[Mono-list] laus stultitia

[Hans Van Wesenbeeck]

> The question "Is this technology a good thing?" (where the technology
> is bytecode or whatever else you like) is totally different from the
> names one uses for it.  Erik Poupaert complained about the amount of
> detail and the number of divisions in the system, not about the fact
> that the ".NET platform" uses bytecode.  You replied (to Zaphod) with
> a rant about the jargon.
I felt a point was being missed... 
> Any time you have a highly technical application domain, there will be
> jargon specific to it, for reasons that are incredibly off-topic for
> this list and which you (as an IEEE member and computer user) should
> know already.  Would you clarify whether you complain about the use of
> jargon, or the use of the technology it describes?
The terminology that is being adopted, without questioning the
motivations behind the technology it describes. My question is really
how a technology that once again finds its justification in the
dissemination of software in binary form can be compatible with an open
source model, especially when this dissemination model results in an
incredible penalty in terms of performance and complexity, leave alone
the effort it takes to bring it about. I question the meaningfulness and
motivation behind JIT compilation and dissemination of software in
bytecode format.