[cxS]

Please, do tell, when did I say that it was somehow interoperable with Java? Whether or not it is considered is semantics, as your source itself said. The important thing to note is how they are different.

You argued that the CLR was better because it didn't run through the Java VM, but all the things you pointed out as "features" of .NET are done identically by the JVM( JIT compilation, caching ).

.NET was designed for portability, portability in .NET was the sole reason for Silverlight.

Because the standard is not well-established, someone programming .NET with Mono, or for anyone using Mono, doesn't know what functions and libraries are automatically included. I would agree it is well-defined, but it is not well standardized.


If I must reiterate a thesis...

.NET languages are shit because of their sub-par performance, the programmers inability to rely on the code to run identically on all systems, a lack of standardization in what utilities are always linked in, and the uncertainty of what code is actually being ran by the processor.

I shouldn't have to tell you where you said it:

1. You said .NET uses a virtual machine (it doesn't)
2. YOU brought up JVM

I don't even know why you bothered bringing Java into the conversation for these reasons. You told me to look up that Java runs through a VM, I said this conversation doesn't concern Java, but rather .NET...

The important thing to note is how they are different.

How so? Not at all! The debate was about whether .NET was shit or not (as you previously mentioned), and I was trying to get the answer to "Why?" from you. You couldn't provide anything other than relate it to Java seemingly.

You argued that the CLR was better because it didn't run through the Java VM

Better? No.. I think you should understand what has progressed through this conversation before making another reply. I said the only thing .NET has is the CLR, because it doesn't have JVM, or run through it's own virtual machine, and that the CLR is NOT a virtual machine either. This was brought up by myself, because YOU had said .NET uses a virtual machine.

1. You were wrong
2. You derailed this conversation on your own from ".NET is shit", to which is better, or perhaps just in general "Java vs .NET".

but all the things you pointed out as "features" of .NET are done identically by the JVM( JIT compilation, caching )

Explain how this means that .NET uses a virtual machine to me. I'd like to see you win that debate with any professional .NET programmer, because you'll lose.

.NET was designed for portability, portability in .NET was the sole reason for Silverlight.

Why are you dragging this conversation into Silverlight now? It came out several years after the .NET framework itself. Silverlight is more of an SDK, it's an implementation of the .NET framework... This doesn't mean that .NET was initially designed for portability either. I can guarantee you that it was probably never considered when .NET 1.0 came out. The standard is still set, but as with most other languages, there will always be something that deviates from that standard.

Because the standard is not well-established, someone programming .NET with Mono, or for anyone using Mono, doesn't know what functions and libraries are automatically included. I would agree it is well-defined, but it is not well standardized.

Explain how this would be different for a developed C++ programmer trying to use DirectX for the first time, or OpenGL. Standards change over time, as with any language, so not very well standardized based on what?

.NET languages are shit because of their sub-par performance, the programmers inability to rely on the code to run identically on all systems, a lack of standardization in what utilities are always linked in, and the uncertainty of what code is actually being ran by the processor.

sub-par performance in comparison to what? That's subjective, but still this entire paragraph is no reason for why one shouldn't learn .NET. Nobody in the real world is going to be willing to pay a C++ developer to make something that C# or VB.net would be capable of creating based on the requirements set.

"programmers inability to rely on the code to run identically on all systems" -- No different than most other languages.
"a lack of standardization in what utilities are always linked in" -- This needs further clarification.
"and the uncertainty of what code is actually being ran by the processor" -- ?