Re: Checking for Modification to a Set of Files

Ben Bacarisse wrote
(in article <pan.2006.03.25.18.36.08.510189@xxxxxxxxx>):

I was not suggesting you were partisan about platforms. You seemed to be,
like me, partisan about camelCasedAPIsFromRedmond and this was obscuring
the fact that .NET applications are not Windows-only.

I've yet to encounter or hear anyone claim that they actually
use .NET on anything other than Windows for production use.
There may be some people developing mono itself in various
places, but I've seen or heard of ZERO real-world mono apps in
the wild.

I hope that there are sound /technical/ reasons for rejecting .NET, but I
don't know much about it so I can't quote any. Your complaint that it is
not standard is almost certainly a short-lived one since MS has the
resources and influence to make it a standard.

Feel free to point to the numerous historical times you no doubt
know about where Microsoft has pushed forward a cross-platform
standard. I am personally aware of several cases where they
dropped land mines over open standards development efforts in
order to prevent cross-platform solutions from propagating. I'd
love to hear of some actual counterexamples.

I've seen zero effort out of MS to push .NET as a cross-platform
standard so far.

Maybe someone here has tried and can testify that writing portable .NET
applications is a nightmare?

I have not seen the phrase "portable .NET applications" used
here at all. That's telling in and of itself.

Inferior is a question of point of view. Despite the common mantra of
the newly minted CS grads that everything in the universe is about
performance, in the real world, you need to understand that if it isn't
a bottleneck, then it it isn't a problem.

As someone who used to be partly responsible for minting those grads, I
think the performance obsession is almost unavoidable. I think it may
have more to do with the fact that most fresh CS grads are young men than
anything to do with what, or how, they are taught.

It might also have to do with the multiple semesters of 'big O'
debating in lieu of covering broader issues that seem to be
ignored for the most part. Looking at the "homework questions"
of recent years, that trend is getting continually worse, or
entrance criteria for CS programs is bottoming out, or both.

There are cases, though, where performance matters even when it is not a
bottleneck. I rejected some Python-based system monitoring software
because it took up around 5-10% of my CPU. This was enough to keep my
laptop fan on almost all the time. I point this out only in the spirit of
Usenet nit picking.

And I agree, but only in the spirit of acknowledging it. :-)

"This page describes some of the differencies and idiosyncrasies of Mono
on MacOS X..."

Well, I'm not sure if "differencies" is supposed to be differences,
deficiencies, or some combination of the two, but either way, that's all
I need to know for now. Thanks anyway.

OK, I'm not trying to sell you the idea -- I should not even have posted
the link because I knew you were asking rhetorically.

Actually no, I was sort of hoping that there might be a more
robust solution available, but sniffing around, it seems to be
more of a joke to allow people to claim "but .NET is an open
standard" than a real product, which people would use to develop
actual software. It seems to be mostly about naysayer rejection
at this point.

The point is that
you accidentally picked a weak pair of reasons for rejecting .NET. "It not
standard" is possibly already false and will only get weaker as time goes
by,

Only if you completely ignore MS' past history in the standards
arena, and adopt a completely unrealistic positive position on
their behavior going forward. <insert something about animals
not changing their stripes here>

and "it is not available for OS X" is probably false (depending on
what you want to be included in the term "available").

"differencies" notwithstanding, apparently.


--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Differencies between W2003 and R2
    ... I dont see any important differencies between X64 versions of Windows 2003. ... I mean between Standard R2 and Standard SP1 and enterprise too... ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.setup)
  • Re: Win32 or .NET poll
    ... > one with control, decisionmaking and power. ... Indeed, as long as it doesn't use .Net or generate .Net applications, ... D8 is a standard of its own. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: Microsoft Says Recovery from Malware Becoming Impossible
    ... a Microsoft security official said ... dollar everytime I caught something on Windows I could retire very ... what became an industy standard ??? ... And who actually invented XML??? ...
    (microsoft.public.security)
  • Re: What if Microsoft never existed?
    ... MS Word 1.0 for Windows was way ... >>> Without the standard, the life of developers would be hell. ... >>>is dead (OK, they still do releases, but largely based on Mozilla), ... But when Word will create/edit .pdf, ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips)
  • Re: Graduate Teacher Programme - best way to approach it
    ... It is a de facto standard. ... aiming to teach transferable skills- so pupils can adapt to use applications ... Linux just happens to be the only viable competitor to Windows ...
    (uk.education.teachers)