Re:_ALERT_-_XP_COULD_DISABLE_JAVA_IN_WEB_BROWSERS_AND_EMAIL

[Mark Alexander Bertenshaw]

Kunle -

I think the point is that in the past, Microsoft _have_ supported Java, and
people are already used to being able to run Java applets in their browsers.
This change is going to be _really_ annoying to people who are currently
doing Java development (and there are a lot of developers who have turned
to Java in the last few years). It means that users are going to be greatly
inconvenienced. Having to search around for the right disk with the JVM
"just" to run an application which ran OK in the last version of Windows
is a real waste of time.

Having said that, Microsoft have not worked on a new JVM for some time.
If developers want to use more recent versions of the Java language, they
will have to provide a setup routine for the Java 1.3+ plug-in. The only
question remains is whether Windows XP will also block Java applets using
this plug-in.

As for the anti-competitive bit, well it seems far too much of a coincidence
that they are removing the Java platform whilst adding the groundwork for
the .NET platform.

--
Mark Alexander Bertenshaw
Programmer/Analyst
Chordiant Software
Brentford
UK

"Kunle Odutola" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Tim,
>
>I cannot see anything anti-competitive in removing Java support from Windows
>XP. You seem to be suggesting that since MS is classified as a monopoly,
it
>is obliged to distribute competing runtime platforms from it's competitiors
>as part of it's products. So if I released my kPlatform virtual machine
>technology for embedded scripting/development, can I count on MS being
>obliged to distribute my runtime or does this only apply to Java. If so
why?
>
>As for the default security settings, there have been a few security
>exploits that involve the combined use of Active Scripting and Java aplets.
>I don't see a problem with turning off support for applets in mailboxes.
The
>removal from the high security zone is a bit puzzling I admit. Bu given
that
>Java is no longer supplied, what does it matter anyways?
>
>Kunle
>
>"Tim Romano" <tim_romano@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns90E37340BBC0Btimromano@209.1.14.192...
>> I read that XP will not ship with a java runtime. If true, that will
>> strike a more severe blow to Java than the default security settings.
>> I agree that such moves are anti-competitive, in that they are actions,
>> taken by a monopolist, that disrupt applications using competing
>> technologies.
>> Tim Romano
>> www.aimsdata.com/tim
>>
>>
>> "Debbie Locker" <dlocker@possie.org> wrote in
>> news:3b5584bc$1@news.devx.com:
>>
>>
>> > [...]
>> > In XP, the default security settings in Outlook and Outlook Express
>> > will automatically block Java applets in user inboxes.
>>
>> > [...]
>> > XP's security definition changes will block Java applets
>> > in browsers when administrators opt for high security settings.
>>
>> > [...]
>> > To date, no Java applet has been linked
>> > to a large-scale virus outbreak via email or on the web. If XP's
>> > security settings that wrongly categorize Java continue, the real risk
>> > will be to innovation and open competition.
>> >
>> > Anyone concerned about innovation open competition should visit
>> > www.POSSIE.org, or contact Microsoft directly.
>

[Kunle Odutola]

"Mark Alexander Bertenshaw" <mark.bertenshaw@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:3b582724$1@news.devx.com...
>
> Kunle -
>
> I think the point is that in the past, Microsoft _have_ supported Java,
and
> people are already used to being able to run Java applets in their
browsers.

They also supported *all* MS-DOS programs in the past. Not anymore. Stuff
changes...

<SNIP>

> As for the anti-competitive bit, well it seems far too much of a
coincidence
> that they are removing the Java platform whilst adding the groundwork for
> the .NET platform.

Not a coincidence at all. They are competing technologies. Sun could have
allowed MS more leverage with respect to continued use of Java. It chose not
to.

Kunle

[Mark Alexander Bertenshaw]

"Kunle Odutola" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Mark Alexander Bertenshaw" <mark.bertenshaw@virgin.net> wrote in message
>news:3b582724$1@news.devx.com...
>>
>> Kunle -
>>
>> I think the point is that in the past, Microsoft _have_ supported Java,
>and
>> people are already used to being able to run Java applets in their
>browsers.
>
>They also supported *all* MS-DOS programs in the past. Not anymore. Stuff
>changes...

