How about including Java as one of the .NET supported languages?
-
I can think of a few: 0. They don't want to pay licensing fees. 1. They want to promote their own technologies 2. XMLVM is not developed by Microsoft 3. They tried it already, it was called J#, it never really caught on
lewax00 wrote:
3. They tried it already, it was called J#, it never really caught on and they got taken to court about it.
FTFY. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra] posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]
-
I came across an experimental tool named XMLVM, which as claimed can convert the compiled .NET assemblies into Java byte code and vice versa. This makes me thinking why can't Microsoft include Java into the .NET run-time support...
Best, Jun
-
lewax00 wrote:
3. They tried it already, it was called J#, it never really caught on and they got taken to court about it.
FTFY. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra] posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]
-
I came across an experimental tool named XMLVM, which as claimed can convert the compiled .NET assemblies into Java byte code and vice versa. This makes me thinking why can't Microsoft include Java into the .NET run-time support...
Best, Jun
Jun Du wrote:
This makes me thinking why can't Microsoft include Java into the .NET run-time support...
Could be that they are smart enough not to try it for the third time. There were two attempts by MS to bring Java to their ecosystem: J++ and J# and both failed miserably due to various reasons.
-
They used to, it was called J#. Didn't take off - and that's understating it.
Regards, Nish
My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
They used to, it was called J#. Didn't take off
Dropped flatter than a pancake. Got a copy of it with the first .NET. I bought it here from CP in 2002 and got their Dundas Ultimate Toolbox with it.
-
I came across an experimental tool named XMLVM, which as claimed can convert the compiled .NET assemblies into Java byte code and vice versa. This makes me thinking why can't Microsoft include Java into the .NET run-time support...
Best, Jun
IKVM.NET[^] works pretty well ... From Uses for IKVM.NET[^]: The ikvm application included with the distribution is a .NET implementation of a Java Virtual Machine. In many cases, you can use it as a drop-in replacement for java. For example, instead of typing java -jar myapp.jar to run an application, you can type ikvm -jar myapp.jar
Espen Harlinn Senior Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services
-
I came across an experimental tool named XMLVM, which as claimed can convert the compiled .NET assemblies into Java byte code and vice versa. This makes me thinking why can't Microsoft include Java into the .NET run-time support...
Best, Jun
Look up the history of Java and Microsoft. Then have a look at how well Sun has done out of all the posing and fighting. It's a long sordid story.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
lewax00 wrote:
3. They tried it already, it was called J#, it never really caught on and they got taken to court about it.
FTFY. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra] posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]
-
I came across an experimental tool named XMLVM, which as claimed can convert the compiled .NET assemblies into Java byte code and vice versa. This makes me thinking why can't Microsoft include Java into the .NET run-time support...
Best, Jun
Why would you like to do that? There is nothing which Java can offer on the language level...well there are some points, like the "throws" declaration which forces you to catch possible exceptions. I do not see any added value on adding Java to the languages for CLR. (except the fact that it is so popular). On the other hand it would be great to write software in C# which would run on JVM... Or let's just wait till the release of Java 8 which will offer some good language stuff (2013...maybe) - than I will happily code in java...maybe
-
Why would you like to do that? There is nothing which Java can offer on the language level...well there are some points, like the "throws" declaration which forces you to catch possible exceptions. I do not see any added value on adding Java to the languages for CLR. (except the fact that it is so popular). On the other hand it would be great to write software in C# which would run on JVM... Or let's just wait till the release of Java 8 which will offer some good language stuff (2013...maybe) - than I will happily code in java...maybe
Jan Fajfr wrote:
Or let's just wait till the release of Java 8 which will offer some good language stuff (2013...maybe) - than I will happily code in java...maybe
I wouldn't hold your breath - all their good engineers fled shortly after Oracle took over.
-
I came across an experimental tool named XMLVM, which as claimed can convert the compiled .NET assemblies into Java byte code and vice versa. This makes me thinking why can't Microsoft include Java into the .NET run-time support...
Best, Jun
Great idea. I'm currently linking a Java project into .Net, and I think we need more badly documented, slow running stuff with ugly interfaces in the .Net world.
