Database.ocx

[rabbit]

I want my toaster to be able to connect to Battle.net.

[iago]

x86] link=topic=10376.msg131702#msg131702 date=1191316066]
Mono reimplements C# and the .NET Framework pretty well.

"pretty well" isn't good enough. Until it can implement it perfectly, it's not going to be stable enough for every day use.

[Sidoh]

From what I've seen, Silverlight is crap compared to Flash. :|

[Camel]

x86] link=topic=10376.msg131706#msg131706 date=1191316627]
How much more portability do you want?

I want it to work on my phone.

[Warrior]

x86] link=topic=10376.msg131702#msg131702 date=1191316066]
Mono reimplements C# and the .NET Framework pretty well.

"pretty well" isn't good enough. Until it can implement it perfectly, it's not going to be stable enough for every day use.

That's not the fault of Microsoft, C# is an EMCA standard. They have the documents, it's up to them to implement it.

@Sidoh: I have not messed with Silverlight personally (Myndfyre has), but I can already tell you it's better for the Web. It's an open platform, as opposed to Flash which has yet to deliver a Linux 64 Bit player.

Silverlight1.1 also is way more powerful than Flash could ever dream of becoming, due to it being powered by the .NET Framework.


@Camel:

What part of ".NET Compact Framework" escapes you? It is certainly possible to develop .NET Applications on Windows Mobile phones, and it has been done with great success.

Microsoft has even released portions of the .NET Framework (All you need to get started on the road to implementation when used in conjunction with C# EMCA Standard) downloadable under a Microsoft Shared Source License.

You know, just so we're clear it's the lack of initiative by third parties and not the fault of Microsoft.
Honestly, Java was religiously closed source until recently what's with the change of heart and opinion about them all of a sudden? .NET has been portable for the beginning.

It's a flawed argument, if you're going to blame .NET/C# for Portability issues, they all apply to Java as well.

[iago]

x86] link=topic=10376.msg131789#msg131789 date=1191367981]
What part of ".NET Compact Framework" escapes you? It is certainly possible to develop .NET Applications on Windows Mobile phones, and it has been done with great success.

So if you take code you've already written, and re-write parts of it, it'll work fine. That's no good for the "write once run everywhere" style that Java tries to go for.

x86] link=topic=10376.msg131789#msg131789 date=1191367981]
You know, just so we're clear it's the lack of initiative by third parties and not the fault of Microsoft.
Honestly, Java was religiously closed source until recently what's with the change of heart and opinion about them all of a sudden? .NET has been portable for the beginning.

It's a flawed argument, if you're going to blame .NET/C# for Portability issues, they all apply to Java as well.

Speaking of flawed arguments, you say that Java was closed source and .NET was portable. Why compare apples to oranges?

[Warrior]

x86] link=topic=10376.msg131789#msg131789 date=1191367981]
What part of ".NET Compact Framework" escapes you? It is certainly possible to develop .NET Applications on Windows Mobile phones, and it has been done with great success.

So if you take code you've already written, and re-write parts of it, it'll work fine. That's no good for the "write once run everywhere" style that Java tries to go for.

I'm not sure of the differences between the two, but I don't think they're that ground breaking. Obviously some unneeded features (full extent of Windows.Forms) were excluded from the Compact Framework but all of the language is still there.

Speaking of flawed arguments, you say that Java was closed source and .NET was portable. Why compare apples to oranges?

I'm questioning that myself, why would Java be called portable? It's only availible on other platforms through extensive reverse engineering (except maybe Cellphones). If it were truely portable, Hobbyist OSes (SkyOS, Haiku, etc.) would probably already have implemented. On the flip side, I see a complete Mono Implementation (With System.Windows.Forms) on SkyOS.

What gives?

[iago]

x86] link=topic=10376.msg131795#msg131795 date=1191370824]

x86] link=topic=10376.msg131789#msg131789 date=1191367981]
What part of ".NET Compact Framework" escapes you? It is certainly possible to develop .NET Applications on Windows Mobile phones, and it has been done with great success.

