Who owns C#?

[Sathyaish]

Who owns the language C#? I'm not talking about the compiler, but about
the language? Who owns it - Microsoft or the ECMA? I see there are two
specifications to each version:

1. One that comes out from Microsoft; and
2. Another that is a follow up from ECMA TC39 (ECMA-334) that is
revised after every release from Microsoft.

What's the deal?

[Nick Hounsome]

"Sathyaish" <sa*******@gmai l.com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ v46g2000cwv.goo glegroups.com.. .

Who owns the language C#? I'm not talking about the compiler, but about
the language? Who owns it - Microsoft or the ECMA? I see there are two
specifications to each version:

1. One that comes out from Microsoft; and
2. Another that is a follow up from ECMA TC39 (ECMA-334) that is
revised after every release from Microsoft.

What's the deal?

The usual MS obfuscation. They want to tell the world that they are nice
guys using open standards but in practice they're not.

MS don't own C++ either but none of their header files will work with an ISO
standard compiler so effectively they have a separate language.

With C# it's not quite as bad. The language itself is not MS specific but
some of the framework exposes MS specific stuff.

[Kevin Spencer]

Nobody owns it. C# is an ECMA standard which Microsoft developed and
submitted.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Numbskull

Hard work is a medication for which
there is no placebo.

"Sathyaish" <sa*******@gmai l.com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ v46g2000cwv.goo glegroups.com.. .

Who owns the language C#? I'm not talking about the compiler, but about
the language? Who owns it - Microsoft or the ECMA? I see there are two
specifications to each version:

1. One that comes out from Microsoft; and
2. Another that is a follow up from ECMA TC39 (ECMA-334) that is
revised after every release from Microsoft.

What's the deal?

[Alvin Bruney]

> With C# it's not quite as bad. The language itself is not MS specific but

some of the framework exposes MS specific stuff. Such as???

--

_______________ _________
Warm regards,
Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET]

[Shameless Author plug]
The O.W.C. Black Book with .NET
www.lulu.com/owc, Amazon
Professional VSTO.NET - Wrox/Wiley 2006
-------------------------------------------------------

"Nick Hounsome" <Ne**@NickHouns ome.Me.Uk> wrote in message
news:Aw******** **********@fe3. news.blueyonder .co.uk...
"Sathyaish" <sa*******@gmai l.com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ v46g2000cwv.goo glegroups.com.. .

Who owns the language C#? I'm not talking about the compiler, but about
the language? Who owns it - Microsoft or the ECMA? I see there are two
specifications to each version:

1. One that comes out from Microsoft; and
2. Another that is a follow up from ECMA TC39 (ECMA-334) that is
revised after every release from Microsoft.

What's the deal?

The usual MS obfuscation. They want to tell the world that they are nice
guys using open standards but in practice they're not.

MS don't own C++ either but none of their header files will work with an
ISO standard compiler so effectively they have a separate language.

With C# it's not quite as bad. The language itself is not MS specific but
some of the framework exposes MS specific stuff.

[William Stacey [MVP]]

| compiler so effectively they have a separate language.
|
| With C# it's not quite as bad. The language itself is not MS specific but
| some of the framework exposes MS specific stuff.

So exposing your own technology is now somehow bad? I don't get what your
saying.

[james.curran]

>> MS don't own C++ either but none of their header files will work with an ISO
standard compiler so effectively they have a separate language. <<

This is complete nonsense. The very purpose of system header files is
to isolate complier dependant code (so that a user program which
includes a such a header file can be standardized). The ISO C++
Standard make no requirements on the headers files at all --- They
don't even have to actually exist. The only requirement is that if a
user program contains the code (for example) "#include <iostream>" then
certain identifiers must be defined. How exactly a compiler
accomplishes that is purely it's concern.

[Kevin Spencer]

Yeah, actually, the C# language is *not* part of the framework. There are
compilers and class libraries for C# in the framework, but it is important
to distingusih between the language itself and the various tools and devices
for implementing it. The language itself is actually just a specification, a
protocol, a set of rules, concepts, and ideas.

This is a point that a lot of people seem to get stuck on. Some people even
get the idea that Visual Studio is somehow part of the C# language. The
language is much more abstract than that.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Numbskull

Hard work is a medication for which
there is no placebo.

"Alvin Bruney" <www.lulu.com/owc> wrote in message
news:uo******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP03.phx.gbl...

With C# it's not quite as bad. The language itself is not MS specific but
some of the framework exposes MS specific stuff.

Such as???

