Like it or not.  Microsoft created .NET to compete with Java.  Despite that Java must be implemented on XP according to the recent ruling, the proliferation of .NET already has done its damage.  Check computerjobs, monster, and other hirings sources to compare the platforms.  At least in my area, .NET is way ahead, despite Java having been out for about eight years.

On Slashdot yesterday was a reference to a .NET platform being developed for Unix and Linux, by the open source community.  Microsoft maybe didn't want this, but can they complain?  The marketing hype for .NET was "multiplatform" and "code portability" due to the IL running on top of the virtual machine, ala Java VM.

On the other hand, it is unlikely Microsoft ever intended for *nix to have a working .NET virtual machine.  Since then, one hurdle which is holding back all non-Windows OS' would be gone -- lack of sufficient programmers and applications.  If suddenly everything could be easily ported to Linux, that will make corporations less apprehensive to make it a production operating system.

All that being said, with the suddenly increased likelihood that .NET will smash Java (which will still have its large market share), you're probably going to need to know .NET or Java to do PC programming in the next ten years.

So sad, but at the same time it is true  :-/

Sadly, I already know Java all too well, as much as I've been trying to avoid it...


But what I REALLY want to see is somebody write a Visual Basic Virtual Machine for Linux (or Unix)! :-D

oh cheer up, it's not *that* bad!  ;D

[quote]Sadly, I already know Java all too well, as much as I've been trying to avoid it...


But what I REALLY want to see is somebody write a Visual Basic Virtual Machine for Linux (or Unix)! :-D[/quote]
That wouldn't work so well.  Besides, you can already run VB.NET programs on Linux.

[quote]
That wouldn't work so well.  Besides, you can already run VB.NET programs on Linux.[/quote]

It might work! Although you'd probably have to rewrite the better part of windows, but who knows? :-)

.NET is horrible. The entire philosiphy requires you to learn more languages, which is dumb.

No one I know uses .NET. It's all Java that I see. Besides, GCJ works on windows now, so .NET is dead IMO ;)

Well, enterprise computing sucks too, all it is is a bunch of hype and buzzwords anyway.

XML! SCALABILITY! LATE-BINDING! SCHEMA! WEB SERVICES! SOAP! XML-RPC! EBXML! UDDI! INTEGRATION! SERVICES! ENTERPRISE! BROKERS! THROUGHPUT! MANAGEABILITY!

[quote].NET is horrible. The entire philosiphy requires you to learn more languages, which is dumb.

No one I know uses .NET. It's all Java that I see. Besides, GCJ works on windows now, so .NET is dead IMO ;)

Well, enterprise computing sucks too, all it is is a bunch of hype and buzzwords anyway.

XML! SCALABILITY! LATE-BINDING! SCHEMA! WEB SERVICES! SOAP! XML-RPC! EBXML! UDDI! INTEGRATION! SERVICES! ENTERPRISE! BROKERS! THROUGHPUT! MANAGEABILITY![/quote]Where is it that you live, then?  Under a rock?

[quote].NET is horrible. The entire philosiphy requires you to learn more languages, which is dumb.

No one I know uses .NET. It's all Java that I see. Besides, GCJ works on windows now, so .NET is dead IMO ;)

Well, enterprise computing sucks too, all it is is a bunch of hype and buzzwords anyway.

XML! SCALABILITY! LATE-BINDING! SCHEMA! WEB SERVICES! SOAP! XML-RPC! EBXML! UDDI! INTEGRATION! SERVICES! ENTERPRISE! BROKERS! THROUGHPUT! MANAGEABILITY![/quote]

Ugh... I feel like I'm at work... :P

When I was 15, I too thought I had a clue.

Storm is right.  [quote].NET is horrible. The entire philosiphy requires you to learn more languages, which is dumb. [/quote]  We should only use COBAL and FORTRAN.  All other languages should be abandoned.  ::)

Nah, everybody should just revert back to assembly.  Better yet, all programs should be made with tiny little logic gates, forget programming!

Yes, programmable logic owns. Program it in vhdl!

Assembly, that sounds like fun...  =]

(What's a logic gate?)

Logic gate = tiny thingie that does or/and/xor/not and such bitwise operations

Yes, all we need is a couple nands and we can make up some flipflops, make about 1000000 of them for a meg of ram, then we'll have to program up some registers that can do all the basic operations like shift, add, subtract, multiply, etc.  I figure that'll take up the rest of a large building, then we can do whatever we want! Woo!

Still, no one uses .NET or Java anyway ;)

I don't see why Delphi isn't more successful. I mean, if you look at its features, it should be a big winner.

I don't know much about Delphi, but APBot was a big memory hog as a result of ewwish Windows API wrapping...we'll see how it compares to APB2 once Arta's ready to trot it out into the world.

Delphi doesn't generally hog much memory.

