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

[Jeremy Petzold]

we need to be compatible so that anyone who wants to
move from .NET to DotGNU in the future can with out
any major pain.
you do have a good point though, if we make it our
public goal to be compatible with .NET than, yes, that
would be bad PR, however, designing the system to
support it, then putting a good spin on it when the
feature is announced would just make us look more
flexible.

"with our software, you will not only be able to save
a large amount of money from licensing, but you will
be able to keep those old .NET applications."

see, it looks good :)

-Jeremy
--- tali streit <address@hidden> wrote:
> Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> 
> >We need to be compatible, otherwise, we won't get
> adoption.
> >
> 
> I am worried about this because i believe that from
> a PR perspective we 
> should not be seen as "playing catchup to .NET". if
> we are seen as that, we
> 
> 1. give credibility to .NET (why else would we copy
> it?)
> 2. are seen as merely trying to catch up
> 3. lend to the "unamerican" sentiment that billg is
> pushing.
> 
> Instead i think that we should *strongly* push
> ourselves as creating 
> something far superior to .NET. not even something
> based on it. 
> something that has technological and ideological
> superiority, and is 
> free software. then, make a compatibility "path"
> (might involve 
> converters etc).
> 
> this way we are saying that .NET is not worth
> copying, but something 
> needs to be done.
> 
> just my opinion :)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Developers mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/developers


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/