Re: Wasn't dotNet supposed to be a multi-platform alternative to Java?
- From: "Joe Bain" <j.b.a.i.n@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 28 May 2005 07:32:20 -0700
Wayne Niddery [TeamB] wrote:
> "Warning, may contain peanuts".
As long as there are no pecans, my wife is deadly alergic.
--
--------------
Joe Bain
www.iegsoftware.com
.
- References:
- Wasn't dotNet supposed to be a multi-platform alternative to Java?
- From: Wayne Davis
- Re: Wasn't dotNet supposed to be a multi-platform alternative to Java?
- From: Pete Fraser
- Re: Wasn't dotNet supposed to be a multi-platform alternative to Java?
- From: Joe Bain
- Re: Wasn't dotNet supposed to be a multi-platform alternative to Java?
- From: Eric Schreiber
- Re: Wasn't dotNet supposed to be a multi-platform alternative to Java?
- From: Joe Bain
- Re: Wasn't dotNet supposed to be a multi-platform alternative to Java?
- From: Eric Schreiber
- Re: Wasn't dotNet supposed to be a multi-platform alternative to Java?
- From: Joe Bain
- Re: Wasn't dotNet supposed to be a multi-platform alternative to Java?
- From: Eric Schreiber
- Re: Wasn't dotNet supposed to be a multi-platform alternative to Java?
- From: Wayne Niddery [TeamB]
- Wasn't dotNet supposed to be a multi-platform alternative to Java?
- Prev by Date: Re: Just random fixes with QC reports...
- Next by Date: Re: Wasn't dotNet supposed to be a multi-platform alternative to Java?
- Previous by thread: Re: Wasn't dotNet supposed to be a multi-platform alternative to Java?
- Next by thread: Re: Wasn't dotNet supposed to be a multi-platform alternative to Java?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|