[quote]Delphi doesn't generally hog much memory.[/quote]
I'm guessing you've never disassembled a Delphi program... Borland's compiler/linker sucks.  ResHacker is 828KB, and APBot is 1.4MB.  There's no reason why those programs should be anywhere near that large compiled.

[quote]Yes, all we need is a couple nands and we can make up some flipflops, make about 1000000 of them for a meg of ram, then we'll have to program up some registers that can do all the basic operations like shift, add, subtract, multiply, etc.  I figure that'll take up the rest of a large building, then we can do whatever we want! Woo![/quote]

Preferably you'll put them all on the same chip. That's the charm about it, making a chip that does your bidding. A program on a floppy is nothing compared to a program in a chip.

[quote]

Preferably you'll put them all on the same chip. That's the charm about it, making a chip that does your bidding. A program on a floppy is nothing compared to a program in a chip.[/quote]

But chips are so darn small! :-(

You just need small tools to work with them then...

[quote]You just need small tools to work with them then...[/quote]


Touche..

Here's a thought...

Why don't all the processor vendors settle on one instruction set? That would be 1338 (leet++).

That would be nice, this 68k bullshit is pissing me off.. I HATE it! :-(

instead of nice ol' mov eax, 3 we have to do move.b 3, d0.  That's assuming we want to move a byte.

So instead of mov, it's move!
Instead of the register denoting the size, the instuction does!
Instead of src = dest, it's dest <- src!
The only thing that's the same is that they all have a comma! It's stupid! :(

[quote]Here's a thought...

Why don't all the processor vendors settle on one instruction set? That would be 1338 (leet++).[/quote]
x86 has been pretty much the de-facto standard for many years, at least for PC.  PPC uses a completely different architecture; you're back to the age-old CISC vs RISC debate with respect to that.

68k is much nicer though, just two types of registers: Dx and Ax.

Where's the fun in only having two registers with normal sounding names?  Give me eax, ebx ,ecx, edx, ebp, esp, esi, eip, etc. any day! :)

Don't forget the debug, control, and FPU registers plz
ebc?!

ebc was a typo :-P

And the other registers are covered under "etc."

I just put the ones I knew from memory :P

They should introduce a general-purpose register called etc .... it's the obvious thing to do. :P

[quote author=Skywing link=board=6;threadid=364;start=15#msg2356 date=1044555305]
[quote]Delphi doesn't generally hog much memory.[/quote]
I'm guessing you've never disassembled a Delphi program... Borland's compiler/linker sucks.  ResHacker is 828KB, and APBot is 1.4MB.  There's no reason why those programs should be anywhere near that large compiled.
[/quote]

That's not really true, Delphi's compiler/linker is fine. If you write a program in Delphi that uses API natively your executable & memory use will be similar in size to a C++ application - the problem isn't the compiler, the problem is VCL. VCL is an amazing accomplishment on the part of Borland, IMO, since it's flexible, very interoperable, logical, quick, simple, and easy to code with - but all of that comes with a *huge* overhead. That's the reason for Delphi's excessive memory/disk use.

The conclusion that I've come to is that if you're going to code everything using API natively, you may as well use C++ which is better anyway. Delphi is, in my opinion, a great language - but only in a limited area. It's target market is similar to VB's, business applications that need to be developed quickly and cheaply. I still believe firmly that Delphi is *far* superior to VB in that regard.

*wonders what's in store with Delphi.NET*

[quote author=St0rm.iD link=board=6;threadid=364;start=0#msg2343 date=1044300596]
.NET is horrible. The entire philosiphy requires you to learn more languages, which is dumb.

No one I know uses .NET. It's all Java that I see. Besides, GCJ works on windows now, so .NET is dead IMO ;)

Well, enterprise computing sucks too, all it is is a bunch of hype and buzzwords anyway.

XML! SCALABILITY! LATE-BINDING! SCHEMA! WEB SERVICES! SOAP! XML-RPC! EBXML! UDDI! INTEGRATION! SERVICES! ENTERPRISE! BROKERS! THROUGHPUT! MANAGEABILITY!
[/quote]

Blech. I started learning on C# just teaching myself, then when I started at the university all the classes were in Java. I find that Java seems to be behind C# and the .NET Class Library...

And how do you figure that .NET "Requires" you to learn more than one language? The entire point of the Common Language Runtime is that portions of your code (maybe in VB) can work with my code (in C#) while it can work with someone else's (in J#) and another's (in C++). You don't need to know other languages. Hence, modular programming.

What if you're working on a project with someone else who is using a different language?

[quote author=St0rm.iD link=board=6;threadid=364;start=30#msg15514 date=1058805977]
What if you're working on a project with someone else who is using a different language?
[/quote]
That's the point of the CLR. You can write your parts in your favorite language, and whoever else can write their parts in their favorite language, and they'll work together perfectly.