<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_18_0457257</id>
	<title>Has a Decade of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Delivered On Microsoft's Promises?</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1261141800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>cyclocommuter writes with this snippet from <em>The Register</em>'s assessment of  <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/17/dot\_net\_noughties/">whether
Microsoft's .NET framework has been a success</a>: <i>"If the goal of .NET was to see off Java, it was at least partially successful. Java did not die, but enterprise Java became mired in complexity, making .NET an easy sell as a more productive alternative. C# has steadily grown in popularity, and is now the first choice for most Windows development. ASP.NET has been a popular business web framework. The common language runtime has proved robust and flexible. ... Job trend figures here show steadily increasing demand for C#, which is now mentioned in around 32 per cent of UK IT programming vacancies, ahead of Java at 26 per cent."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>cyclocommuter writes with this snippet from The Register 's assessment of whether Microsoft 's .NET framework has been a success : " If the goal of .NET was to see off Java , it was at least partially successful .
Java did not die , but enterprise Java became mired in complexity , making .NET an easy sell as a more productive alternative .
C # has steadily grown in popularity , and is now the first choice for most Windows development .
ASP.NET has been a popular business web framework .
The common language runtime has proved robust and flexible .
... Job trend figures here show steadily increasing demand for C # , which is now mentioned in around 32 per cent of UK IT programming vacancies , ahead of Java at 26 per cent .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cyclocommuter writes with this snippet from The Register's assessment of  whether
Microsoft's .NET framework has been a success: "If the goal of .NET was to see off Java, it was at least partially successful.
Java did not die, but enterprise Java became mired in complexity, making .NET an easy sell as a more productive alternative.
C# has steadily grown in popularity, and is now the first choice for most Windows development.
ASP.NET has been a popular business web framework.
The common language runtime has proved robust and flexible.
... Job trend figures here show steadily increasing demand for C#, which is now mentioned in around 32 per cent of UK IT programming vacancies, ahead of Java at 26 per cent.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30492964</id>
	<title>Re:Ease of writing doesn't convince me</title>
	<author>NoOneInParticular</author>
	<datestamp>1261129980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>

In math, do you use multi-character symbols? And what is that '.' operator doing there?

</p><p>

In true OO-programming, performing an action that doesn't change state should be done by a library function (a static function). Changing state is done through a method. A class is an abstraction over a set of data with only one purpose: to maintain some invariant on the data members. Holding a couple of values together that can be independently changed is called a struct. Plain setters are generally bad, as it points to an abstraction problem: you are not working with a class, but with a struct. Setters are bad, m'kay? Properties are interesting, they make what appears to be a struct (public members) behave like a class (has invariant guarded by methods). This looks cool but is very devious as now syntax is ambiguous (Is this a plain assignment on some struct-like collection of values, or am I calling a (possibly expensive) method here?) You can only tell by opening the definition file of the thing you are inspecting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In math , do you use multi-character symbols ?
And what is that ' .
' operator doing there ?
In true OO-programming , performing an action that does n't change state should be done by a library function ( a static function ) .
Changing state is done through a method .
A class is an abstraction over a set of data with only one purpose : to maintain some invariant on the data members .
Holding a couple of values together that can be independently changed is called a struct .
Plain setters are generally bad , as it points to an abstraction problem : you are not working with a class , but with a struct .
Setters are bad , m'kay ?
Properties are interesting , they make what appears to be a struct ( public members ) behave like a class ( has invariant guarded by methods ) .
This looks cool but is very devious as now syntax is ambiguous ( Is this a plain assignment on some struct-like collection of values , or am I calling a ( possibly expensive ) method here ?
) You can only tell by opening the definition file of the thing you are inspecting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

In math, do you use multi-character symbols?
And what is that '.
' operator doing there?
In true OO-programming, performing an action that doesn't change state should be done by a library function (a static function).
Changing state is done through a method.
A class is an abstraction over a set of data with only one purpose: to maintain some invariant on the data members.
Holding a couple of values together that can be independently changed is called a struct.
Plain setters are generally bad, as it points to an abstraction problem: you are not working with a class, but with a struct.
Setters are bad, m'kay?
Properties are interesting, they make what appears to be a struct (public members) behave like a class (has invariant guarded by methods).
This looks cool but is very devious as now syntax is ambiguous (Is this a plain assignment on some struct-like collection of values, or am I calling a (possibly expensive) method here?
) You can only tell by opening the definition file of the thing you are inspecting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487204</id>
	<title>Re:.Not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261151760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All 2 apps that no one uses, because Mono is horribly slow and leaks memory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All 2 apps that no one uses , because Mono is horribly slow and leaks memory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All 2 apps that no one uses, because Mono is horribly slow and leaks memory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486410</id>
	<title>Re:Point &amp; Click programming</title>
	<author>homer\_s</author>
	<datestamp>1261147860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>People like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net because MS offers tools to allow point &amp; click programming. This means more people can do it and companies can lower wages. </i> <br> <br>