Irrelevant. Java is becoming used _more_, not less, and it is being constantly
upgraded, not left behind in the software dumper. Why can't Microsoft just
bite the bullet, reconcile with Sun, and aply for a Java 1.3 licence? It
would save the hassle of having to make users install an extra plugin!

>
><SNIP>
>
>> As for the anti-competitive bit, well it seems far too much of a
>coincidence
>> that they are removing the Java platform whilst adding the groundwork
for
>> the .NET platform.
>
>Not a coincidence at all. They are competing technologies. Sun could have
>allowed MS more leverage with respect to continued use of Java. It chose
not
>to.

Oh yes, I know - I was being ironic. I suppose it is a bit too much for
Microsoft to help the users in this case. And as for the J++ 6 point - I
have to say that I am mightily glad that Sun protected the language in the
way they did. Portability is the most important thing with Java!

--
Mark Alexander Bertenshaw
Programmer/Analyst
Chordiant Software
Brentford
UK

>Kunle
>
>

[Kunle Odutola]

"Mark Alexander Bertenshaw" <mark.bertenshaw@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:3b66a1ff@news.devx.com...

> >They also supported *all* MS-DOS programs in the past. Not anymore. Stuff
> >changes...
>
> Irrelevant.

Not at all. Support for *any* feature never implies eternal support.

> Java is becoming used _more_, not less, and it is being constantly
> upgraded, not left behind in the software dumper.

To most Windows developers (even us J++ developers), Java is now irrelevant.
C#/.NET are able replacements.

> Why can't Microsoft just
> bite the bullet, reconcile with Sun, and aply for a Java 1.3 licence? It
> would save the hassle of having to make users install an extra plugin!

Same reason that Sun didn't bite the bullet and accept that not every Java
developer wishes to (be virtually forced to) write cross-OS portable apps.
JNI is a braindead solution and, RMI/JRMP as a replacement for DCOM for
Windows-only Java apps was laughable.

If you admit that there is a need for platform-specific code (JNI suggests
that Sun does), then you need to do it properly like MS sought to do for
Windows or not at all. Of course if you are Sun and you hate/fear MS and
Windows anyways and then MS out-engineers you and produces absolutely the
fastest JVM of *any* platform......

> >Not a coincidence at all. They are competing technologies. Sun could have
> >allowed MS more leverage with respect to continued use of Java. It chose
> not
> >to.
>
> Oh yes, I know - I was being ironic. I suppose it is a bit too much for
> Microsoft to help the users in this case.

Most Windows users don't make use of Java. Ever. Those that are most likely
to - corporate developers and users - still have it as standard AFAIK.

>And as for the J++ 6 point - I
> have to say that I am mightily glad that Sun protected the language in the
> way they did. Portability is the most important thing with Java!

Sun didn't protect the language. It fought to protect it's business against
the best JVM (at the time of the trial) and MS's audacity to augement this
JVM with superior access to native OS functionality. That most Java users
(J++ had more users than all the other tools) welcomed this was of no
consequence to Sun.

Both companies had their private [unsavoury] agendas but, to portray Sun as
the victim of MS treachery is a bit much. And totally inaccurate...

Kunle

[Mark Alexander Bertenshaw]

"Kunle Odutola" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Mark Alexander Bertenshaw" <mark.bertenshaw@virgin.net> wrote in message
>news:3b66a1ff@news.devx.com...
>
>> >They also supported *all* MS-DOS programs in the past. Not anymore. Stuff
>> >changes...
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
>Not at all. Support for *any* feature never implies eternal support.

Feature !!??

Considering how scarily *big* Java is these days, I don't think you are doing
justice by calling it a _feature_. Incidentally, please remind me as to
what other features have been removed from Internet Explorer since, say,
v 3.0 ?

>
>> Java is becoming used _more_, not less, and it is being constantly
>> upgraded, not left behind in the software dumper.
>
>To most Windows developers (even us J++ developers), Java is now irrelevant.
>C#/.NET are able replacements.

Why is Java irrelevant? (Sensible answers only, please ...). And, for sure,
C#/.NET is probably quite good (I've literally only started playing with
VB.NET), but why go for the Java clone when you can play with the real thing,
with the stability that it will undoubtably have when compared to a neophyte
platform like .NET. What innovations have Microsoft so cleverly hidden from
us?