--

_______________ _________
Warm regards,
Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET]

[Shameless Author plug]
The O.W.C. Black Book with .NET
www.lulu.com/owc, Amazon
Professional VSTO.NET - Wrox/Wiley 2006
-------------------------------------------------------

"Nick Hounsome" <Ne**@NickHouns ome.Me.Uk> wrote in message
news:Aw******** **********@fe3. news.blueyonder .co.uk...

"Sathyaish" <sa*******@gmai l.com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ v46g2000cwv.goo glegroups.com.. .

Who owns the language C#? I'm not talking about the compiler, but about
the language? Who owns it - Microsoft or the ECMA? I see there are two
specifications to each version:

1. One that comes out from Microsoft; and
2. Another that is a follow up from ECMA TC39 (ECMA-334) that is
revised after every release from Microsoft.

What's the deal?

The usual MS obfuscation. They want to tell the world that they are nice
guys using open standards but in practice they're not.

MS don't own C++ either but none of their header files will work with an
ISO standard compiler so effectively they have a separate language.

With C# it's not quite as bad. The language itself is not MS specific but
some of the framework exposes MS specific stuff.

[William Stacey [MVP]]

And c#.net is MS's implementation of the spec (plus anything they add above
that). Mono is Novell's implementation of the spec, etc.

--
William Stacey [MVP]

"Kevin Spencer" <ke***@DIESPAMM ERSDIEtakempis. com> wrote in message
news:%2******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP02.phx.gbl. ..
| Nobody owns it. C# is an ECMA standard which Microsoft developed and
| submitted.
|
| --
| HTH,
|
| Kevin Spencer
| Microsoft MVP
| Professional Numbskull
|
| Hard work is a medication for which
| there is no placebo.
|
| "Sathyaish" <sa*******@gmai l.com> wrote in message
| news:11******** **************@ v46g2000cwv.goo glegroups.com.. .
| > Who owns the language C#? I'm not talking about the compiler, but about
| > the language? Who owns it - Microsoft or the ECMA? I see there are two
| > specifications to each version:
| >
| > 1. One that comes out from Microsoft; and
| > 2. Another that is a follow up from ECMA TC39 (ECMA-334) that is
| > revised after every release from Microsoft.
| >
| > What's the deal?
| >
|
|
|

[Bruce Wood]

C# is a theoretically open standard. "Theoretica lly" in the sense that
you can legally write your own C# compiler for any platform you like,
and legally sell it. Microsoft cannot come after you for patent /
copyright infringement.

However, it is only in theory, because C# really isn't of much use
without the .NET Framework. Now, I'm not entirely clear on whether you
could legally reproduce the entire Framework without bringing the
lawyers out of the woodwork. Somehow I suspect not, but I'm open to
being corrected. Even if you could, the job would be so enormous as to
be impractical, even if the Framework weren't constantly changing,
which it is.

This is why Mono always lags far behind. Yes, in theory C# is an open
standard. However, in practice MS has a huge advantage in that they're
the ones establishing the standard, so they're always out in front, no
matter what. So, for all practical purposes, it's a proprietary
language.

Nonetheless, it still kicks ass.

[Nick Hounsome]

<ja**********@g mail.com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ i39g2000cwa.goo glegroups.com.. .

MS don't own C++ either but none of their header files will work with an
ISO

standard compiler so effectively they have a separate language. <<

This is complete nonsense. The very purpose of system header files is
to isolate complier dependant code (so that a user program which
includes a such a header file can be standardized). The ISO C++
Standard make no requirements on the headers files at all --- They
don't even have to actually exist. The only requirement is that if a
user program contains the code (for example) "#include <iostream>" then
certain identifiers must be defined. How exactly a compiler
accomplishes that is purely it's concern.

I agree with what you are saying is strictly correct but that's not really
my point.

The Windows API (not the C++ std headers) makes extensive use of
non-standard keywords and pragmas.
This means that you cannot write much windows code without knowing those
keywords and pragmas and therefore it is effectively a different language.
Open any windows project and you will find some __somethingOrOt her somewhere
and then there are LPCSTR et al - Yes they are only macros but they are used
so extensively in windows code that you have to know them and you could be
forgiven for thinking that they were keywords.

When I first saw a windows C++ program I was totally confused despite many
years of working with C++ on varous POSIX compliant systems. I created
something or other using a wizard (it was a while ago and I forget the
details) and the mess it generated was so full of double underscores,
pragmas and non-syntatctic macros that VS didn't even recognize it as a
class for syntax highlighting! I ran away in terror and I've only come back
to windows now that C# and .NET have made it intelligible.