In the same vein, computers and quickbooks allow more people to do accounting and lowers wages. Before this, a company needed an experienced accountant and a couple of assistants. Now all they need is a part time person to do the same work.
<br>
We should stop supporting computers.<br> <br> <br>

(just in case it escapes you, I'm being facetious)</htmltext>
<tokenext>People like .Net because MS offers tools to allow point &amp; click programming .
This means more people can do it and companies can lower wages .
In the same vein , computers and quickbooks allow more people to do accounting and lowers wages .
Before this , a company needed an experienced accountant and a couple of assistants .
Now all they need is a part time person to do the same work .
We should stop supporting computers .
( just in case it escapes you , I 'm being facetious )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People like .Net because MS offers tools to allow point &amp; click programming.
This means more people can do it and companies can lower wages.
In the same vein, computers and quickbooks allow more people to do accounting and lowers wages.
Before this, a company needed an experienced accountant and a couple of assistants.
Now all they need is a part time person to do the same work.
We should stop supporting computers.
(just in case it escapes you, I'm being facetious)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486594</id>
	<title>Re:Asp.Net is NOT a 'popular' business framework.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261148700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thankfully.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thankfully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thankfully.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487030</id>
	<title>Well according to Dice.com...</title>
	<author>trboyden</author>
	<datestamp>1261151040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well according to Dice.com...

"Java" has about 3,203 job opportunities...

and "C#" and "VB" combined have about 1,066 job opportunities...

I would say Java isn't anywhere close to dying anytime soon and is still very popular with businesses willing to hire.

As an aside, Flex has about 268 job opportunities which is roughly equal to 25\% of the number of Microsoft based development jobs. With the turn from traditional desktop application programming to web-based applications, I'm left to wonder whether Microsoft will catch up with the demand of Java developers before Flex grows to overtake the demand for Microsoft developers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well according to Dice.com.. . " Java " has about 3,203 job opportunities.. . and " C # " and " VB " combined have about 1,066 job opportunities.. . I would say Java is n't anywhere close to dying anytime soon and is still very popular with businesses willing to hire .
As an aside , Flex has about 268 job opportunities which is roughly equal to 25 \ % of the number of Microsoft based development jobs .
With the turn from traditional desktop application programming to web-based applications , I 'm left to wonder whether Microsoft will catch up with the demand of Java developers before Flex grows to overtake the demand for Microsoft developers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well according to Dice.com...

"Java" has about 3,203 job opportunities...

and "C#" and "VB" combined have about 1,066 job opportunities...

