[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: C#

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ll1-discuss@ai.mit.edu
[mailto:owner-ll1-discuss@ai.mit.edu]
> On Behalf Of Dan Weinreb
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 8:16 AM
> To: mclagand@citi.com
> Cc: ll1-discuss@ai.mit.edu
> Subject: Re: C#
> 
>    Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 16:42:19 -0500
>    From: "McLagan, Doug" <mclagand@citi.com>
> 
>    Thanks for the response.  Since posting the question, I've read a
later
>    column where he seems to get a lot more technical:
> 
>    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011108.html
> 
> Regarding the portability issue, I'd say he pretty much conceded and
> greatly toned down his conclusinos, although he didn't write in an
> apologetic tone.
> 
> Regarding performance of Java versus C#, he also backs way off:
> 
>    Whether C# will beat Java (or more precisely whether C#'s compiled
>    version beat Java's compiled "bytecode") remains to be seen.
> 
> He goes on to say that he thinks C# could be faster precisely beause
> it doesn't have to be portable (a claim that I think is pretty
> dubious), but he ends with "So I'd bet C# will be faster, but for now
> that's just a bet."  A very wesk statement compared to what he
> said initially.
> 
> He throws in "When Quake 4 comes out in Java, let me know."  And when
> it comes out in C#, I hope Cringely will let us know.
> 
> Has anyone on this list tried one of the "batch" "static" "whole
> application to machine lanaguage" Java compilers?

Hmm. First I would mention that "Cringely" is not a person. It is a
generic name for whichever staff writer of the week wants to write an
article.

Second, having worked closely with Microsoft in using .NET to develop
.NET dynamic language implementations, and having extensively used C#
and IL in that process, I think the article was bogus on a number of
levels (technically and from a business perspective).

In many ways, C# is a high level macro language for IL. In much the same
way that C is (and has long been considered) a portable assembly
language. The JIT comments, from my perfunctory reading, indicated a
lack of technical understanding. 

The comments regarding Windows/Microsoft specific constraints placed on
C# have no merit; there is nothing in C# that is dependent upon or
limited by access to an underlying Microsoft OS. 

But then again, perhaps the author was muddling issues of language, with
issues of frameworks [or issues of the underlying .NET object-model and
execution architecture].

Overall, I found the article painful to read <sigh>.

Just my opinion...

-- Dave S. [SmallScript LLC]

SmallScript for the AOS & .NET Platforms
David.Simmons@SmallScript.com | http://www.smallscript.org