Differences between version 3 and revision by previous author of C#.
Other diffs: Previous Major Revision, Previous Revision, or view the Annotated Edit History
| Newer page: | version 3 | Last edited on Sunday, May 7, 2006 1:13:32 pm | by LawrenceDoliveiro | Revert |
| Older page: | version 2 | Last edited on Monday, October 27, 2003 9:50:10 am | by CraigBox | Revert |
@@ -3,10 +3,11 @@
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♯.
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.
-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] and thus provide security. It also provides "Compile once and run anywhere", which as almost everyone knows is "Compile once and hope like hell".
+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".
Compare [Java]
[1]: Although you could very well just sandbox a process with today's VirtualMemory supporting processors, OpenBSD does this to some extent.
+[2]: Also, in fact, there has been a long history of security holes in these sandboxes.
