[Pc_Support] .NET based on Java?

[Paul M Foster]

On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 07:00:32AM -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:

> On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 22:13 -0400, Paul M Foster wrote:
> > Bryan (or others):
> > At one point, you made the claim that the .NET framework was based on 
> > Java (1.1?) code that Microsoft had licensed from Sun. Am I remembering 
> > that correctly? If so, are there any articles to be found (preferably 
> > online) which provide evidence for this claim? You're the only one I've 
> > heard make it, but then again I don't pore over a bunch of tech articles 
> > all the time.
> 
> The .NET C# language, common language run-time and development framework
> are based on Java 1.1.  .NET is more than just the language, run-time
> and development framework.
> 
> Why people are in disbelief over this, and many other things that
> Microsoft has used in the past, is beyond me.  Especially from even UNIX
> users, although the overwhelming majority of UNIX developers know the
> lineage of a great number of things.
> 
> Microsoft legally licensed Java from Sun.  Microsoft was already working
> on a Win32-only Java implementation well in advance of any lawsuit over
> the license by Sun.  This included many core changes you now find in C#.
> While Sun was successful in preventing Microsoft from using the
> trademark in the lawsuit, Microsoft fought like hell, and won, the right
> to continue using the code through the last release they were given at
> the time, Java 1.1.
> 
> If anything, Microsoft was brilliant in getting what they wanted, and
> Sun a little too naive to realize that it was far more about the
> branding.
> 
> Once Microsoft was freed of the contractual obligations with Sun, but
> still had the source code, they then didn't tip-toe any longer.  They
> improved the language which resulted in C#.  You'll notice every single
> limitation of Java exists in every single area of .NET.  E.g., the
> language inheritance limitations of the Java Native Interface (JNI) are
> the same of those in the Common Language Run-time.
> 
> Again, the development timeline shows that Microsoft basically took what
> they had already forked from Java and, now with the "gloves off,"
> finished what they wanted.  But this matters little now.  Microsoft
> relicensed Java as of version 1.4, and Microsoft and Sun are working
> together on Java and .NET.  Microsoft did this because they were well
> beyond on .NET Indigo services for NT 6.0.
> 
> As far as "proof," please remember all the "Microsoft could not be
> reached for comment" statements in articles.  Microsoft uses all sorts
> of sort code they can legally (and in a several cases, have done
> illegally or through licensing) in Windows and other products.  They'd
> be stupid not too, and in knowing many Microsoft developers, their
> attitude was "Sun left us no choice."  The reality is that Microsoft
> knows that nearly all developers know, and it's not really a big deal.
> Some in the media go crazy sometimes, but I don't know why.
> 
> The only people who care are the CIOs and other executives that still
> believe Microsoft invented everything from the ground-up.

I'm not disputing Microsoft's propensity for scarfing and using others' 
technology. Let's face it-- DOS originally came from someone else. Nor 
am I necessarily saying .NET _isn't_ based on Java.

But based on what you've said, it seems it would be fair to say that you 
strongly believe and have what you consider convincing evidence that 
.NET (C#, whatever) is based on Java. But there does not seem to be 
actual _proof_ of this.

I'm not particularly trying to give you a hard time. I'm just trying to 
make the distinction between facts and opinions in this case.

Paul