Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-

C#

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-15 20:10

What's the point of C#?

It creates a virtual machine but it only works on Windows?

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-15 20:12

（ ＾ω＾) It creates a virtual machine and is w （＾ω＾ )

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-15 20:16

>>2
??

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-15 20:20

>>3
（￣□￣；）I don't see what's hard to understand about his comment...

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-15 20:33

Seriously, can anyone here give a serious response?

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-15 20:53

it only works on Windows?
You can't use the Google?
It doesn't only work on Windows.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-15 20:53

Yes.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-15 20:56

virtual machine
windows only
Both wrong.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-15 21:11

The point is in the 90s MS realized their only managed language to compete with Sun was Visual Basic. So then they made a Java VM with Windows extensions called J++. And then they got sued. And then they lost. And then they made a C# out of J++. And while they were at it they passed it along to ECMA to make it ISO. And then Miguel de Icaza happened.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-15 21:15

>>2
Are you talking about Cω? That's a thing.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-15 21:19

.NET is probably the only virtual machine that isn't a piece of shit.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-15 21:38

>>11
Amen brother.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-16 3:59

>>6,8
Saying .NET isn't Windows only because of Mono is like saying MS Office isn't Windows only because of Wine.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-16 10:02

>>13
Mono isn't a compatibility layer, professor. It's a cross-platform implementation of a .NET VM.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-16 11:11

>>14
and a shitty one, you know it's shitty when you go to a conference and the guys tell your it's gets less shitty every year

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-16 11:55

C#
THAT WAS ENTERPRISE NETBEANS QUALITY

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-16 12:16

Well, it also provides GC.

Oh wait...

GC is shit.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-16 12:35

>>17
i too, enjoy repeating shit that i heard one time even though i dont understand it.

lisp is the only good programming language!
python is too slow for serious use!
c++ is just C with oop!
i dont use managed languages because theyre too slow!

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-16 18:12

>>14
Mono is a reimplementation of .NET, just like Wine is a reimplementation of the Win32 API and associated DLLs. The Windows userland doesn't run on linux/BSD and neither does .NET; just free, mostly reverse engineered implementations.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-16 18:29

>>19
The truth is the opposite of what you just said. Wine hosts windows dlls and mono was implemented from the standard.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-16 20:51

>>20
Mono is a vast collection of libraries, as is Wine. While they provide binary compatible layers for applications that run on .NET and Windows respectively, they are (with the exception of the userspace binfmt handler in Mono) coded with massive amounts of blackbox testing in Windows. MSDN does NOT accurately document the Microsoft APIs and for the sake of compatibility, the hordes of undocumented "features" not in MSDN have to be identified, tested and implemented.

The binfmt handler in Wine and the CIL JIT in Mono are the very least of their problems (although the CIL JIT is a fairly complex thing).

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-16 21:14

>>21
Not all, but many of those libraries in Wine are first party DLLs that ship with Windows.

I don't know what you're trying to say about Mono. You keep starting with some statement and supporting it by making claims about the Windows API or something, always irrelevant to the point you're trying to make. Mono doesn't use the Windows API, at least not outside of Windows.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-16 22:00

>>22
Wine doesn't ship a single DLL from the Windows distribution, as that would be illegal and get the project killed for good.

Mono does not use the Windows API, it implements the .NET libraries, and that's the bulk of the Mono source tree; just like the DLLs are the bulk of the Wine source tree. They're effectively the same kind of project except one executes PE files that use the win32/win64 API and the other CLI, CIL, CLR (or whatever the hell they're called) files using the .NET framework APIs.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-17 1:24

>>23
theyre effectively the same kind of project except one of them makes freetards go fucking insane at the mention of it

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-17 1:33

only works on Windows?
What's Xbox?

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-17 2:55

>>25
what is xbox?

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-17 5:49

>>23
Wine doesn't ship a single DLL from the Windows
I never said it did, but it does provide an installer for them. Hell, Debian will install a bunch of MS stuff and flash an ELUA at you for a moment if you install certain things.

(or whatever the hell they're called)
This might be the cause of some confusion. The functionality you seem to be trying to reference is not the same as the stuff you've named. You can implement all of the TLAs that start with 'C' without having to reverse engineer anything.

The part you're actually concerned about (I assume) is WinForms. You don't want that outside of Windows anyway (or you'll get that Fugly Java GUI syndrome. For about a decade you could choose between horrid and putrid. I have no idea if that's changed yet.)

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-17 6:13

>>27
Not just WinForms, every single library in the .NET collection as an analogue to every single DLL in the win32 collection. This is what the projects are about; Yes you can (almost) implement the .NET JIT from the standard, and the same goes for the PE binfmt handler. What I'm trying to get through to you is that that is a tiny tiny tiny fraction of the entire system. The actual project is replicating the 100s of MBs of API crap the .NET framework ships with or in the case of Wine, the entirety of the Windows platform. Oh and this shit is only documented in MSDN, and MSDN is often wrong, hence reverse engineering (through blackbox testing) is required.

.NET itself is NOT portable. You seem intent on not distinguishing between the JIT and the fuckhuge framework (230MB in Mono) of libraries around it; and most importantly, denying that Mono is NOT .NET.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-17 6:24

>>28
Actually I've been concerned with the CLR and everything necessary to support it. People have done great things with the CLR. Not so much with C# (a better Java, sure, but who cares?)

Sure, Mono ships with a bunch of useless stuff that was hard to build, just like gnome, but we shouldn't be surprised by or concerned with that. No one of consequence uses those things (gnome devs.)

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-17 6:26

>>28
>.NET itself is NOT portable
Which parts of the ECMA standard can't be implemented on non-Windows OSes?

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-17 6:30

>>28
Oops, almost forgot this gem:
and most importantly, denying that Mono is NOT .NET.

Up to >>27 I didn't mention dotnet. I think you can tell by now that I don't care about it and that I'm happy that Mono is not in fact dotnet. You still don't even seem to know what the different parts are called so you might want to give up the hair splitting until you get past talking about the JIT thingy and whatever the hell else you'd like to refer to, god knows what that might be.

If you were able to do that in the first place you might even have identified and appreciated the important parts.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-17 7:10

>>30
None. But quite a few parts of .NET aren't part of the standard, most notably Windows Forms.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-17 7:11

>>32 here, I am not >>28 btw, didn't post anything in this thread so far. Just thought I'd throw that in.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-17 10:38

>>5

Asking for a serious response here on /prague/
0.142857142857142857/10

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-17 11:22

>>30
Probably none of it. I however love how you imply that Microsoft is adhering to a standard they made. That's kind of cute actually.

>>31
This whole thing started because >>6 said the C# VM (aka .NET) isn't Windows-only. If you're gonna do the whole revision of history thing, at least do like the feminists and go all in on the emotional arguments.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-17 12:33

>>35
There's more than one C# VM, sherlock

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-17 12:44

It runs on FreeBSD. It's not Windows-only.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-17 13:42

What's the point of Windows if it only works being itself?

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-17 17:04

.NET is a steaming piece of crap.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-17 18:41

>>35
C# isn't Windows only by virtue of Mono. The Mono implementation of the ECMA standard is complete. The standard library that is associated with this standard is not complete.

Name: Anonymous 2012-09-17 19:09

>>40
The Microsoft implementation runs of FreeBSD, so it isn't Windows-only, even without Mono.
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode -