Talk:.NET Framework/Archive 1

message: Is it correct to say the the Microsoft Intermediate Language is equivalent to Java Byte codes? How does it look like? --Hirzel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hirzel (talk • contribs) 15:39, January 26, 2003  (UTC)
Microsoft Intermediate Language is not the same as Java Byte codes. Microsoft and Java are competitors, each developing their own intermediate codes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BenWibking (talk • contribs) 22:24, April 11, 2003  (UTC)
:The two are not the same, but they are aprox. equivalent to each other. Both are byte code designed to run on a Virtual Machine. ~ Mlk 04:21, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compiled binary code 

message: Where is  JScript .NET available? --Hirzel 16:33 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:I know this query is a year old, but JScript .NET is included with the .NET Framework, just like VB.NET and C#, and C++. - Mark Hurd 03:44, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  JScript .NET? 

message: === vs. Linux? ===
It has been speculated that .NET is Microsoft's strategic response to Linux.
This is inappropriate as it is speculation, and ill-informed at that. The development of .NET was started after Microsoft realized its DNA architecture was reaching its viable end and a much better development platform was needed.  This was partly in response to internal developers using Java, who finding it to be far more productive than C++, wanted to be able to use a more productive environment.  
Their first response was to extend Java until Sun sued them to stop at which case their repurposed their technology developed for extending Java and started creating .NET.  
Now that it exists, certainly Microsoft will use it and whatever else they can to compete with Linux, but Conspiracy theorists who believe it was Microsoft's response to Linux are giving Microsoft far to much credit. Mike Schinkel Oct 24 2003 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.91.86.37 (talk • contribs) 19:03, October 24, 2003  (UTC)
=== Domination? ===
At 09:19, 4 Jul 2004 GMT, an anonymous editor removed to dominate
 
IMHO, as Bil Gates himself says, Microsoft is an example of capitalism, so it think it isn't too POV to say their strategy is to dominate a market (segment), not just be in it. But I'm not changing it back...
Also the whole The Strategy section has now been watered down to not being worthy of a section. However .NET was a massive strategic initiative that Microsoft "bet the company on", so there should be a large amount of facts that can be reported here, even if some are NPOV quotes from publicly stated opinion.
Mark Hurd 03:44, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Strategy 

message: At 09:19, 4 Jul 2004 GMT, an anonymous editor removed to dominate
 
IMHO, as Bil Gates himself says, Microsoft is an example of capitalism, so it think it isn't too POV to say their strategy is to dominate a market (segment), not just be in it. But I'm not changing it back...
Also the whole The Strategy section has now been watered down to not being worthy of a section. However .NET was a massive strategic initiative that Microsoft "bet the company on", so there should be a large amount of facts that can be reported here, even if some are NPOV quotes from publicly stated opinion.
Mark Hurd 03:44, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domination? 

message: The link to J# uses the # character in the hyperlink, which doesn't work.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.40.72.3 (talk • contribs) 14:59, November 24, 2003  (UTC)
: fixed ~ Mlk 04:21, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link to J# 

message: Bevo, I don't think its right to remove entries from the 'See also' section because its already there in the article. A reader may want to skip the contents of the article and go straight to the 'See also' section. We should not force him to read the article when all he wants is to go to a related topic. 
See Wikipedia:Section#See also line or section.
"... in other cases of a link that many readers are likely to follow instead of reading the article..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jay (talk • contribs) 08:05, January 7, 2004  (UTC)
: That quote from Wikipedia:Section#See also line or section was in the text about the  special "See also" sections that appear at the top of a few articles, usually to help disambiguate the article's title. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#See also and Related topics styles section mentions "...informal references to related articles that have not been linked from free links in the text are best handled by See also".  I'll try to get some clarification at the Wikipedia:Village pump. -  Bevo 14:04, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've posted the question to Wikipedia:Village pump#Wikipedia guide to the See also lists to get comment.   Bevo 17:42, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion has moved from the pump and is now at the January archive. But whats the conclusion ? Jay 20:02, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits in the See Also section

message: I think the two should be separated. Does anyone object? ~ Mlk 04:22, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separating Microsoft .NET languages and 3rd party ones? 

