> You can download it here:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/net/#sdk
>
> There is a C# compiler and runtime environment in the SDK.
>
Thanks for the link! Unfortunately, its click-through
license forbids disassembly, reverse engineering, and a
raft of other endeavors that one should be allowed if they
were truly interested in global acceptance.
Of course, a few hops up the chain you might run across Joshua
Trupin's execrable description of the C# language. Really one
of the worst articles I've ever read. You will get such
wisdom as:
"It's [C#] a little like taking all the good stuff in
Visual Basic (C) and adding it to C++, while trimming off some
of the more arcane C and C++ traditions."
If you're like me, you might be wondering what exactly the
"good stuff" allegedly contained within Visual Basic (C) might
be. Well, one such element is apparently the labeled "goto".
Joshua is also quick to highlight another:
"What's one of the most annoying things about working in C++?
It's gotta be remembering when to use the -> pointer indicator,
when to use the :: for a class member, and when to use the dot."
Hmm. I guess stating precisely what you mean is a bad feature
for programming languages. I hope they at least get rid of
the hungarian notation while they are at it.
> Microsoft spent around $2M funding a bunch of groups working
> on research and industrial programming languages to give
> feedback on their work. (Haskell, Mercury, ML, Scheme, Oberon,
> Eiffel, Python, Oz, etc...) While they acknowledged from the
> start that getting any changes (apart from tailcall) into
> version 1 was pretty unlikely, they have been listening,
> taking notes, and even now the C# folks are getting
> excited about the idea of putting generics into the language.
>
Well, that sounds good. Are you speaking from personal knowledge
here? My concern is that although they may have spoken with
these various teams, I really don't see much in C# that looks
like they took any of the comments to heart. In fact, it looks
like they took J++, changed the name, and added a few nasty things
(like labeled "gotos").
In fact, if they were interested in learning anything, why
did they solicit feedback so late in the game?
> I understand your sentiment. Those of use working on the
> .NET stuff with Microsoft are also uncomfortable about the
> situation. However I'm sure that everyone involved is doing
> what they think is the best thing overall. Don't forget that
> many groups developed a .NET and a JVM backend at the same time
> using Microsoft's money!
Hah! Expect your next round of funding to have more strings
attached. :-)
The thing that really bothers me is that they claim that ".NET
will be available on Windows (C) and other systems". But they
have no reference implementations available for non-Windows (C)
environments. When Sun released Java, we had Unix and Windows
versions available right away, and the Linux Blackdown port
shortly thereafter.
Thanks for your feedback, Tyson, but I'm afraid I still don't
see much to recommend it. And .NET's heavy dependence on older
MS technologies (such as COM objects, etc.) is especially
distasteful.
Regards,
-Brent
