Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 11th Jan 2009 10:54 UTC, submitted by Hiev
Thread beginning with comment 343064
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by satan666
by Manuma on Sun 11th Jan 2009 22:45
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by satan666"
RE[3]: Comment by satan666
by Nelson on Sun 11th Jan 2009 23:52
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by satan666"
How about the closed and patented .Net APIs?
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080228880
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HIT...
Still laughing?
-Ad
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080228880
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HIT...
Still laughing?
-Ad
None of which are required for the .NET Framework to run. It is perfectly fine for other operating systems to implement their own equivalent of those libraries.
A language and framework being cross platform does not inherently mean that everything written for that language and framework is platform independent.
Just like I do not expect every application I compile with GCC to be write-once, run-anywhere, I do not expect this with 100% of .NET Applications.
Are you done spreading FUD?
RE[4]: Comment by satan666
by adkilla on Mon 12th Jan 2009 05:38
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by satan666"





Member since:
2005-07-07
How about the closed and patented .Net APIs?
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080228880
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&...
Still laughing?
-Ad