Re: Visual Studio .NET and the IIgs

["steve at crackershack dot com" <steve@remove.crackershack.com>]

FUD...
>
> VB first. The particular implementation put our by M$ is a baby elephant.
> I have not checked out the size but I suspect it would be too large to
> install on a ProDOS hard drive. It is also very slow even when
> implemented on a Pentium 75. Imagine how slow a direct port would be on
> a GS. In addition, a port of the M$ DLL files would have to be made.
> Correct me if I am wrong but aren't they M$/Intel specific?
>

VB.Net wouldn't need to be implemented as 65816. The only thing that would
need to be ported is the CLR (common language runtime) and the IL.

.Net, like java is interpreted and JIT recompiled at runtime. Implementing
the CLR and IL would ***theoretically*** allow you to run any .net
application.

The problem is that there are threading, process and core OS issues that
GS/OS would have to contend with. A large majority of useful .net
infrastructure relies on some pretty nifty OS-level stuff, which GS/OS
doesn't provide.

"Hello world" and console-mode apps could be written and cross compiled.
Most other stuff would choke.

> Next is the .NET idea. Basically this refers to the idea by M$ people
> will pay money to store files on their servers accessed through their
> ISP (also for a fee). Implementing this presumes the user has a modem,
> phone line, and an internet connection available. M$ also claims
> ownership of all files and data passing through their computer system.
> Most Apple// people probably would not want to give up control of their
> personal files to M$, especially for a fee.
>
> No doubt the implementation would be technically possible. The problem
> would be the acceptance of these ideas. Since I did say I'd be civil I'd
> better stop here.
>


Rubbish... Pure FUD

.Net, as it exists is a language and runtime framework, and not a
subscription service. I am writing apps in .net right now. Microsoft does
have other technologies like passport.net and the like, but the core .net
language framework isn't the issue. Microsoft has submitted C# to the
standards body and will likely release the CLR/IL specifications so that
anyone can port it.