>
>> Why can't Microsoft just
>> bite the bullet, reconcile with Sun, and aply for a Java 1.3 licence?
It
>> would save the hassle of having to make users install an extra plugin!
>
>Same reason that Sun didn't bite the bullet and accept that not every Java
>developer wishes to (be virtually forced to) write cross-OS portable apps.
>JNI is a braindead solution and, RMI/JRMP as a replacement for DCOM for
>Windows-only Java apps was laughable.
>

Well, all I can say is that cross-platform is a _very_ important thing for
our company, 'cos we support 6 OSs.

>If you admit that there is a need for platform-specific code (JNI suggests
>that Sun does), then you need to do it properly like MS sought to do for
>Windows or not at all. Of course if you are Sun and you hate/fear MS and
>Windows anyways and then MS out-engineers you and produces absolutely the
>fastest JVM of *any* platform......
>

Oh, for sure. But then again, I wouldn't be using Java. If I was targeting
an OS, then I would simply choose the appropriate tool for the job - no issue.
As for the fastest JVM - really? In which case, it is a real shame they
can't create a new JVM for Java. Or at least, Sun ought to poach the team.

>> >Not a coincidence at all. They are competing technologies. Sun could
have
>> >allowed MS more leverage with respect to continued use of Java. It chose
>> not
>> >to.
>>
>> Oh yes, I know - I was being ironic. I suppose it is a bit too much for
>> Microsoft to help the users in this case.
>
>Most Windows users don't make use of Java. Ever. Those that are most likely
>to - corporate developers and users - still have it as standard AFAIK.
>

Uhuh. Yes, I know. I've been programming VB for a number of years now.
I am only branching off into other realms because of commercial factors
i.e. what the clients want. I'm also branching out into VB.NET to see how
practical it would be to port our VB5 code over. Should be interesting.

>>And as for the J++ 6 point - I
>> have to say that I am mightily glad that Sun protected the language in
the
>> way they did. Portability is the most important thing with Java!
>
>Sun didn't protect the language. It fought to protect it's business against
>the best JVM (at the time of the trial) and MS's audacity to augement this
>JVM with superior access to native OS functionality. That most Java users
>(J++ had more users than all the other tools) welcomed this was of no
>consequence to Sun.
>
>Both companies had their private [unsavoury] agendas but, to portray Sun
as
>the victim of MS treachery is a bit much. And totally inaccurate...

Um. I didn't. I only said, I am very pleased that Sun protected the language.
Come on - we don't want the situation we have with C and C++, with slight
incompatibilities luring you into using proprietary extensions. And I don't
give a **** about the politics of this issue. If one is trying to do portable
code, it is generally a good idea to avoid this sort of stuff.

>
>Kunle
>
>

-- Mark --

[Kunle Odutola]

"Mark Alexander Bertenshaw" <mark.bertenshaw@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:3b681b55$1@news.devx.com...

Mark,

> >> >They also supported *all* MS-DOS programs in the past. Not anymore.
Stuff
> >> >changes...
> >>
> >> Irrelevant.
> >
> >Not at all. Support for *any* feature never implies eternal support.
>
> Feature !!??

Erm....yes. The ability to run Java applets is a feature that Windows' IE
used to support as standard. Now it is to become an optional feature. ;-)

> Considering how scarily *big* Java is these days, I don't think you are
doing
> justice by calling it a _feature_. Incidentally, please remind me as to
> what other features have been removed from Internet Explorer since, say,
> v 3.0 ?

Perhaps IE3's Internet Mail application. It was dropped and something else
replaced it.... ;-)

> >To most Windows developers (even us J++ developers), Java is now
irrelevant.
> >C#/.NET are able replacements.
>
> Why is Java irrelevant? (Sensible answers only, please ...).

Let me qualify that statement - "Java is now irrelevant if all you want to
do is write Windows applications."
Why?, there are better tools for developing Windows applications - the Win32
sets of tools (i.e. Classic VB, VC++, Delphi, C++ Builder etc) were better
in this regard and the .NET platforms is even better now.