I would say Java isn't anywhere close to dying anytime soon and is still very popular with businesses willing to hire.
As an aside, Flex has about 268 job opportunities which is roughly equal to 25\% of the number of Microsoft based development jobs.
With the turn from traditional desktop application programming to web-based applications, I'm left to wonder whether Microsoft will catch up with the demand of Java developers before Flex grows to overtake the demand for Microsoft developers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488946</id>
	<title>Re:MS really does care about making devs happy</title>
	<author>Acer500</author>
	<datestamp>1261158900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hardly. They care about making companies happy sure; when "development" requires little skill, more people will line up for the job, pay will be less.</p></div><p>And, isn't that the point? Haven't we always said that programmers would automate themselves out of a job? I embrace that... I wouldn't want to be stuck programming in Assembler or C the rest of my life... I rather like other aspects a lot more... then again I'm not a hardcore programmer, I'm one of the business programmer types the GP mentioned.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hardly .
They care about making companies happy sure ; when " development " requires little skill , more people will line up for the job , pay will be less.And , is n't that the point ?
Have n't we always said that programmers would automate themselves out of a job ?
I embrace that... I would n't want to be stuck programming in Assembler or C the rest of my life... I rather like other aspects a lot more... then again I 'm not a hardcore programmer , I 'm one of the business programmer types the GP mentioned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hardly.
They care about making companies happy sure; when "development" requires little skill, more people will line up for the job, pay will be less.And, isn't that the point?
Haven't we always said that programmers would automate themselves out of a job?
I embrace that... I wouldn't want to be stuck programming in Assembler or C the rest of my life... I rather like other aspects a lot more... then again I'm not a hardcore programmer, I'm one of the business programmer types the GP mentioned.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490036</id>
	<title>Re:Current Monster Numbers: Java vs .NET</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261162560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you consider tht C#,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net, asp.net, and vb.net are searches for the same kind of developer and add them together, they are greater in number then java as the article implies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you consider tht C # , .net , asp.net , and vb.net are searches for the same kind of developer and add them together , they are greater in number then java as the article implies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you consider tht C#, .net, asp.net, and vb.net are searches for the same kind of developer and add them together, they are greater in number then java as the article implies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30496612</id>
	<title>Re:MS really does care about making devs happy</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1261158960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course their reasons for doing it are not benevolent, they want software designed for Windows so that users want to use Windows.</p></div><p>No, it is stronger than that. Microsoft want users <em>to be locked into</em> Windows, not just use it. If you don't see that, you fall for their hook. You think you are just using Microsoft products, when all the while they are using you.</p><p>Microsoft are not into competing. They are into controlling the market. They want users who cannot change to alternative technology without great cost to the user.</p><p>Microsoft only support other technologies when it helps them to retain users or gain users - i.e. when they are not market-dominant. Once they have users caught up in the Microsoft web, they make exit as difficult as possible.</p><p>Microsoft have abused their monopolies before now to do exactly this sort of thing. There is nothing about Microsoft to suggest that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is any different.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course their reasons for doing it are not benevolent , they want software designed for Windows so that users want to use Windows.No , it is stronger than that .
Microsoft want users to be locked into Windows , not just use it .
If you do n't see that , you fall for their hook .
You think you are just using Microsoft products , when all the while they are using you.Microsoft are not into competing .
They are into controlling the market .
They want users who can not change to alternative technology without great cost to the user.Microsoft only support other technologies when it helps them to retain users or gain users - i.e .
when they are not market-dominant .
Once they have users caught up in the Microsoft web , they make exit as difficult as possible.Microsoft have abused their monopolies before now to do exactly this sort of thing .
There is nothing about Microsoft to suggest that .NET is any different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course their reasons for doing it are not benevolent, they want software designed for Windows so that users want to use Windows.No, it is stronger than that.
Microsoft want users to be locked into Windows, not just use it.
If you don't see that, you fall for their hook.
You think you are just using Microsoft products, when all the while they are using you.Microsoft are not into competing.
They are into controlling the market.
They want users who cannot change to alternative technology without great cost to the user.Microsoft only support other technologies when it helps them to retain users or gain users - i.e.
when they are not market-dominant.
Once they have users caught up in the Microsoft web, they make exit as difficult as possible.Microsoft have abused their monopolies before now to do exactly this sort of thing.
There is nothing about Microsoft to suggest that .NET is any different.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487156</id>
	<title>Microsoft itself slow to adopt .NET</title>
	<author>edxwelch</author>
	<datestamp>1261151640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The artical mentions that "Microsoft itself has been slow to adopt<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET". Why? Well, possibly because, like java it's quite slow. Microsoft did put some<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET bits in their products, for instance Visual studio. Visual Studio is primarily written c++. You can even uninstall the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET runtime and it will still run. However both the project properies dialog and the macros are written in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET. It's not any coincidence that both these features are by far the slowest parts of the IDE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The artical mentions that " Microsoft itself has been slow to adopt .NET " .
Why ? Well , possibly because , like java it 's quite slow .
