Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor)

[dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison)]

"Juergen Pfeifer" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message news:<a8rot5$6r3$07$1@news.t-online.com>...
> Well, nevertheless reading the Ada.Net thread I see that most
> people don't realize what's going on. Even on CLA you find
> mostly MS bashing instead of an educated and skilled discussion.

Seeing as they are in effect the Standard Oil of the 21'st century,
that shouldn't be suprising. It would make your hair curl to see how
Standard Oil was vilified back around the end of the 19th century.

> To me it seems that most people don't realize that the Win2000
> kernel is a huge difference to NT4, not to say the W9x kernel.

Is it? I haven't noticed any huge differences between 2k and NT4.
There are some noticable cosmetic differences, but (with the exception
of plug-n-play) the underlying Win32 API and the kernel under that is
almost identical.

Certianly, there is a huge difference between the NT kernel (used in
NT, 2k, and XP) and the Win9x series kernels. They are basicly 2
*very* different OS's (the former a full-featured modern OS, the
latter little better than an embedded OS with a GUI) that share a lot
of the same API's and are somewhat binary-compatable.

The biggest problem I see with an Ada .NET is that the .NET licensing
was hand-crafted to be anti-GPL, so it effectively prohibits anyone
from using Gnat to implement it. That means only a company with an
existing proprietary Ada compiler is going to be able to do the job.

> Rotor may change the perception a bit. Now people can look
> at the very heart of the .NET architecture, the CLI and the
> C# compiler and they can see themself how MS code is

Perhaps, but if they do so, they can't apply that knowledge to a GPL
project. That means there's no point in *my* looking at it unless
someone pays me to.

-- 
T.E.D.
Home     -  mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison)
Homepage -  http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html