message: From the article:
:The technologies used in .NET were originally developed by Microsoft as their version of Java. When Microsoft decided to end their future use of Sun's Java technologies in 1998 the existing Microsoft J++ (Java) product transformed into the beginnings of the .NET project.
Does anyone have any evidence for this? Neilc 00:34, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at my fingertips, but a Google search for the phrase "codenamed Cool" shows some speculation about the precursor to C#. Mark Hurd 04:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: ..the web server department was creating ASP 4.0 and the Microsoft distributed computing departments were creating what was called "Next-Generation Web Services".
I have a SAMS book called Presenting C# (ISBN: 0-672-32037-1), this was handed out to all attendees at the MS PDC in Orlando in July 2000 at the announcement of .Net. This book refers to NGWS as the "Next Generation Windows Services" and not "Next-Generation Web Services".
Can anyone else confirm if the 'W' stood for 'Windows' or 'Web'? Dbnull 19:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  .NET history 

message: Removed this section:
----
"Sources of .NET Data Providers"
*Microsoft ships providers for a few databases and a Bridge to ODBC drivers for use with the Microsoft CLR, on Windows
*OpenLink Software ships providers for a number of target databases, including Bridges to other data access mechanisms, for use with either the Microsoft or Mono CLR implementations, on Windows, Mac OS X, Solaris, Linux, and other platforms
----
Who cares?
KJK::Hyperion 23:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please don't use Wikipedia to promote your pet project/product 

message: On May 22, at 0 hours, GMT-6 I found the following message:
"This article needs to be re-written. So far, the entry is a buzzword-laden infomercial. Never, ever use the word "paradigm" in an actual explanation of anything. A qualified writer can cut this article in half without getting rid of any actual *content*
Back to work, children.
This page was last modified 19:22, 21 May 2005."
First, I don't know who can post that kind of garbage arguing that "paradigm" can't be used "in an actual explanation of anything", because as the one who posted that unkwnows, in computer science, programming language paradigms, (click me) does have sense. 
Poor little, and ignorant, children. I don't really like Microsoft, at all, but, come on... That text? Why? 
I checked before posting this, and the page was already restored. Consider this for the log. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.91.161.1 (talk • contribs) 06:12, May 22, 2005  (UTC)
Pardigm can be replaced by method in 99% of places with no actual loss of information. It is a very broad word.
Watson Ladd 23:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, it is a very broad word. Let's avoid using it. :-) The Rod (☎ Smith) 20:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Back to work, children" 

message: The first line of the article states:
"The .NET Framework created by Microsoft is a software development platform focused on rapid application development (RAD), platform independence and network transparency."
RAD, okay, i'll give you that.
Platform Independent!? What exactly are you calling a "Platform"? Because it is certantly not designed to work on anything but Windows.
And "Network Transparency"? These three things define the focus of the .NET Framework? I don't think so. 
What about the garbage collector, or the fact that buffer overflows are a thing of the past with .NET? What about the huge leap from COM/COM+?
This is a horrible article, and I wish someone that knows how would re-write it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StevenWright (talk • contribs) 05:38, August 31, 2005  (UTC)
:See Rotor. According to Microsoft, it currently runs on FreeBSD and MacOS X. Given it's shared-source, those who need it could port it to other platforms as well. And also see Mono. Though it's MS-independent, it's another portable .NET implementation. --tyomitch 23:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Platform Independent!? 

message: I'd like to see some sources for this edit. What particularly interests me is whether "large portions" of Vista are written in C#, and the repetition of the 70% code reduction as though it were absolute fact. Sure, it's touted, for example, at Visual Studio Magazine and Microsoft's own website but it strikes me as somewhat unencyclopedic.
Also, is it worth having both C# and C# 2.0? They're essentially the same, aren't they? And what is this about "The inclusion of Generics into the core of the .NET CLR has prompted many languages to update."? What languages? Update what? What kind of generics?
-- Deewiant 20:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vista, 70%, generics 

message: True or not. This sentance is simply not clear. Should be rephrased. Whaa? 01:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The above comment was made February 1, but I had already removed the referenced sentence (on December 23 in this edit). The only remaining reference to "70%" is the sentence that reads, The design of ASP.NET 2.0 followed the overall .NET redesign task of allowing developers to write 70% less code as compared to what would be required using .NET 1.x. That sentence seems quite clear and NPOV to me, as it discusses a redesign task. Please either explain further if you still have any rewording suggestions, or better, be bold and fix it yourself. :-) The Rod 15:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Watson Ladd, I don't understand your question. Are you suggesting that the article identify a specific set of which developerment tasks that Microsoft's design team targeted in redesigning ASP.NET 2.0? The Rod (☎ Smith) 20:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The one new technology associated with .NET that probably does save a lot of work is the Windows Designer capability for C# in Visual Studio.  It provides a graphical tool that allows developers to drag visual (and other) components onto forms, and behind the scenes, the Windows Designer then generates a ton of code that declares and defines and places all those components in the form container.  That truly is a big labor saver, but it was already present in Visual Basic since the early 1990's, so it was only new in C# and the new aspect of it re: VB was that the generated code was now visible to programmers if they really want to see it.  Some IDE's for Java also do this (i.e., NetBeans) but Eclipse does not. Harborsparrow 16:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reduction of code developers write by 70%." 