Microsoft did put some .NET bits in their products , for instance Visual studio .
Visual Studio is primarily written c + + .
You can even uninstall the .NET runtime and it will still run .
However both the project properies dialog and the macros are written in .NET .
It 's not any coincidence that both these features are by far the slowest parts of the IDE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The artical mentions that "Microsoft itself has been slow to adopt .NET".
Why? Well, possibly because, like java it's quite slow.
Microsoft did put some .NET bits in their products, for instance Visual studio.
Visual Studio is primarily written c++.
You can even uninstall the .NET runtime and it will still run.
However both the project properies dialog and the macros are written in .NET.
It's not any coincidence that both these features are by far the slowest parts of the IDE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489830</id>
	<title>Re:.Not</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1261161900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Thus the CLI was born, but everyone just uses C# with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET anyhow.</p></div><p>FYI, Visual Basic Express is much more popular than Visual C# Express, and in some markets (e.g. UK, if I remember correctly), there are more VB jobs than C# jobs.</p><p>Then, of course, there's C++/CLI, which makes reuse of existing native libraries ridiculously easy - most often, you can just grab existing C/C++ code, compile it with VC with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/clr switch to get managed (albeit unsafe) MSIL output with all semantics preserved, and then wrap it in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET classes.</p><p>And now there's also IronPython, IronRuby, F#...</p><p>Nah, I'd say that "multi-language" did pay off.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thus the CLI was born , but everyone just uses C # with .NET anyhow.FYI , Visual Basic Express is much more popular than Visual C # Express , and in some markets ( e.g .
UK , if I remember correctly ) , there are more VB jobs than C # jobs.Then , of course , there 's C + + /CLI , which makes reuse of existing native libraries ridiculously easy - most often , you can just grab existing C/C + + code , compile it with VC with /clr switch to get managed ( albeit unsafe ) MSIL output with all semantics preserved , and then wrap it in .NET classes.And now there 's also IronPython , IronRuby , F # ...Nah , I 'd say that " multi-language " did pay off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thus the CLI was born, but everyone just uses C# with .NET anyhow.FYI, Visual Basic Express is much more popular than Visual C# Express, and in some markets (e.g.
UK, if I remember correctly), there are more VB jobs than C# jobs.Then, of course, there's C++/CLI, which makes reuse of existing native libraries ridiculously easy - most often, you can just grab existing C/C++ code, compile it with VC with /clr switch to get managed (albeit unsafe) MSIL output with all semantics preserved, and then wrap it in .NET classes.And now there's also IronPython, IronRuby, F#...Nah, I'd say that "multi-language" did pay off.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488250</id>
	<title>Re:MS really does care about making devs happy</title>
	<author>Jeek Elemental</author>
	<datestamp>1261156080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hardly. They care about making companies happy sure; when "development" requires little skill, more people will line up for the job, pay will be less.<br>How do you compete with free? Make internal development cheaper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hardly .
They care about making companies happy sure ; when " development " requires little skill , more people will line up for the job , pay will be less.How do you compete with free ?
Make internal development cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hardly.
They care about making companies happy sure; when "development" requires little skill, more people will line up for the job, pay will be less.How do you compete with free?
Make internal development cheaper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486108</id>
	<title>Yes.</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1261146420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C# is replacing Java as the language to teach kids new to object-oriented programming how to program. It is gaining widespread acceptance in industry, and works perfectly (obviously) with Visual Studio and other development environments. It has also made creating professional Windows-based GUIs <b>much</b> easier and more desirable to do, which is something that only Visual Basic and hardcore C++ shell API developers could accomplish. Its reporting tools are also held to high regard and are used quite frequently in industry. Finally, with Windows Vista and 7 coming pre-packaged with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET frameworks, integration is only <i>that</i> much easier for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET developers. Let's not forget about how it sort of, kind of now works in Linux with the Moonlight Project (by the man that shalt not be nam-ed).</p><p>However, that's just C#.NET. Visual Basic.NET didn't share the same success, though its usage is also proliferating. Thus, I'd say that as a platform, it's still growing, but C# by itself has accomplished its goals as an established and well-regarded language in IT and beyond.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C # is replacing Java as the language to teach kids new to object-oriented programming how to program .
It is gaining widespread acceptance in industry , and works perfectly ( obviously ) with Visual Studio and other development environments .
It has also made creating professional Windows-based GUIs much easier and more desirable to do , which is something that only Visual Basic and hardcore C + + shell API developers could accomplish .
Its reporting tools are also held to high regard and are used quite frequently in industry .
Finally , with Windows Vista and 7 coming pre-packaged with .NET frameworks , integration is only that much easier for .NET developers .
Let 's not forget about how it sort of , kind of now works in Linux with the Moonlight Project ( by the man that shalt not be nam-ed ) .However , that 's just C # .NET .
Visual Basic.NET did n't share the same success , though its usage is also proliferating .
Thus , I 'd say that as a platform , it 's still growing , but C # by itself has accomplished its goals as an established and well-regarded language in IT and beyond .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C# is replacing Java as the language to teach kids new to object-oriented programming how to program.
It is gaining widespread acceptance in industry, and works perfectly (obviously) with Visual Studio and other development environments.
It has also made creating professional Windows-based GUIs much easier and more desirable to do, which is something that only Visual Basic and hardcore C++ shell API developers could accomplish.
Its reporting tools are also held to high regard and are used quite frequently in industry.
Finally, with Windows Vista and 7 coming pre-packaged with .NET frameworks, integration is only that much easier for .NET developers.
