverse - rather than picking bits out of the library to use, you 'fill in the gaps' by added smaller amounts of custom code to the framework to produce your desired effect. Cocoa, Swing and .net forms are all frameworks.

Frameworks may be black box - similar to what you called frameworks above, or grey box - similar to AWT, or white box - what you called "Class Libraries". The only difference between the three is the amount of implementation exposed and the amount of control/responsibility given to the programmer. This is why the terminology is so loose.

[wuzup101]

Originally posted by absmiths:
What makes business sense depends on who you are. Portability made business sense to SUN, platform tie-in makes sense to Microsoft. Neither is morally right or wrong - neither company owes anything to Linux or Linux users - but when you go outside of your business model like MS does and purchase competition just to shut them down - that is when you are walking a fine line.

On the other hand, from a consumers perspective the open platform model is the best bet long term.

Well put man I definitely agree with you there! I definitely have some problems with things microsoft does as a consumer. However, I'm also one of the few people on this board that thinks they put out a decent product (typing on a home built PC running XP).

LOL... however that's only because my 15" PB hasn't arrived quite yet...

[Tick]

So nobody remembers rotor? Or did I just miss it through the entire thread?