[Pc_Support] .NET based on Java?

[Paul M Foster]

On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 12:18:29PM -0700, Bryan J. Smith wrote:

> Paul M Foster <paulf at quillandmouse.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> What proof will satisfy?  I don't have access to Microsoft's
> version control repository.  The greatest victory for the
> future of .NET/C# was when Microsoft ensured the rights to
> the source code they paid for.
> 

A statement from Microsoft. An email from a developer known to have 
worked on C#. A well-researched news story from a credible entity with 
its own verifiable sources.

> > 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.
> 
> My viewpoint isn't opinion.  It's based on what I have been
> told from contractors who worked at Microsoft.  It is 2nd
> hand, yes.  

That's where we differ. A contractor from Microsoft tells you X. Was he 
lying? Did he actually know what he was talking about? Did he actually 
have access to the appropriate code and materials? Did he actually work 
on that particular project? Can we verify that? Was he just yanking your 
chain? Is this just a prank to see if his false information will ever 
come out in newspapers? Did he feel there was some unknown benefit to 
having you believe a false statement?

This is why hearsay isn't acceptable in a court of law as proof. Even if 
Bob says he saw Jim commit X crime, we don't convict on that supposedly 
eyewitness testimony alone.

Let me reiterate: I'm not disputing your idea that C# et al are based on 
the Java codebase from that period. You could well be right. Evidence 
(including the article you cited in the other email), seems to point in 
that direction. 

I'm just pointing out that this is an opinion, not a fact. 

People lie, mis-remember, make things up to fill in gaps or to enhance 
their own reputations or avoid trouble all the time. "Reliable sources" 
may or may not be. And hearing the same lie from more than one source 
doesn't then make it true. Moreover, two people who tell you the same 
thing may well believe it's true, but still have both been lied to about 
it.

AGAIN, I'm not trying to impugn your sources or you. I'm just trying to 
convey what I consider the difference between facts and opinions.

Paul