[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: .NET CLR? was no subject
> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3
> content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:54:09 -0800
> Thread-Topic: .NET CLR? was no subject
> Thread-Index: AcHFcStnlKwLSqj9Q+KkLkpFRa7NRgAAVcbgAAJJITAAKZR3oA==
> From: "Brent Fulgham" <email@example.com>
> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Precedence: bulk
> Hi Brad,
> > By contrast, the Python implementation was a very na´ve
> > initial implementation by it's author's own admission.
> > The Jscript folks did do a reasonable performing
> > implementation on the CLR, so it is possible, although I
> > think we can make it better or at least easier in the future.
> > /Brad
> Thanks for the insight -- and I'm hopeful that Eric will post a
> brief review of his (soon-to-be-received) book for our collective
> Kragen's post highlights a concern I have held for some time on
> the subject of the CLR -- strategic use of software patents to
> cripple any non-Microsoft .NET/CLR implementations.
> Can you say anything to ally our (perhaps unfounded) fears? I
> know I'd be a lot more interested in using the CLR for projects
> if I felt confident that the work would not end up landing me
> in some kind of patent dispute.
I don't know about the patent issues, but the Mono project
(www.go-mono.com) is going ahead full steam with plans to build a
free-as-in-speech-and-beer C#/.NET environment on Linux. Their compiler
supposedly works and they're fleshing out the class library. It's not
clear (a) how much patents will affect their ability to get work done, and
(b) whether patentable technologies can be worked around. It should be
interesting, to say the least.
Can anyone say more about which technologies Microsoft will patent to
cripple non-M$ .NET implementations?