Annotated edit history of
C# version 3, including all changes.
View license author blame.
| Rev |
Author |
# |
Line |
| 1 |
PerryLorier |
1 |
Or, more accurately C♯ |
| |
|
2 |
|
| |
|
3 |
Microsoft panicing about how Java was doing so well, took the idea of a VirtualMachine (like the Java VM) and created their own one called ".NET". Then, as an "innovation" they allowed multiple languages to target this VirtualMachine, but the main language is "C♯" (pronounced C Sharp). It's been said that all the languages that have been ported to .NET just end up being "skins" on top of C♯. |
| |
|
4 |
|
| 2 |
CraigBox |
5 |
MiguelDeIcaza decided that .NET was a good idea, so he's busy working on "[Mono]", an implementation of the .NET "Framework" for POSIX compliant OS's. |
| 1 |
PerryLorier |
6 |
|
| 3 |
LawrenceDoliveiro |
7 |
The idea of using a VirtualMachine isn't a new one, the oldest case I'm aware of is perhaps SmallTalk or even Pascal's "p-code". The reason it's so "hip" and "trendy" at the moment is that you can easily sandbox a VirtualMachine[1][2] and thus provide security. It also provides "Compile once and run anywhere", which as almost everyone knows is "Compile once and hope like hell". |
| 1 |
PerryLorier |
8 |
|
| |
|
9 |
Compare [Java] |
| |
|
10 |
|
| |
|
11 |
|
| |
|
12 |
[1]: Although you could very well just sandbox a process with today's VirtualMemory supporting processors, OpenBSD does this to some extent. |
| 3 |
LawrenceDoliveiro |
13 |
[2]: Also, in fact, there has been a long history of security holes in these sandboxes. |
