[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Fwd: Re: [DotGNU]Microsoft & Mono
From: |
Kent Nguyen |
Subject: |
Fwd: Re: [DotGNU]Microsoft & Mono |
Date: |
Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:08:55 +0000 |
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]Microsoft & Mono
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:06:00 +0000
From: Kent Nguyen <address@hidden>
To: Soeren Sandmann <address@hidden>
> The CIL/CRL is technically superior to Java. Saying otherwise is just
> MS-bashing. Here are some points where CIL/CRL is technically better:
>
> - Stack allocated types. In Java, record types are always
> heap allocated
Stack allocated types are OS dependent. You can use JNI to do it.
> - Unmanaged code. In CIL/CRL it is possible to run unmanaged
> code. This makes it possible to run C on the platform. (But
> not with garbage collection or typesafety). JVM does not
> have this conecept.
What the heck is unmanaged code, you mean I can mix and match PHP, Python,
Bash, and C into a program. This is one way to make your code look dirty.
Java is clean.
> - Managed pointers. It is possible to have a pointer to a
> field of an object. In java, the only pointers are object
> references.
JNI again. This is one of thing that will make security a concern running
CRL.
> - Native sized integers. CRL/CIL has both integers of a fixed
> size and integers of native size. Java only have integers
> of fixed size.
The beauty of cross platform is you need to abstract the idea from all the
platform. If you want native size integers, you use JNI.
> Politically, CIL/CRL has been submitted to ECMA for standardization,
> while Sun on the contrary is sitting tight on the Java specs. Of
> course, MS has a track record of embracing and extending things. They
> can do this with CIL/CRL as well; this is most likely the greatest
> danger with it (aside from Passport, which as I understand it doesn't
> really need a virtual machine to work).
Ok this is a plus. Sun is collecting money for EJB use.
--kent
-------------------------------------------------------
- Re: [DotGNU]Microsoft & Mono, (continued)
- Re: [DotGNU]Microsoft & Mono, Myrddian, 2001/07/16
- Re: [DotGNU]Microsoft & Mono, tali streit, 2001/07/16
- Re: [DotGNU]Microsoft & Mono, Kent Nguyen, 2001/07/16
- Re: [DotGNU]Microsoft & Mono, Barry Fitzgerald, 2001/07/17
- Re: [DotGNU]Microsoft & Mono, Kent Nguyen, 2001/07/17
- Re: [DotGNU]Microsoft & Mono, Barry Fitzgerald, 2001/07/17
- Re: [DotGNU]Microsoft & Mono, Kent Nguyen, 2001/07/17
- Re: [DotGNU]Microsoft & Mono, Barry Fitzgerald, 2001/07/17
- Re: [DotGNU]Microsoft & Mono, Soeren Sandmann, 2001/07/16
Re: [DotGNU]Microsoft & Mono, Myrddian, 2001/07/16
Fwd: Re: [DotGNU]Microsoft & Mono,
Kent Nguyen <=
Re: [DotGNU]Microsoft & Mono, Jeremy Petzold, 2001/07/17