[Pc_Support] .NET based on Java?

[Damien McKenna]

Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> But the language, the 1:1 class libraries and the native
> interface, all based on prior J++ and interface work.  .NET
> and C# was just the evolution from what Microsoft was already
> doing to Java, making it Win32/Intel-only.
>   
That was the core aspect of one of the court cases, that Microsoft was 
diluting the Java brand by planning all these extensions to the platform 
that were Windows-only.  I remember that from the mid-90's just after 
they released Visual Studio 6 and J++, but heck that's ten years ago so 
its no wonder most people don't remember.  It was *years* from then 
until the .NET stuff was released, one of their longest development 
times and (speculation) quite possibly a key reason was the court cases 
that may have legally tied their hands while the cases were on-going; 
IANAL so I could be way off base here.
>> Can we verify that? Was he just yanking your chain? 
>>     
>
> Hey, you can assume 100% in my e-mail comes out of my ass if
> you want.  I could really care less.
>   
You're getting a bit worked up, Bryan, he's just fishing for additional 
evidence.
> It's not just 1 guy dude.  This has been going around for
> over 5 years now -- before .NET was even announced.
>   
It goes back as far as the Visual Studio 6 release (or there abouts)...
>> This is why hearsay isn't acceptable in a court of law as
>> proof.
>>     
> This isn't hearsay, it's more like trade secrets.
"*and* *some* *things* *that* *should* *not* *have* *been* *forgotten* 
were lost. History became legend. Legend became myth..."
> But there is _no_ chance of that.  Microsoft not only won the
> right to use the Java 1.1 source code (which was after that
> article was originally written -- as they noted in the
> update, they were so allowed), but they have re-licensed Java
> 1.4+ from Sun in the big hoopla of late 2003 to "work
> together."
>   
One of the two biggest legal coups they won.
>> Even if Bob says he saw Jim commit X crime,
>>     
>
> What crime are we talking about.  There was *NO*CRIME*!
>   
He's drawing an analogy.  You're getting a bit worked up, Bryan.

-- 
Damien McKenna, husband, father, geek.
damien at mc-kenna.com - http://www.mc-kenna.com/