> And, for sure,
> C#/.NET is probably quite good (I've literally only started playing with
> VB.NET), but why go for the Java clone when you can play with the real
thing,
> with the stability that it will undoubtably have when compared to a
neophyte
> platform like .NET. What innovations have Microsoft so cleverly hidden
from
> us?

..NET has certainly benefitted from MS's experience with VMs in the past but,
it is more than a clone of the Java platform. It improves on the Java
platform in a number of areas.

> >Same reason that Sun didn't bite the bullet and accept that not every
Java
> >developer wishes to (be virtually forced to) write cross-OS portable
apps.
> >JNI is a braindead solution and, RMI/JRMP as a replacement for DCOM for
> >Windows-only Java apps was laughable.
> >
>
> Well, all I can say is that cross-platform is a _very_ important thing for
> our company, 'cos we support 6 OSs.

And for some of the projects I've work on (and others I am yet to work on).
Nevertheless, I value the ability that .NET promises for the future where I
get to chose whether an application is portable or OS dependent. And I
prefer it's native code solution to JNI. And it's platform middleware
interop solution to Java's "not invented here" syndrome. Of course cross-OS
..NET is years away....

> >If you admit that there is a need for platform-specific code (JNI
suggests
> >that Sun does), then you need to do it properly like MS sought to do for
> >Windows or not at all. Of course if you are Sun and you hate/fear MS and
> >Windows anyways and then MS out-engineers you and produces absolutely the
> >fastest JVM of *any* platform......
> >
>
> Oh, for sure. But then again, I wouldn't be using Java.

Why not?. The only reason I can see is because Sun wants it that way. MS
pretty much proved the point that it is possible to have a choice with Java.

> If I was targeting
> an OS, then I would simply choose the appropriate tool for the job - no
issue.

So would I. Hence the assertion that Java is irrelevant for the vast
majority of developers who have no cross-OS needs. The .NET platform on the
other hand promises developer choice (although that is probably a few years
away).

> As for the fastest JVM - really? In which case, it is a real shame they
> can't create a new JVM for Java. Or at least, Sun ought to poach the
team.

It was the fastest JVM. That they couldn't create a new JVM is all down to
Sun's lawsuit and the resulting settlement agreement. Not sure if they would
have wanted to by the end in any case.

> >Most Windows users don't make use of Java. Ever. Those that are most
likely
> >to - corporate developers and users - still have it as standard AFAIK.
> >
>
> Uhuh. Yes, I know. I've been programming VB for a number of years now.
> I am only branching off into other realms because of commercial factors
> i.e. what the clients want. I'm also branching out into VB.NET to see how
> practical it would be to port our VB5 code over. Should be interesting.

For those times when cross-OS is a requirement, Java is often a good
solution although Kylix is making inroads for Windows/Linux portability.

> Um. I didn't. I only said, I am very pleased that Sun protected the
language.
> Come on - we don't want the situation we have with C and C++, with slight
> incompatibilities luring you into using proprietary extensions. And I
don't
> give a **** about the politics of this issue. If one is trying to do
portable
> code, it is generally a good idea to avoid this sort of stuff.

Problem is a 100% portable language isn't new. They were simply
unpopular/weak. You need access to many underlying OS services to write
powerful applications. You either end up reinventing the facilities of every
platform or you aim for a lowest common denonminator. Neither is a
satisfactory solution. Better to cover most cases and provide access to the
underlying platform where appropriate. And give developers the choice of
when/how to do so...

Kunle

[Mark Alexander Bertenshaw]

Hi Kunle -

"Kunle Odutola" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Mark Alexander Bertenshaw" <mark.bertenshaw@virgin.net> wrote in message
>news:3b681b55$1@news.devx.com...
>
>Mark,
>
>> >> >They also supported *all* MS-DOS programs in the past. Not anymore.
>Stuff
>> >> >changes...
>> >>
>> >> Irrelevant.
>> >
>> >Not at all. Support for *any* feature never implies eternal support.
>>
>> Feature !!??
>
>Erm....yes. The ability to run Java applets is a feature that Windows' IE
>used to support as standard. Now it is to become an optional feature. ;-)

Well, it's a shame that two companies can't stop acting like children and
benefit us (the developers), and our clients. Looks as if we are going to
have to just resort to the Java 2 plugin *8-( .