message: The first part reads like a lot of marketing speak. What is it? --Gbleem 21:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is it? 

message: Ceyockey suggests to merge .NET Reflector here.
However, .NET Reflector is a 3rd party utility that is not related to Microsoft. It may not be worthy of an artcle of its own, but if to be merged, it should be into an article (or section) listing common 3rd party .NET development utilities. - Mark Hurd 01:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds quite reasonable.  I've removed the two merge templates based on your input. Courtland 03:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree and it appears that template was never removed, so I have done so. Gnj 19:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge .NET Reflector? 

message: Removed information that is no longer relevant or has been changed (such as the express versions of Visual Studio being free). Rexmorgan 00:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated info 

message: " the truth is " ?  This does not sound like NPOV to me.  "Truth" is a subjective thing. --jonon 01:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also object to the statement that "the truth is that many of the teams working on .NET initially set out to create COM+ 2.5. ".  "Truth" is too strong here - I don't think that this is "proven to be accepted or true".  If this assertion cannot be verified, it should be removed. If there is some but not absolute evidence, the statement should be softened. Leotohill 02:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I've add POV-section to section 3.3 (.NET Framework 2.0); I find '.NET 2.0 is a redesign of not only the technology, but also the model of Microsoft's .NET agenda. While .NET v1.x was considered more of a Rapid Application Development (RAD) model and was often compared with Sun's Java. C# 2.0, part of the .NET 2.0 model, is now compared more closely with C++, so much so in fact, that large portions of Microsoft's Windows Vista are written in C# and the .NET framework ' as opinion, not fact. Computerjoe's talk 17:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More POV moans 

message: The first thing I wondered when I heard of microsoft's .NET (and many others must have with me) was where the name came from. But I don't see anything on it in the article. Is this just another theft by microsoft, in this case from the popular TLD, or is there a reason for the name? DirkvdM 17:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the name 

message: * - Why developers should not make programs that need .NET Framework to run on Windows.
Isn't it POV to link to a Java advocacy blog post on a .net article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.203.122.76 (talk • contribs) 19:28, April 11, 2006  (UTC)
Is it true, as stated in the article, that "Java EE provides much more functionality than the .NET framework and other Microsoft technologies"?
--Carlo.milanesi 08:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Java advocacy 

message: I have completely rewritten the opening section.  My goal was to make it more accessible to the non-technical reader while simultaneously increasing relevant content. Leotohill
FayssalF, thanks for the many links you added.  I think I've also improved the sentence you added about 2.0.  I identifed when "current" is (April 2006), and removed the part that says it supplants "two major previous versions: 1.0 and 1.1".  By Microsoft's  naming conventions, and those described on the "version" article, 1.1 was not "major" .  I do have my doubts that this version information belongs in the opening section, but don't feel that strongly about it, so won't object. Leotohill 18:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite of opening section April 2006

message: I added this at the end of the paragraph : However, although the core of the .NET framework, and the associated patents, falls under the ECMA submission, the technologies that are built on top of it (mainly ADO.NET, ASP.NET, and Windows Forms, which are not essential to the implementation) are not a part of the core and could be subject to licensing problems (see the Mono FAQ here). Somebody deleted it arguing that patents are a Mono problem and have nothing to do with the framework. I don't agree. This Patent problem apply to anybody trying to reimplement the framework, not only Mono. It's the reason why I think that my comment was relevant. The present state of the paragraph could lead readers to a false assumption about the licensing status of the framework : all patents essential to implementation be made available under "reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms.". The problem is that a part of the framework don't fall under this category. Hervegirod 10:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  check out my new intro to "Alternative implementations".  What do you think?  Leotohill 16:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  sounds OK to me. Plus I agree that it is better here than in the "Standardization and licensing" paragraph ("copyright" issues are a problem with independant implementations of the framework). Hervegirod 23:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Standardization and licensing

