[Mono-list] .NET version 1.1 and 2.0

[Marsh, Drew]

Miguel de Icaza [mailto:miguel@ximian.com] wrote:
> Sure, my complete email to Mary Jo contained more details, of 
> the top of my head, because these are the ones I am most 
> involved with:

> ... snipped for brevity ...

Great, thanks... was just curious.

> > Also, as far as the database (ADO.NET) classes go they're, 
> not part of 
> > the ECMA class libraries. Therefore they're Microsoft proprietary 
> > class libraries. Anyone trying to emulate their 
> functionality is doing 
> > so at their own risk, right? Same goes for windows forms, asp.net, 
> > enterprise services, etc.
> 
> The fact that they are Microsoft-built does not make them any 
> less broken.  

I wasn't trying to say they weren't "broken", but I was trying to point out
that it's really Microsoft's problem if they are, not other .NET
implementation's.

> And indeed, the article is about .NET, and not 
> about the ECMA specs.

Where are you drawing the line then? The ECMA specs are what every runtime
needs to provide to be considered .NET standards compliant. Any other class
libraries written outside of the ECMA BCL are proprietary, right? Whether
John Developer writes it or Microsoft writes it certainly makes no
difference. If John Developer makes poor design decisions or ties himself to
a single platform using P/Invoke or COM interop, it's the same thing...
right?

So, from your point of view, is it that .NET == Microsoft in the sense that
.NET is the brand name of Microsoft's implementation of the ECMA
specification. That's just not the way I looked at it.

Thanx,
Drew