Let's not forget about how it sort of, kind of now works in Linux with the Moonlight Project (by the man that shalt not be nam-ed).However, that's just C#.NET.
Visual Basic.NET didn't share the same success, though its usage is also proliferating.
Thus, I'd say that as a platform, it's still growing, but C# by itself has accomplished its goals as an established and well-regarded language in IT and beyond.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30494682</id>
	<title>Re:Ease of writing doesn't convince me</title>
	<author>sproketboy</author>
	<datestamp>1261138560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish I had mod points for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish I had mod points for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish I had mod points for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487830</id>
	<title>Statistics</title>
	<author>volkram</author>
	<datestamp>1261154340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.langpop.com/" title="langpop.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.langpop.com/</a> [langpop.com]  begs to differ.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.langpop.com/ [ langpop.com ] begs to differ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.langpop.com/ [langpop.com]  begs to differ.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488702</id>
	<title>Re:"mentioned"</title>
	<author>bit9</author>
	<datestamp>1261157880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could be worse. He could have skipped VB <i>and</i> Delphi and learned PowerBuilder instead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could be worse .
He could have skipped VB and Delphi and learned PowerBuilder instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could be worse.
He could have skipped VB and Delphi and learned PowerBuilder instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486318</id>
	<title>.NET or .NOT?</title>
	<author>CxDoo</author>
	<datestamp>1261147500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The answer is, as always, it depends.</p><p>If you expected cure for cancer, it failed miserably.<br>However, if you were involved with any of the likes of MFC, ATL, Visual Basic 6 and bellow, DAO, Interop &amp; COM (to name just a few), it is to be regarded as the second coming of Christ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer is , as always , it depends.If you expected cure for cancer , it failed miserably.However , if you were involved with any of the likes of MFC , ATL , Visual Basic 6 and bellow , DAO , Interop &amp; COM ( to name just a few ) , it is to be regarded as the second coming of Christ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer is, as always, it depends.If you expected cure for cancer, it failed miserably.However, if you were involved with any of the likes of MFC, ATL, Visual Basic 6 and bellow, DAO, Interop &amp; COM (to name just a few), it is to be regarded as the second coming of Christ.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487008</id>
	<title>Re:Java too complex</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1261150860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I program in C, C#, Java, Perl, Python, and depending on the day, possibly Ruby, although I'm trying to get away from those scripts.</p><p>Recently I'm doing mostly Java and  C#.</p><p>If you think C# is 'better' than Java then you are a shitty programmer.  Neither one of them has anything that really is impressive over the other, outside of the IDE itself.  Stop blaming the language, its not the problem.  Its possible for a language to make certain things a little easier, but once you reach a certain point the additions to a language are of trivial advantage to a good programmer.  They may help out less experienced or talented developers who can't figure out how to do the same thing without a special language construct for it, but for the experienced they end up the same.</p><p>C# has been past that point since 2.0, Java has for at least the last few years, I didn't really use it before that.</p><p>I have noticed that Java developers, in general, suck more ass than VB programmers.  For a long long time I thought Java was complete shit because every app I'd ever seen was slow and ugly.  After dealing with it a little now I've come to realize that Java can perform fine as long as the guy writing the app is capable of walking around the environment without wearing a helmet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I program in C , C # , Java , Perl , Python , and depending on the day , possibly Ruby , although I 'm trying to get away from those scripts.Recently I 'm doing mostly Java and C # .If you think C # is 'better ' than Java then you are a shitty programmer .
Neither one of them has anything that really is impressive over the other , outside of the IDE itself .
Stop blaming the language , its not the problem .
Its possible for a language to make certain things a little easier , but once you reach a certain point the additions to a language are of trivial advantage to a good programmer .
They may help out less experienced or talented developers who ca n't figure out how to do the same thing without a special language construct for it , but for the experienced they end up the same.C # has been past that point since 2.0 , Java has for at least the last few years , I did n't really use it before that.I have noticed that Java developers , in general , suck more ass than VB programmers .
For a long long time I thought Java was complete shit because every app I 'd ever seen was slow and ugly .
After dealing with it a little now I 've come to realize that Java can perform fine as long as the guy writing the app is capable of walking around the environment without wearing a helmet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I program in C, C#, Java, Perl, Python, and depending on the day, possibly Ruby, although I'm trying to get away from those scripts.Recently I'm doing mostly Java and  C#.If you think C# is 'better' than Java then you are a shitty programmer.
Neither one of them has anything that really is impressive over the other, outside of the IDE itself.
Stop blaming the language, its not the problem.
Its possible for a language to make certain things a little easier, but once you reach a certain point the additions to a language are of trivial advantage to a good programmer.
They may help out less experienced or talented developers who can't figure out how to do the same thing without a special language construct for it, but for the experienced they end up the same.C# has been past that point since 2.0, Java has for at least the last few years, I didn't really use it before that.I have noticed that Java developers, in general, suck more ass than VB programmers.
For a long long time I thought Java was complete shit because every app I'd ever seen was slow and ugly.
After dealing with it a little now I've come to realize that Java can perform fine as long as the guy writing the app is capable of walking around the environment without wearing a helmet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486692</id>
	<title>Re:Asp.Net is NOT a 'popular' business framework.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261149240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>LMAO.