>> Considering how scarily *big* Java is these days, I don't think you are
>doing
>> justice by calling it a _feature_. Incidentally, please remind me as
to
>> what other features have been removed from Internet Explorer since, say,
>> v 3.0 ?
>
>Perhaps IE3's Internet Mail application. It was dropped and something else
>replaced it.... ;-)

Nope, it's still there - just rebranded with the "Outlook" trademark, albeit
"Express" i.e. completely different codebase. Interesting case that - it
has so many features now, you can actually automate via COM interfaces!

>> Why is Java irrelevant? (Sensible answers only, please ...).
>
>Let me qualify that statement - "Java is now irrelevant if all you want
to
>do is write Windows applications."
>Why?, there are better tools for developing Windows applications - the Win32
>sets of tools (i.e. Classic VB, VC++, Delphi, C++ Builder etc) were better
>in this regard and the .NET platforms is even better now.

Agreed. Personally, I would use VB 5/6 for my Windows development. It's
simply the best development system MS have ever made. I was just chatting
with a co-worker who has moved from VB to Java development, and he really
misses the ability to rewrite the code whilst running the code in the IDE.

>> And, for sure,
>> C#/.NET is probably quite good (I've literally only started playing with
>> VB.NET), but why go for the Java clone when you can play with the real
>thing,
>> with the stability that it will undoubtably have when compared to a
>neophyte
>> platform like .NET. What innovations have Microsoft so cleverly hidden
>from
>> us?
>
>..NET has certainly benefitted from MS's experience with VMs in the past
but,
>it is more than a clone of the Java platform. It improves on the Java
>platform in a number of areas.

Could you please give me a few pointers as to the new benefits?

>> Well, all I can say is that cross-platform is a _very_ important thing
for
>> our company, 'cos we support 6 OSs.
>
>And for some of the projects I've work on (and others I am yet to work on).
>Nevertheless, I value the ability that .NET promises for the future where
I
>get to chose whether an application is portable or OS dependent. And I
>prefer it's native code solution to JNI. And it's platform middleware
>interop solution to Java's "not invented here" syndrome. Of course cross-OS
>..NET is years away....

But I thought that the whole point of the .NET platform was that it _will
be_ OS independent. Otherwise, what's the point? Incidentally, I think
you said somewhere that you could use WinForms as a Java applet replacement.
I was looking at the new version of the Object Browser, and there's simply
tons of stuff there that is Windows dependent. Is this going to be cross-OS,
just as long as that OS is made by Microsoft? *8-)

>> >If you admit that there is a need for platform-specific code (JNI
>suggests
>> >that Sun does), then you need to do it properly like MS sought to do
for
>> >Windows or not at all. Of course if you are Sun and you hate/fear MS
and
>> >Windows anyways and then MS out-engineers you and produces absolutely
the
>> >fastest JVM of *any* platform......
>> >
>>
>> Oh, for sure. But then again, I wouldn't be using Java.
>
>Why not?. The only reason I can see is because Sun wants it that way. MS
>pretty much proved the point that it is possible to have a choice with Java.

Well, as I said above, I would want to use VB with Windows. Practical reasons:
Not particularly slow, large (and cheaper :-) ) developer base, higher productivity.
Sorry, I know I sound prejudiced here. I would use any tools within reason
- really. :-) Why not cross-OS VB?

>> >Most Windows users don't make use of Java. Ever. Those that are most
>likely
>> >to - corporate developers and users - still have it as standard AFAIK.
>> >
>>
>> Uhuh. Yes, I know. I've been programming VB for a number of years now.
>> I am only branching off into other realms because of commercial factors
>> i.e. what the clients want. I'm also branching out into VB.NET to see
how
>> practical it would be to port our VB5 code over. Should be interesting.
>
>For those times when cross-OS is a requirement, Java is often a good
>solution although Kylix is making inroads for Windows/Linux portability.

Yeah, so I have heard. The problem with Kylix is that Linux is not mainstream
in the enterprise sector - they don't seem to trust it. Talking of Delphi
- don't you think that .NET looks _so_ like Delphi as well?

