MS C# standards strategy

[Brandon J. Van Every]

I think I've finally figured out MS's C# strategy. C# is now an ECMA/ISO
standard. However, that's only true of the current incarnation. The next
version, Whidbey, is not.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/vcsharp/d.../dv_vstechart/html/whidbey_csharp_preview.asp

So the game is that 3rd parties providing C# implementations will always lag
behind Microsoft. I doubt that C# standardization will ever stop, but there
will always be this time delay between Microsoft going public with their
next C#, the ECMA and ISO standardizing what was done, and 3rd parties
providing compliant implementations. Ergo, C# is open, but MS becomes the
de facto source for the most real world useful solution. You *could* write
to the standardized subsets, but in industrial practice, plenty of shops
will creep into the next incarnation.

MS will keep adding features to C# indefinitely. If they ever stopped
adding, then they'd no longer be able to lead people around by the nose.
Ergo, I predict C# will evolve into a feature laden, baroque language.

Or is there early release information for 3rd party compiler developers and
the ECMA / ISO? That would somewhat change my viewpoint as it would cut
down the latency advantage. Leading the pack and creeping featuritis
wouldn't change though. It's not like there's a standards body controlling
*the next rev.* It's standardization in hindsight, not foresight.


Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

"The pioneer is the one with the arrows in his back."
- anonymous entrepreneur

 

[Joe Mayo [C# MVP]]

I think I've finally figured out MS's C# strategy. C# is now an ECMA/ISO
standard. However, that's only true of the current incarnation. The next
version, Whidbey, is not.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/vcsharp/d.../dv_vstechart/html/whidbey_csharp_preview.asp

So the game is that 3rd parties providing C# implementations will always lag
behind Microsoft. I doubt that C# standardization will ever stop, but there
will always be this time delay between Microsoft going public with their
next C#, the ECMA and ISO standardizing what was done, and 3rd parties
providing compliant implementations. Ergo, C# is open, but MS becomes the
de facto source for the most real world useful solution. You *could* write
to the standardized subsets, but in industrial practice, plenty of shops
will creep into the next incarnation.

MS will keep adding features to C# indefinitely. If they ever stopped
adding, then they'd no longer be able to lead people around by the nose.
Ergo, I predict C# will evolve into a feature laden, baroque language.

Or is there early release information for 3rd party compiler developers and
the ECMA / ISO? That would somewhat change my viewpoint as it would cut
down the latency advantage. Leading the pack and creeping featuritis
wouldn't change though. It's not like there's a standards body controlling
*the next rev.* It's standardization in hindsight, not foresight.

Hi Brandon,

Here's a link to the specs.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/vcsharp/team/language/default.aspx

According to sources on MSDN (http://msdn.microsoft.com/) Whidbey is the
code name for the next version of Visual Studio .NET, Microsoft's IDE for
building applications with .NET. Other vendors will have to build their own
IDEs, but new features for the C#/CLI standard have been public for a while
now. The Mono project (http://www.go-mono.com) is already working toward
integrating C# v2.0 features. Borland
(http://www.borland.com/csharpbuilder/) has already licensed .NET from
Microsoft. If they continue to do so in the future, they will have the
potential to take advantage of the new features. Since the C# specs are
publicly available, and have been for a while, early adopters do have the
opportunity to begin producing standards compliant compilers and tools.

Joe

 

[Brandon J. Van Every]

"Brandon J. Van Every"

Hi Brandon,

Here's a link to the specs.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/vcsharp/team/language/default.aspx

I stand corrected on part of my assessment. I do think MS will always grow
the language in order to retain control of it.

--
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

"The pioneer is the one with the arrows in his back."
- anonymous entrepreneur

 

[Uwe Schneider]

(http://www.borland.com/csharpbuilder/) has already licensed .NET from
Microsoft. If they continue to do so in the future, they will have the
potential to take advantage of the new features. Since the C# specs are
publicly available, and have been for a while, early adopters do have the
opportunity to begin producing standards compliant compilers and tools.

Hi,
what DOES "licensed" mean? Why does Borland have to licence .NET?
I thought .NET was an open standard. Do you know if the Mono-project
has become a licence from Microsoft? Does Mono need an official licence
from Microsoft? I am a bit confused about the term "open standard".

 

[Joe Mayo [C# MVP]]

Hi,
what DOES "licensed" mean? Why does Borland have to licence .NET?
I thought .NET was an open standard. Do you know if the Mono-project
has become a licence from Microsoft? Does Mono need an official licence
from Microsoft? I am a bit confused about the term "open standard".

Hi Uwe,

I'm an independent consultant, so what I'm talking about is simply personal
observations of publicly available information. I think that the real
meaning of "licensed" is an agreement between the companies that I am
unaware of. The resulting effect is that developers can use Borland's tools
to develop .NET applications. Mono is a separate effort that is building
tools based on the ECMA standard. C# is an ECMA and ISO standard. I think
the term "open standard" is something people can discuss at great lengths
and still not agree or arrive at a reasonable conclusion.

Joe

 

[Guest]

Since ECMA and ISO drive the CLR and C# specs, sod MS, I shall implement
anything they publically publish and no license (not that electronic
licenses mean much anyway) will stop me.

I can understand if this was VB or other non standard language but not C#
and the actual runtime.

 

[Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]]

Any licenses they likely have would be for non-standardized things, like
perhaps the .NET name, .NET logo programs(Compatible with Microsoft.NET),
etc. Borland also provided a MSHTML PIA, which may have required licensing,
etc(the Microsoft provided mshtml PIA isn't part of the runtime but a piece
of VS if memory serves), maybe the VS.NET extensibility model(I really
havn't checked). Those would be the sort of things I'd expect Borland to
want to license.

Since ECMA and ISO drive the CLR and C# specs, sod MS, I shall implement
anything they publically publish and no license (not that electronic
licenses mean much anyway) will stop me.

I can understand if this was VB or other non standard language but not C#
and the actual runtime.

 

[Rob Teixeira [MVP]]

Why on earth do you people persist in this attitude? You sound like little
zealot zombies. Try pretending for a moment that you have a single
professional bone in your body.
Borland licensed actual MS code for the .NET implementation from what i
understand (things like some of the designers and other IDE widgets, etc).
The specs ARE public, and anyone is free to create their own implementation
based on the specs. In this case, Borland bought actual code. Stop griping
about things you shouldn't be griping about in the first place. Especially
when that attitude is tied to the open-standards and open-source crowd, it
really gives the otherwise hard-working people in those organizations a BAD
name. Also, you do realize that electronic licenses DO in fact mean
something. To ignore them is STEALING - you know, CRIMINAL activity. Another
stigma that people like you extend by association to an otherwise
hard-working group. Grow up and knock it off. You guys need a serious
reality check. Wait until someone steals your crap and see how you like it.

-Rob Teixeira [MVP]