From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,101730fbd6919745 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-08 07:45:57 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor) Date: 8 Apr 2002 07:45:57 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <4519e058.0204080645.32b63ee1@posting.google.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.115.221.98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1018277157 32521 127.0.0.1 (8 Apr 2002 14:45:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Apr 2002 14:45:57 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22222 Date: 2002-04-08T14:45:57+00:00 List-Id: "Juergen Pfeifer" wrote in message news:... > 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