This guy thinks that writing $20 scripts on a freelance site is "in the industry".

I pray for you if you ever get a real job in enterprise development... PHP, MySQL, LAMP... don't make me gag.</htmltext>
<tokenext>LMAO .
This guy thinks that writing $ 20 scripts on a freelance site is " in the industry " .
I pray for you if you ever get a real job in enterprise development... PHP , MySQL , LAMP... do n't make me gag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LMAO.
This guy thinks that writing $20 scripts on a freelance site is "in the industry".
I pray for you if you ever get a real job in enterprise development... PHP, MySQL, LAMP... don't make me gag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488978</id>
	<title>Re:MS really does care about making devs happy</title>
	<author>Mongoose Disciple</author>
	<datestamp>1261158960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're missing a few things:</p><p>1)  It's impossible to make all development easy, but you can make some parts/kinds of it easier.</p><p>That is to say, just because a language like VB.Net makes throwing together a passable UI fast/easy doesn't automatically mean that all VB.Net tasks are easy or that someone who's qualified to slap a DataSet on a web page is qualified to do something more complicated.</p><p>2)  They're really not competing with free (as in beer) in the sense that you seem to be saying that they are.</p><p>I can get something like OpenOffice as a free (as in costing no money) word processor to use at my business; I can't get someone for free to write an app that solves the specific needs of my business processes.  I'm going to end up paying a team of developers for that, and whether they're using Java or PHP or C#, the cost to me is still pretty similar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're missing a few things : 1 ) It 's impossible to make all development easy , but you can make some parts/kinds of it easier.That is to say , just because a language like VB.Net makes throwing together a passable UI fast/easy does n't automatically mean that all VB.Net tasks are easy or that someone who 's qualified to slap a DataSet on a web page is qualified to do something more complicated.2 ) They 're really not competing with free ( as in beer ) in the sense that you seem to be saying that they are.I can get something like OpenOffice as a free ( as in costing no money ) word processor to use at my business ; I ca n't get someone for free to write an app that solves the specific needs of my business processes .
I 'm going to end up paying a team of developers for that , and whether they 're using Java or PHP or C # , the cost to me is still pretty similar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're missing a few things:1)  It's impossible to make all development easy, but you can make some parts/kinds of it easier.That is to say, just because a language like VB.Net makes throwing together a passable UI fast/easy doesn't automatically mean that all VB.Net tasks are easy or that someone who's qualified to slap a DataSet on a web page is qualified to do something more complicated.2)  They're really not competing with free (as in beer) in the sense that you seem to be saying that they are.I can get something like OpenOffice as a free (as in costing no money) word processor to use at my business; I can't get someone for free to write an app that solves the specific needs of my business processes.
I'm going to end up paying a team of developers for that, and whether they're using Java or PHP or C#, the cost to me is still pretty similar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487164</id>
	<title>Re:"mentioned"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261151640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everybody knows that Turbo Pascal has more "syntactical sugar"!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody knows that Turbo Pascal has more " syntactical sugar " !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody knows that Turbo Pascal has more "syntactical sugar"!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486864</id>
	<title>Answer from a mobile phone and server developer:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1261149960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is .NET ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is .NET?
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486720</id>
	<title>Re:I think they made a small mistake.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261149360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hardly think we should include all the high school students using VB.NET in the count.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hardly think we should include all the high school students using VB.NET in the count .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hardly think we should include all the high school students using VB.NET in the count.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30485994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488404</id>
	<title>Re:Ease of writing doesn't convince me</title>
	<author>The Flymaster</author>
	<datestamp>1261156680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course properties are a terrible idea. They allow operator overloading on the instance level. That's insane.</p><p>int x = object.x;<br>assert(x == object.x);<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//works<br>int y = object.y;<br>assert(y == object.y);<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//works<br>object.x = x;<br>assert(x == object.x);<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//works<br>object.y = y;<br>assert(y == object.y);<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//fails</p><p>That's stupid and confusing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course properties are a terrible idea .
They allow operator overloading on the instance level .
That 's insane.int x = object.x ; assert ( x = = object.x ) ; //worksint y = object.y ; assert ( y = = object.y ) ; //worksobject.x = x ; assert ( x = = object.x ) ; //worksobject.y = y ; assert ( y = = object.y ) ; //failsThat 's stupid and confusing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course properties are a terrible idea.
They allow operator overloading on the instance level.
That's insane.int x = object.x;assert(x == object.x); //worksint y = object.y;assert(y == object.y); //worksobject.x = x;assert(x == object.x); //worksobject.y = y;assert(y == object.y); //failsThat's stupid and confusing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490296</id>
	<title>Re:Point &amp; Click programming</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1261163340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You realize the "point and click" stuff is for laying out dialog boxes, right?</p></div><p>Not even that, anymore. You won't get far with "point and click" in WPF, for example - for any moderately complex UI, if you want to get a really great one, with proper dynamic reflowing (for resolution independence) etc, you'll have to hand-code XAML markup, just as you do with HTML.</p><p>And that is as it should be. Leave "WYSIWYG" UI design for mockups made by dedicated UI designers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You realize the " point and click " stuff is for laying out dialog boxes , right ? Not even that , anymore .
You wo n't get far with " point and click " in WPF , for example - for any moderately complex UI , if you want to get a really great one , with proper dynamic reflowing ( for resolution independence ) etc , you 'll have to hand-code XAML markup , just as you do with HTML.And that is as it should be .
Leave " WYSIWYG " UI design for mockups made by dedicated UI designers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You realize the "point and click" stuff is for laying out dialog boxes, right?Not even that, anymore.