So if you take code you've already written, and re-write parts of it, it'll work fine. That's no good for the "write once run everywhere" style that Java tries to go for.

I'm not sure of the differences between the two, but I don't think they're that ground breaking. Obviously some unneeded features (full extent of Windows.Forms) were excluded from the Compact Framework but all of the language is still there.

Speaking of flawed arguments, you say that Java was closed source and .NET was portable. Why compare apples to oranges?

I'm questioning that myself, why would Java be called portable? It's only availible on other platforms through extensive reverse engineering (except maybe Cellphones). If it were truely portable, Hobbyist OSes (SkyOS, Haiku, etc.) would probably already have implemented. On the flip side, I see a complete Mono Implementation (With System.Windows.Forms) on SkyOS.

What gives?

There is an opensource Java environment available, although I forget what its' called (cafe? kafe? something like that..), which I'm sure you could use on those operating systems.

[Warrior]

x86] link=topic=10376.msg131795#msg131795 date=1191370824]

x86] link=topic=10376.msg131789#msg131789 date=1191367981]
What part of ".NET Compact Framework" escapes you? It is certainly possible to develop .NET Applications on Windows Mobile phones, and it has been done with great success.

So if you take code you've already written, and re-write parts of it, it'll work fine. That's no good for the "write once run everywhere" style that Java tries to go for.

I'm not sure of the differences between the two, but I don't think they're that ground breaking. Obviously some unneeded features (full extent of Windows.Forms) were excluded from the Compact Framework but all of the language is still there.

Speaking of flawed arguments, you say that Java was closed source and .NET was portable. Why compare apples to oranges?

I'm questioning that myself, why would Java be called portable? It's only availible on other platforms through extensive reverse engineering (except maybe Cellphones). If it were truely portable, Hobbyist OSes (SkyOS, Haiku, etc.) would probably already have implemented. On the flip side, I see a complete Mono Implementation (With System.Windows.Forms) on SkyOS.

What gives?

There is an opensource Java environment available, although I forget what its' called (cafe? kafe? something like that..), which I'm sure you could use on those operating systems.

Yep, they considered porting it. It was however, an incomplete implementation.

[Camel]

x86] link=topic=10376.msg131789#msg131789 date=1191367981]
What part of ".NET Compact Framework" escapes you? It is certainly possible to develop .NET Applications on Windows Mobile phones, and it has been done with great success.

Java runs in WinCE as well. It's more portableed than .NET, period.

[Warrior]

x86] link=topic=10376.msg131789#msg131789 date=1191367981]
What part of ".NET Compact Framework" escapes you? It is certainly possible to develop .NET Applications on Windows Mobile phones, and it has been done with great success.

Java runs in WinCE as well. It's more portableed than .NET, period.

That was never the argument, now you're changing it. The argument was if .NET was portable, which you were quick to dismiss.

It's a fact that SINCE they both carry a runtime, they are portable in regards of which platform implements the runtime. The "run anywhere" is a deceptive term used to promote the pseudo-portability of both platforms.

The real question to be asking is: Which specification is more accessible? This should be changing with the recent GPLing of Java however.

[Joe]

I'm waiting for the day we can debate this out without getting personal.

Apparently, it isn't here yet.

[Warrior]

x86] link=topic=10376.msg131833#msg131833 date=1191389390]
I'm waiting for the day we can debate this out without getting personal.

Apparently, it isn't here yet.

I don't think it's gotten anything out of the norm, I certainly wouldn't insult someone like Camel over something so stupid.

[Sidoh]

x86] link=topic=10376.msg131833#msg131833 date=1191389390]
I'm waiting for the day we can debate this out without getting personal.

Apparently, it isn't here yet.

Can you point out which post was personal?  I don't think anyone crossed a line here...

[mikeownage]

How did we go from my silly little database.ocx to whats more portable? atleast no one has gotten around to insulting my lame usage of the list box :) or the fact that it doesn't offer to much yet. as for any personal insults i don't see any.