Re: Java issues, and Microsoft.NET compatibility (was Re: [DotGNU]Choice of bytecode spec (was: Support Java for .GNU))

[Adam Theo]

hello, mr kuhn, good to see you here.

in case you don't remember me, i asked you a couple of months ago about
your Artistic License, version 2.0 and it's status. i'd just like to
tell you after looking over it very acutely, i'm now using it as my
license of choice (along with the BSD in some cases) for all of my
software projects.

i am also working on an essay about the artistic license family. it was
just started a few days ago, and is still very much in alpha stage, but
i hope to have it to version 1.0 by the end of the week. it is currently
at:
http://www.theoretic.com/bazaar/artistic.html
it currently does not include your AL2.0, since i am going to take it a
license at a time. but i would still appreciate your input.

now, onto the reply to your post:

"Bradley M. Kuhn" wrote:
> 
> The issue, though, is technical.  I can speak with some authority on this.
> For the past (mumble mumble,
> not-wanting-to-admit-how-long-but-more-than-2) years, I have been trying
> and mostly failing to port Perl to the JVM.  Before my tries, Larry Wall
> even gave his hand at it and determined it was pretty damn hard.  Through
> Kawa [0], I finally found a solution that I believe is workable, it's now
> just a Simple Matter Of Programming.  (Read my thesis for long, gory,
> torrid details, if you really want.  ;)
> 
> The VES and CLI that Microsoft has proposed isn't perfect, but it's a big
> step up from what the Java platform provides.  It's true that Microsoft's
> biggest target with Microsoft.NET is not the Free Software Movement, it's
> SUN.  (Recall that internal development on Microsoft.NET started when the
> Free Software and Open Source Movements were barely on Microsoft's radar
> screen.)

hm... i'm not an expert on this, by any means, but here's my opinion:

assuming mr kuhn is correct (i am), then i would say we should *first*
work on implimenting MS's VES and CLI, using Mono. (am i using this
correctly?)

then, when we have more time and resources at hand, we should take on
the big task of incorporating the OSS version of java. this may be a
year or two down the road, but hey, the important thing here is to get
something good out the door asap, even if it was created by MS.

i also agree completely that compatability must be integrated into the
DotGNU system. not just for .NET (which must be the first one we
integrate compatability for from the beginning), but also for Java and
any other system that pops up. allow users to pick and choose what
systems they wish to run on the dotGNU platform. this will ensure it's
success.

we do not need to worry about the media seeing us as catching up as long
as we play our cards right. as long as we do PR intelligently, then we
have nothing to really fear. and as for legitimizing .NET... hate to
tell you this, but it's going to happen no matter what we do. the best
we can do is turn it to our benefit.