Microsoft released new beta versions of their programming .NET tools, including the .NET Framework and SDK 1.1 Beta and Visual J# Redistributable Package 1.1 Beta.
Microsoft Refreshes the .NET Downloads
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I thought MS was not allowed to just Java in there programming tools
This is starting to feel like Java even more …. when can we expect .Net 2 (1.2) ?
I really hope .NET wont become popular and that Java will take off on the desktop soon (and not just the server side). JDK 1.4.1 is a brilliant piece of technology with things like WebStart, Swing, XML, preferences, non-blocking IO etc. It’s about time that we got rid of the MS monopoly on the desktop.
Blah blah blah.
I don’t see how 1.1 is more like Java than 1.0. And Java won’t beat .NET because it’s out for years and didn’t jackshit on the desktop, while MS is going major .NET with Longhorn.
I thought MS was not allowed to just Java in there programming tools
J# uses J++ syntax but compiles to the .Net framework. It doesn’t use a Java VM. The normal J# download site has these disclaimers:
Visual J# .NET is not a tool for developing applications intended to run on a Java virtual machine. Applications and services built with Visual J# .NET will run only in the .NET Framework; they will not run on any Java virtual machine.
Visual J# .NET has been developed independently by Microsoft. It is neither endorsed nor approved by Sun Microsystems, Inc.
That should pretty much cover them under the current agreements following Sun’s lawsuit over their use of the Java trademark in Visual J++.
The thing that worries me about the .NET framework and its associated APIs and toolkits is that MS can pull them back at anytime to get you to buy a .NET server.
-d.
The thing that worries me about the .NET framework and its associated APIs and toolkits is that MS can pull them back at anytime to get you to buy a .NET server.
Umm how? At the very least you could continue using the existing .Net framework, but really if they pulled the .Net framework I think you’d just see more developers either dump them on their heads or go over to Mono, since Mono does run on Windows and plans to implement most of the framework.
>I thought MS was not allowed to just Java in there programming tools
They’re bundling an old (buggy) version of the JRE within the Windows XP service pack, I think. J# lets the two developers who are still using J++ migrate over to .NET. I don’t know if there are similar migration tools in the works (eg, VFP#) but I wouldn’t be surprised.
I actually liked J++ when it came out because its familiar IDE but I quickly ditched it when MS left the product out in the cold. MS’s IDE is still one of the best IMHO although I’m starting to get used to Eclipse (http://www.eclipse.org).
-danny
They’re bundling an old (buggy) version of the JRE within the Windows XP service pack, I think. J# lets the two developers who are still using J++ migrate over to .NET. I don’t know if there are similar migration tools in the works (eg, VFP#) but I wouldn’t be surprised.
Visual FoxPro seems to have diverged from the rest of the Visual Studio package. VFoxPro 7 can interface with .Net, but doesn’t seem to require it or heavily utilize it.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vfoxpro/productinfo/overview/default.asp
Since I’ve never been much of a VFoxPro user, I couldn’t really say too much about it.
anybody?
This is starting to feel like Java even more …. when can we expect .Net 2 (1.2) ?
Hehe, true
Umm how? At the very least you could continue using the existing .Net framework, but really if they pulled the .Net framework I think you’d just see more developers either dump them on their heads or go over to Mono, since Mono does run on Windows and plans to implement most of the framework.
This is more than a question of getting one’s hands on the .NET API and runtimes. Removing something from a download site pretty much deprecates it in the eyes of many people. For example, let’s assume that Microsoft publishes two versions of its .NET Framework SDK in 2002, each of which is available on their website or via their nifty Windows Update service. Now, what if Microsoft then tells everyone that the third version will only be available with their new Windows Server.NET product line? With any other company, this wouldn’t be a big deal but with Microsoft’s past history, one has to question why the SDK was even out there in the first place.
Mono is a completely different issue and one that is controversial in and of itself. It would be nice to see other platforms which are web service-centric.
Don’t get me wrong, some of the features of .NET are impressive and innovative and it definitely makes sense if you’re a Microsoft shop or a fan of web services at every level.
-danny
This is more than a question of getting one’s hands on the .NET API and runtimes. Removing something from a download site pretty much deprecates it in the eyes of many people. For example, let’s assume that Microsoft publishes two versions of its .NET Framework SDK in 2002, each of which is available on their website or via their nifty Windows Update service. Now, what if Microsoft then tells everyone that the third version will only be available with their new Windows Server.NET product line? With any other company, this wouldn’t be a big deal but with Microsoft’s past history, one has to question why the SDK was even out there in the first place.
I’d have to question what the third SDK gives that the first two don’t. That being said, though, I’d think that most people would simply use the first two versions rather than the third. There’s no reason for most people to ever even look at the Server version of Windows, let alone actually use it. All of that being said, there isn’t much that would lead many people to believe that Microsoft would pull an SDK from their site as long as the API it was written to is still distributed.
Don’t get me wrong, some of the features of .NET are impressive and innovative and it definitely makes sense if you’re a Microsoft shop or a fan of web services at every level.
and, to me, what you just said makes it completely clear that Microsoft has failed to properly get across what the .Net framework is to those people that aren’t actively using it. While the .Net framework does include portions that help with ‘web services’, that’s not even close to everything it does, since it replaces almost the entire Win32 API. The point is that it’s not just web services that can be developed with the framework, but all applications. In theory, this makes any application built on the framework capable of running anywhere that the framework has been implemented, including Mono if Mono ever gets full support of the framework. As far as MS shops go, this one just uses what our customer puts on the requirement for the operating system. Sometimes it’s Windows 2k, sometimes it’s Solaris (on Sun hardware usually, as well), sometimes it’s obscure little operating systems that most people have never heard of.
My understanding of J# is that you use Java language syntax to write apps for the .NET platform, not JVM.
” really hope .NET wont become popular and that Java will take off on the desktop soon”
If Java is to take off on the desktop, they really need to speed it up. Right now, the company I work for uses a Java SQL app called Squirrel, and it is slooooooow.
While windows supports it’s .Net framework in windows, MS doesn’t actively support any other operating systems like Solaris and Linux. Rather they just try to motivate some people to program for free and use their work as a selling point for .Net.
Danny, a point for you to ponder: Did MS ever release a version of DirectX that only works with the latest and greatest? Nope. I doubt it would happen with .NET. The reason is that Windows’ streght lies with ISV support, and by pulling support for older systems that haven’t “expired” can be potentially fatal.
Not quite, MS have released a BSD.NET
—
I’m sure I heard once .net supported some of the Java API’s, is this true (alas I can’t test it, my PC refuses to update, dam fax driver messing up my print spooler
)