Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 00:03 UTC
Microsoft Microsoft has just responded to Google's move regarding Exchange ActiveSync. Sadly, instead of addressing the very real problems consumers are about to face, Microsoft starts talking about switching to Outlook.com.
Thread beginning with comment 545654
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by sukru on Tue 18th Dec 2012 14:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
sukru
Member since:
2006-11-19

I'll just jump in for the C# part. This is because I like the guy who did it (Anders Hejlsberg, who also gave us Turbo Pascal and Delphi before).


"C# version 1.0 was a superior language to Java, Properties alone in the language make it vastly superior as well as the better designed DateTime libraries (two things I can think of off the top of my head).

Weird, I seem to recall that .NET v1 stank (and back then I was 100% a Windows user and developer). Though I'll grant you that things have improved massively over the years. I quite enjoy using .NET these days.
"

I remember reading "C# for Java Developers" when I was in college. I don't remember being impressed by many books on the technical level as much as I did with that one. Every decision they made was for fixing the problems I had with java (no signed integers, no easy way to talk native, no easy xml processing, and of course properties, and metadata).

C# was only built, because MS could not adopt Java for Windows development (as you said they were sued for J++). But they only reason they wanted to extend Java was they knew (Anders knew) Visual Basic did not have any future (i.e.: pretty much sucked), and Java was the best thing out there. But there were the issues with Java on the desktop front - which they fixed with C#, so they had to extend it. Even today, except for Eclipse framework, the standard Java GUI APIs are real bad compared to C#/XAML.

Were Java an open standard at that time, Sun could not have sued for J++, and we would have a Windows dialect of Java, which would probably be backported to the main standard by open source hobbyists. But since Java was never an open standard (until maybe C# got pretty big), they closed it down from MS's use.


However technical merits of C# aside, we're talking about open standards. C# was invented to break established standards.


As I said, Java was not an open standard (still not an ISO/ECMA standard AFAIK).


"Borland Java IDEs were crap, thank goodness they didn't


You're obviously too young to remember what life was like before MS's monopoly. Borland's IDEs used to be second to none. It's 'only' in 10 / 15 years that MS had overtaken Borland.
"

Again the Anders factor here. Borland was good, while he was at the helm. They went down when he left, and they did not know what to do. I remember trying to use their express editions to come back, but they would not let two different versions (e.g.: C++, and C#) at the same. Then they stopped distributing free starter versions all together. Now look at the size of Delphi developers, and I feel real sad (I started actual programming with Turbo Pascal back in the day).

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Tue 18th Dec 2012 15:25 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Interesting post. Thanks ;)

I to used to spend a great deal of time developing in Turbo Pascal. Awesome IDE, awesome language ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by JAlexoid on Fri 21st Dec 2012 00:57 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

You meant Java has no unsigned integers, or any unsigned numeric type.

Were Java an open standard at that time, Sun could not have sued for J++, and we would have a Windows dialect of Java, which would probably be backported to the main standard by open source hobbyists. But since Java was never an open standard (until maybe C# got pretty big), they closed it down from MS's use.

It wasn't due to Java not being an open standard. The issue was Microsoft's breach of contract with Sun.

And it wasn't J++, it was Microsoft's Java. J++ was a result of that legal dispute.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by ze_jerkface on Fri 21st Dec 2012 09:27 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

I'll just jump in for the C# part. This is because I like the guy who did it (Anders Hejlsberg, who also gave us Turbo Pascal and Delphi before).


Anders Hejlsberg is a bad ass.

They should rename Denmark after him.

Reply Parent Score: 2