-
I came across an experimental tool named XMLVM, which as claimed can convert the compiled .NET assemblies into Java byte code and vice versa. This makes me thinking why can't Microsoft include Java into the .NET run-time support...
Best, Jun
-
Java is a dead walker. Having C# I see no any reason to have Java too, esp. when Java as a language far behind C#.
Totally agree Being forced to use Java in Eclipse after coding in VS2010 was a nightmare. All that setting up ENV variables JAVA_HOME etc drives you nuts! And the stuff out there in the public domain is soooo amateur looking. BUT (and it's a big one) the reason enterprise Java is used a lot is that it can run on UNIX - that and it's not C++ (which I'd also rather use than Java...)
-
Java is a dead walker. Having C# I see no any reason to have Java too, esp. when Java as a language far behind C#.
Wasn't there a fair bit of litigation in the past regarding just this thing? I would love to at least dump Eclipse and move on to Visual Studio. And dump Java too. Java is proof that after over 55 years of mainstream language development (Fortran came out in 1956) we haven't got very far. A real productivity killer.
-
Totally agree Being forced to use Java in Eclipse after coding in VS2010 was a nightmare. All that setting up ENV variables JAVA_HOME etc drives you nuts! And the stuff out there in the public domain is soooo amateur looking. BUT (and it's a big one) the reason enterprise Java is used a lot is that it can run on UNIX - that and it's not C++ (which I'd also rather use than Java...)
I fear "enterprise Java" is the same myth like NFO: everybody knows it, but nobody seen. :) Currently .NET has everything to build any scale applications. Who care about "enterprise Java"? People just use stuff most handy in their company - a whole MS chain, from Server/Exchange/SQL till WinXP/Outlook.
-
I fear "enterprise Java" is the same myth like NFO: everybody knows it, but nobody seen. :) Currently .NET has everything to build any scale applications. Who care about "enterprise Java"? People just use stuff most handy in their company - a whole MS chain, from Server/Exchange/SQL till WinXP/Outlook.
Agreed But the UNIX problem doesn't go away. I work on a lot Govt stuff and apart from the odd breath of fresh air, it all runs on UNIX - hence no C# dev - it's all done in Java. If there was a reliable solid MSIL VM for UNIX we could truly wave goodbye to the mess that is the Java programming environment....
-
I came across an experimental tool named XMLVM, which as claimed can convert the compiled .NET assemblies into Java byte code and vice versa. This makes me thinking why can't Microsoft include Java into the .NET run-time support...
Best, Jun
I think is not necessary. In .NET already exist a imitation ( C# ) and i prefer don't to see the microsoft world expand more.
-
I hadn't heard that. The only things I saw (from Microsoft though, probably biased in their favor) made it sound like it didn't have enough of a user base to continue supporting it. But that makes a lot of sense.
It still did not have a huge developer base
Regards, Thomas Stockwell Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning. Visit my Website
-
Why would you like to do that? There is nothing which Java can offer on the language level...well there are some points, like the "throws" declaration which forces you to catch possible exceptions. I do not see any added value on adding Java to the languages for CLR. (except the fact that it is so popular). On the other hand it would be great to write software in C# which would run on JVM... Or let's just wait till the release of Java 8 which will offer some good language stuff (2013...maybe) - than I will happily code in java...maybe
Jan Fajfr wrote:
There is nothing which Java can offer on the language level...well there are some points, like the "throws" declaration which forces you to catch possible exceptions
I recently started working in a Java project and it is surprising how much functionality .NET developers have available since .NET 3.5 that does not exist in Java.
-
I came across an experimental tool named XMLVM, which as claimed can convert the compiled .NET assemblies into Java byte code and vice versa. This makes me thinking why can't Microsoft include Java into the .NET run-time support...
Best, Jun
Probably because C# and Java are effectively identical, C# is just a more mature language (even though it's not older). If you know Java, the only thing you need to learn from there is how underlying structures differ at compile time (generics, etc), linq, lambda expressions and the .NET namespaces that don't exist in java. As others have mentioned there was J#, but even sans the legal issues what's the point? If I want to write Java I'll fire up STS.