You won't get far with "point and click" in WPF, for example - for any moderately complex UI, if you want to get a really great one, with proper dynamic reflowing (for resolution independence) etc, you'll have to hand-code XAML markup, just as you do with HTML.And that is as it should be.
Leave "WYSIWYG" UI design for mockups made by dedicated UI designers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486272</id>
	<title>Re:.Not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261147320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what?</p><p>I'm on the verge of abandoning Java for my projects. Currently, there's just almost no business reason to use it. Microsoft tools (+ReSharper) are now as nice as tools for Java, ASP.NET is as good as any Java web framework, and WPF totally kills SWING on the client.</p><p>Oh, and Microsoft \_really\_ supports multi-language programming. MSVS 2010 has full official support for F# (Ocaml clone) and extensions for dynamic languages in the CLI. And even plain C# is \_much\_ nicer than Java (LINQ, anonymous types, type inference, real generics, closures, etc.).</p><p>It wouldn't be as bad if Java was improving. But right now it's stagnating fast.</p><p>Oh, of course there's Scala. But it exists mostly to prove that JVM is not really for Java, but it's also suitable for horrible hacks required to run other languages. And in any case, there are no good IDEs for Scala development.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what ? I 'm on the verge of abandoning Java for my projects .
Currently , there 's just almost no business reason to use it .
Microsoft tools ( + ReSharper ) are now as nice as tools for Java , ASP.NET is as good as any Java web framework , and WPF totally kills SWING on the client.Oh , and Microsoft \ _really \ _ supports multi-language programming .
MSVS 2010 has full official support for F # ( Ocaml clone ) and extensions for dynamic languages in the CLI .
And even plain C # is \ _much \ _ nicer than Java ( LINQ , anonymous types , type inference , real generics , closures , etc .
) .It would n't be as bad if Java was improving .
But right now it 's stagnating fast.Oh , of course there 's Scala .
But it exists mostly to prove that JVM is not really for Java , but it 's also suitable for horrible hacks required to run other languages .
And in any case , there are no good IDEs for Scala development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what?I'm on the verge of abandoning Java for my projects.
Currently, there's just almost no business reason to use it.
Microsoft tools (+ReSharper) are now as nice as tools for Java, ASP.NET is as good as any Java web framework, and WPF totally kills SWING on the client.Oh, and Microsoft \_really\_ supports multi-language programming.
MSVS 2010 has full official support for F# (Ocaml clone) and extensions for dynamic languages in the CLI.
And even plain C# is \_much\_ nicer than Java (LINQ, anonymous types, type inference, real generics, closures, etc.
).It wouldn't be as bad if Java was improving.
But right now it's stagnating fast.Oh, of course there's Scala.
But it exists mostly to prove that JVM is not really for Java, but it's also suitable for horrible hacks required to run other languages.
And in any case, there are no good IDEs for Scala development.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490374</id>
	<title>Re:I love .Net for the desktop</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1261163580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But it has always seemed to me that shipping a commercial closed source product based on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net is a huge challenge to ensure that it remains closed source. What do people do? Do they simply rely on one of the many obsfucation products out there?</p></div><p>Some do. Most, from my experience, just don't care. Legal restrictions are still in place, and it is very unlikely that any competitor (or even unrelated company) would be stupid enough to steal any of your code. Well, perhaps somewhere in China they might do that, but why would you care?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But it has always seemed to me that shipping a commercial closed source product based on .Net is a huge challenge to ensure that it remains closed source .
What do people do ?
Do they simply rely on one of the many obsfucation products out there ? Some do .
Most , from my experience , just do n't care .
Legal restrictions are still in place , and it is very unlikely that any competitor ( or even unrelated company ) would be stupid enough to steal any of your code .
Well , perhaps somewhere in China they might do that , but why would you care ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it has always seemed to me that shipping a commercial closed source product based on .Net is a huge challenge to ensure that it remains closed source.
What do people do?
Do they simply rely on one of the many obsfucation products out there?Some do.
Most, from my experience, just don't care.
Legal restrictions are still in place, and it is very unlikely that any competitor (or even unrelated company) would be stupid enough to steal any of your code.
Well, perhaps somewhere in China they might do that, but why would you care?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486204</id>
	<title>Re:Yes.</title>
	<author>El Lobo</author>
	<datestamp>1261147020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It has also made creating professional Windows-based GUIs much easier and more desirable to do, which is something that only Visual Basic and hardcore C++ shell API developers could accomplish.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Hmm... Sorry but that spot is already  (and has been) taken by Delphi (in the native arena anyway). After all the main architect of both Delphi and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net is the same guy. But yes,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET rocks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It has also made creating professional Windows-based GUIs much easier and more desirable to do , which is something that only Visual Basic and hardcore C + + shell API developers could accomplish .
Hmm... Sorry but that spot is already ( and has been ) taken by Delphi ( in the native arena anyway ) .
After all the main architect of both Delphi and .Net is the same guy .
But yes , .NET rocks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has also made creating professional Windows-based GUIs much easier and more desirable to do, which is something that only Visual Basic and hardcore C++ shell API developers could accomplish.
Hmm... Sorry but that spot is already  (and has been) taken by Delphi (in the native arena anyway).
After all the main architect of both Delphi and .Net is the same guy.
But yes, .NET rocks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486112</id>
	<title>Walled-in compounds</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261146480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All services are provided by Microsoft (Oracle/Sun), but its a full time job trying to figure out how to use them.  Have fun!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All services are provided by Microsoft ( Oracle/Sun ) , but its a full time job trying to figure out how to use them .
Have fun !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All services are provided by Microsoft (Oracle/Sun), but its a full time job trying to figure out how to use them.
Have fun!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30493424</id>
	<title>Re:"mentioned"</title>
	<author>MattBD</author>
	<datestamp>1261131840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People are accusing you of trolling, but I did recently see an advert for a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET developer job where it actually did say "Please note we are not interested in individuals who work in C#".