>
>Kunle
>

--
Mark Alexander Bertenshaw
Programmer/Analyst
Chordiant Software
Brentford
UK

[Kunle Odutola]

"Mark Alexander Bertenshaw" <mark.bertenshaw@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:3b69473a$1@news.devx.com...

> Hi Kunle -

Hi Mark,

> Well, it's a shame that two companies can't stop acting like children and
> benefit us (the developers), and our clients. Looks as if we are going to
> have to just resort to the Java 2 plugin *8-( .

True.

> >..NET has certainly benefitted from MS's experience with VMs in the past
> but,
> >it is more than a clone of the Java platform. It improves on the Java
> >platform in a number of areas.
>
> Could you please give me a few pointers as to the new benefits?

Some things I consider to be benefits over the Java platform:
- the variety of language compilers supplied as standard and the tools to
facilitate easy development of new languages
- cross-language interop including cross-language inheritance
- ASP.NET (much better performance than JSP/Servlets even in beta on my
boxes)
- ADO.NET (no doubt JDBC would be "upgraded" to include features from this
as was the case with ODBC and ADO)
- powerful OS and middleware interop (P/Invoke and COM interop)
- ECMA involvement (it's only for a subset of .NET but that's more than the
Java platform)
- better performance for

> >And for some of the projects I've work on (and others I am yet to work
on).
> >Nevertheless, I value the ability that .NET promises for the future where
> I
> >get to chose whether an application is portable or OS dependent. And I
> >prefer it's native code solution to JNI. And it's platform middleware
> >interop solution to Java's "not invented here" syndrome. Of course
cross-OS
> >..NET is years away....
>
> But I thought that the whole point of the .NET platform was that it _will
> be_ OS independent. Otherwise, what's the point? Incidentally, I think
> you said somewhere that you could use WinForms as a Java applet
replacement.
> I was looking at the new version of the Object Browser, and there's
simply
> tons of stuff there that is Windows dependent. Is this going to be
cross-OS,
> just as long as that OS is made by Microsoft? *8-)

..NET is certainly OS-independent capable. But I won't go so far as to say
that's the whole point. MS isn't rushing to endow competiting platforms with
the benefits of it's expensive research and development programmes.
Nevertheless, I predict that the important bits will become be available on
the important OS platforms within a couple of years.

My statement about WinForms is currently only for the Windows platform. That
may change.

> >> Oh, for sure. But then again, I wouldn't be using Java.
> >
> >Why not?. The only reason I can see is because Sun wants it that way. MS
> >pretty much proved the point that it is possible to have a choice with
Java.
>
> Well, as I said above, I would want to use VB with Windows. Practical
reasons:
> Not particularly slow, large (and cheaper :-) ) developer base, higher
productivity.
> Sorry, I know I sound prejudiced here. I would use any tools within
reason
> - really. :-) Why not cross-OS VB?

J++ was as close to VB as Java could come. At least that's what I believed
until I tried VB.NET and C#....

> >For those times when cross-OS is a requirement, Java is often a good
> >solution although Kylix is making inroads for Windows/Linux portability.
>
> Yeah, so I have heard. The problem with Kylix is that Linux is not
mainstream
> in the enterprise sector - they don't seem to trust it. Talking of Delphi
> - don't you think that .NET looks _so_ like Delphi as well?

It's the so-called "Hejlsberg effect" ;-)
Uncanny...

Kunle

[Mark Alexander Bertenshaw]

"Kunle Odutola" <kunle.odutola@<REMOVETHIS>okocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Mark Alexander Bertenshaw" <mark.bertenshaw@virgin.net> wrote in message
>news:3b69473a$1@news.devx.com...
>
>> >[.NET] is more than a clone of the Java platform. It improves on the
Java
>> >platform in a number of areas.
>>
>> Could you please give me a few pointers as to the new benefits?
>
>Some things I consider to be benefits over the Java platform:
>- the variety of language compilers supplied as standard and the tools to
>facilitate easy development of new languages

True - although I am sure that I have heard of a few companies who are using
the Java virtual machine which their own languages. But yes, not ones supported
by Sun.

>- cross-language interop including cross-language inheritance

The latter is a very cool feature.

