[Pc_Support] .NET based on Java?

[Bryan J. Smith]

Damien McKenna <damien at mc-kenna.com> wrote:
> I remember that from the mid-90's just after they released
> Visual Studio 6 and J++, but heck that's ten years ago

Actually, the VS6 line is more like 7 years ago, not quite a
decade.  But yes, the Java license is about a decade old.

> so its no wonder most people don't remember.

In fact, starting about 4 years ago until even now, there are
countless people who tell me that Java was a "fad" and that
it even "failed."  Why?  Because they get their products from
Microsoft.

My my how people are addicted to brand naming.  Microsoft has
survived because it KNOWS that branding is EVERYTHING.  They
are completely oblivious to all the JSP and app servers out
there.

> You're getting a bit worked up, Bryan, he's just fishing
> for additional evidence.

I'm not getting worked up.  I just said, hey, at this point,
assume it's coming 100% out of my ass.  ;->

There is no way to prove anything to the satisfaction of some
people.  And there's no legal reason why Microsoft would have
to come out and say, "yes, all our work is based on the Java
code we had the rights to."

To do such would kill the branding.  But EVERYONE KNEW once
the court ordered that Microsoft had full rights to use the
Java code it had licensed (through the moment Sun stopped
sending them updates), that saved Microsoft a good 3+ years
in development of their "Java alternative."

People who don't want to believe that aren't going to ever
find any proof that is satisfactory.  They will assume that
Microsoft invented C# from thin air, and that the CLR had
nothing to do with their prior Win32-only, native Java
interface.

> It goes back as far as the Visual Studio 6 release (or
> there abouts)...

Correct.  The J++ product and all Microsoft "Java"
develpoments were frozen as of the version 6 line.

> "*and* *some* *things* *that* *should* *not* *have* *been*
> *forgotten* were lost. History became legend. Legend became
> myth..."

Yada yada yada ... been there, just another story.

> One of the two biggest legal coups they won.

I distinctly remember a 1999 article commenting how Sun
didn't realize what Microsoft wanted out of the Java
licensing agreement, and how Microsoft's lawyers gave them
exactly what they needed to secure the source code to Java
they would have received before Sun started withholding it.

I can no longer find the article on-line, but I'm fairly
certain it was an IDG publication (InfoWorld I believe).

> He's drawing an analogy.  You're getting a bit worked up,
> Bryan.

I know, but what he's looking for is absolutes.
I assume he's dealing with nay-sayers that want "proof."

So if those nay-sayers want "proof" that Microsoft used any
Java in C#, I want proof that Microsoft created C# "clean
room" -- especially that CLR.



-- 
Bryan J. Smith                | Sent from Yahoo Mail
mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org     |  (please excuse any
http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ |   missing headers)