message: I found another critic made by Bjarne Stroustrup about the CLI and its language-neutrality, may be it is worth to add in the criticism section ? In "short", he says : "The CLI is sometimes described as "language neutral". However, a language that doesn't accept a large subset of these facilities cannot use even basic .Net facilities (or future Microsoft Windows facilities, assuming that Microsoft's plans don't change) and a language that cannot express all of these features cannot be used for the implementation of resources meant to be usable by other languages. Thus, CLI is "language neutral" only in the sense that every language must support all of the CLI features to be "first-class" on .Net". Hervegirod 09:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had to read and re-read his criticism very carefully before I could get a good sense of what he is saying.  Of course it is true that the CLI is language neutral only for .NET languages.  However, I don't think that it's possible to have cross-language binary compatibility without a specification for how those languages represent their objects, and in this case we have a comprehensive specification, the CLI. Is BB opposed to all cross-language solutions?  (rhetorical question)  With respect to this article, how would we express this criticism fairly without getting bogged down in details?  I'm thinking about it.  Leotohill 15:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  With all due respect to Bjarne's vast experience, I feel that in this case the large number of languages which have successfully targeted the .NET runtime and libraries testifies to the fact that it works, and so there is not much need to debate whether it is or isn't.  Practially speaking, it is a decent platform for the largest bunch of languages that any framework so far has been able to support. Harborsparrow 16:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another critic about the language-neutral feature of .NET

message: *Opposed:  A merger has been proposed.  As the one who created the distinction, I am of course opposed.  But I'll listen to argument. Leotohill 22:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Microsoft .Net? 

message: The opening intro doesnt mention at all the origin of .NET in trying to kill Java after their failed attempt at Embrace and Extend and Extinguish strategy to corrupt the Java standard.  Also, the opening doesnt contrast .NET with MFC, i.e. it describes it as a class library but why was yet another class library needed when MFC already existed?  The rationale for .NET is somewhat mystifying and seems to be more of an attempt by Microsoft to impose proprietary standards and ensure market share and market control, some discussion of this controversy should be in the article, imho.
: I don't think that any of these considerations belong in the intro.  I don't see how you can read the Relevance and Design Goals sections and still be mystified about the rationale.  Can you be more specific? Leotohill 23:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While the opinion that Microsoft tried to kill Java is commonly voiced, it is not substantiated.  It seems to me that Microsoft and Sun had different goals.  Sun wanted (and got) cross-platform support for one language, Java.  Microsoft needed to have (and got with .NET) all the dozens of different flavors of Windows seem alike to a developer.  Microsoft also got up to 50 different languages targeting .NET and using the same extensive libraries and allowing debugging across components made with different languages.  That is a very different goal than Sun's one-language, all-OS approach.  .NET solved two problems for Microsoft (all Windows alike, many languages on one library), whereas Java does not tend to support multiple languages (though in theory it could), and .NET does not solve the all-OS problem for Linux, UNIX or Mac. Harborsparrow 16:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Competition with Java, Contrast with MFC

message: There are a lot of overlapping sections of marginal utility. For example, Significance, Rationale, and Design Goals could all be merged. Overall, it feels like each successive contributor has been a bit too deferential towards previous contributors - rather than do a rewrite, they just add a new section. (This might just be laziness.)
But the article goes on and on, and never really hits on what (to me) are the key features of the framework: High developer productivity, via garbage collection, type safety, runtime checks, and elimination of common runtime errors.
And then there are huge chunks that seems really pointless - who cares about the beta version numbers?
I should do something about all this, but it would take hours and hours. I'm not sure I'm feeling that virtuous. ;-)
- Jon Shemitz 07:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the whole thing is out of control and probably no one has time to tame it.  On the other hand, a lot of people watch it and are, well frankly, quite touchy about the wording, so anyone undertaking a major rewrite would have to devote body and soul to getting agreement from the masses.  The high productivity stuff you mention (type safety, garbage collection, etc.) are essentially identical to that provided by Java and so perhaps they don't need a major rehashing here.  We saw that first with Java, and got it again with .NET.  I might add, also, that the Beta version numbers do in fact matter to people in the trenches wrestling with old code, because Microsoft did not always manage to avoid breaking changes.  Still, it might be nice if some of the gory details went into subpages, or pointed out to other resources on the web that cover the same details.  There is too much detail here.  Unfortunately, .NET technology does tend to be a big learning curve; it seems like there is a lot more going on under the hood than I realized when I first started learning it. Harborsparrow 16:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page needs an editor! 

message: I've trimmed off a few of the external links simply because they were spam, were just like every other ".NET Community site", or were simply not especially notable.  Looking at WP:EL, these seemed to fall under #s 7 and 9 of "Links normally to be avoided".  I've left in the BCL Blog as it appears some of the major .NET players at MS (e.g. Cwalina) are contributors. I think CodeProject should be left it because it really adds value to .NET by virtue of the sheer volume of content there.  Any thoughts? - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 15:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links