>- ASP.NET (much better performance than JSP/Servlets even in beta on my
>boxes)

Really? I have always been an ASP fan, so this sounds good. Is there any
truth in reports I have heard that the ASP model has been changed considerably?
Also, how do this fit in with Web Service? Or does ASP simply create GUIs
for browsers?

>- ADO.NET (no doubt JDBC would be "upgraded" to include features from this
>as was the case with ODBC and ADO)

Is this COM ADO with a wrapper, or a complete redesign?

>- powerful OS and middleware interop (P/Invoke and COM interop)

I suppose the former is the equivalent of "JNI". As for the latter - it's
essential!

>- ECMA involvement (it's only for a subset of .NET but that's more than
the
>Java platform)

My God! Where would they start? Surely this is too big a subject - would
it be called something like "ECMA web services layer"?

>> >> Oh, for sure. But then again, I wouldn't be using Java.
>> >
>> >Why not?. The only reason I can see is because Sun wants it that way.
MS
>> >pretty much proved the point that it is possible to have a choice with
>Java.
>>
>> Well, as I said above, I would want to use VB with Windows. Practical
>reasons:
>> Not particularly slow, large (and cheaper :-) ) developer base, higher
>productivity.
>> Sorry, I know I sound prejudiced here. I would use any tools within
>reason
>> - really. :-) Why not cross-OS VB?
>
>J++ was as close to VB as Java could come. At least that's what I believed
>until I tried VB.NET and C#....

When I can write VB on Linux, I will rejoice ...

>> >For those times when cross-OS is a requirement, Java is often a good
>> >solution although Kylix is making inroads for Windows/Linux portability.
>>
>> Yeah, so I have heard. The problem with Kylix is that Linux is not
>mainstream
>> in the enterprise sector - they don't seem to trust it. Talking of Delphi
>> - don't you think that .NET looks _so_ like Delphi as well?
>
>It's the so-called "Hejlsberg effect" ;-)
>Uncanny...

This is the bloke poached from Borland to Microsoft, I take it?

>
>Kunle
>

--
Mark Alexander Bertenshaw
Programmer/Analyst
Chordiant Software
Brentford
UK

[Kunle Odutola]

"Mark Alexander Bertenshaw" <mark.bertenshaw@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:3b6aa79f$1@news.devx.com...

> >Some things I consider to be benefits over the Java platform:
> >- the variety of language compilers supplied as standard and the tools to
> >facilitate easy development of new languages
>
> True - although I am sure that I have heard of a few companies who are
using
> the Java virtual machine which their own languages. But yes, not ones
supported
> by Sun.

I am aware of JPython, Component Pascal, Smalltalk, Rhino (JavaScript), JESS
(expert system shell) and a few BASICs.

> >- ASP.NET (much better performance than JSP/Servlets even in beta on my
> >boxes)
>
> Really? I have always been an ASP fan, so this sounds good. Is there any
> truth in reports I have heard that the ASP model has been changed
considerably?
> Also, how do this fit in with Web Service? Or does ASP simply create
GUIs
> for browsers?

ASP.NET is tres cool. It is for creating web apps (which may expose also web
services) but the programming model is simialr to traditional event-driven
programming a la VB.

> >- ADO.NET (no doubt JDBC would be "upgraded" to include features from
this
> >as was the case with ODBC and ADO)
>
> Is this COM ADO with a wrapper, or a complete redesign?

A redesign. ADO is still available via COM Interop.

> >- ECMA involvement (it's only for a subset of .NET but that's more than
> the
> >Java platform)
>
> My God! Where would they start? Surely this is too big a subject - would
> it be called something like "ECMA web services layer"?

MS submitted C#, the runtime and a subset of it's class libraries to ECMA .

> >J++ was as close to VB as Java could come. At least that's what I
believed
> >until I tried VB.NET and C#....
>
> When I can write VB on Linux, I will rejoice ...

Have a look at Gnome Basic. I don't remember if it is complete etc..

> >It's the so-called "Hejlsberg effect" ;-)
> >Uncanny...
>
> This is the bloke poached from Borland to Microsoft, I take it?

Yes. Anders is known for his work on Turbo Pascal, Borland Pascal, Delphi,
J++ and now C#.

Kunle