Now, I'm only a hobbyist programmer at the moment, but as far as I can see you should have no problem adapting to VB.NET if you're already familiar with C#. Is there any rational basis for this, or are the people advertising these jobs the sort of recruiters-who-use-grep described in Joel Spolsky's post at <a href="http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/ThePerilsofJavaSchools.html" title="joelonsoftware.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/ThePerilsofJavaSchools.html</a> [joelonsoftware.com] ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>People are accusing you of trolling , but I did recently see an advert for a .NET developer job where it actually did say " Please note we are not interested in individuals who work in C # " .
Now , I 'm only a hobbyist programmer at the moment , but as far as I can see you should have no problem adapting to VB.NET if you 're already familiar with C # .
Is there any rational basis for this , or are the people advertising these jobs the sort of recruiters-who-use-grep described in Joel Spolsky 's post at http : //www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/ThePerilsofJavaSchools.html [ joelonsoftware.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are accusing you of trolling, but I did recently see an advert for a .NET developer job where it actually did say "Please note we are not interested in individuals who work in C#".
Now, I'm only a hobbyist programmer at the moment, but as far as I can see you should have no problem adapting to VB.NET if you're already familiar with C#.
Is there any rational basis for this, or are the people advertising these jobs the sort of recruiters-who-use-grep described in Joel Spolsky's post at http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/ThePerilsofJavaSchools.html [joelonsoftware.com] ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486904</id>
	<title>Java Vs .NET is the wrong comparison</title>
	<author>FranTaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1261150200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really you should compare JVM to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET.</p><p>JVM and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET are the implementation platforms.</p><p>Both platforms are host to different languages.</p><p>Compare languages to languages and platforms to platforms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really you should compare JVM to .NET.JVM and .NET are the implementation platforms.Both platforms are host to different languages.Compare languages to languages and platforms to platforms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really you should compare JVM to .NET.JVM and .NET are the implementation platforms.Both platforms are host to different languages.Compare languages to languages and platforms to platforms.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486664</id>
	<title>Re:Yes.</title>
	<author>gtall</author>
	<datestamp>1261149060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, did you swallow a MS marketdroid?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , did you swallow a MS marketdroid ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, did you swallow a MS marketdroid?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490462</id>
	<title>Re:Almost</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1261163880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Where Microsoft missed the mark is on the promise that their own applications would migrate to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET. For example, Microsoft Office would get re-written as a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET application.</p></div><p>I don't recall any promises that Office would be rewritten in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET. It's simply not feasible, considering the sheer amount of code - mostly C/C++ - that is there. We're talking about tens of millions of lines of code here. Rewriting such would be a monumental task; and then another one would be to ensure that it still works correctly with no regressions.</p><p>Heck, rewriting Visual Studio core UI and editor in WPF in VS2010 wasn't easy, and that is comparatively minor in scale.</p><p>For new stuff, though, there is definite<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET/WPF uptake. See Expression Blend for an example.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>ad they been able to meet the portability objective (which they never promised), I think<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET could have been much more prevalent. For now, it will continue to be a second-best development environment for Windows computers (with C/C++ being the primary).</p></div><p>It will be interesting to see how this will work out with Silverlight 3 out-of-browser applications (since those are portable at least between Windows and OS X, and hopefully, eventually, Moonlight will get there as well).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where Microsoft missed the mark is on the promise that their own applications would migrate to .NET .
For example , Microsoft Office would get re-written as a .NET application.I do n't recall any promises that Office would be rewritten in .NET .
It 's simply not feasible , considering the sheer amount of code - mostly C/C + + - that is there .
We 're talking about tens of millions of lines of code here .
Rewriting such would be a monumental task ; and then another one would be to ensure that it still works correctly with no regressions.Heck , rewriting Visual Studio core UI and editor in WPF in VS2010 was n't easy , and that is comparatively minor in scale.For new stuff , though , there is definite .NET/WPF uptake .
See Expression Blend for an example.ad they been able to meet the portability objective ( which they never promised ) , I think .NET could have been much more prevalent .
For now , it will continue to be a second-best development environment for Windows computers ( with C/C + + being the primary ) .It will be interesting to see how this will work out with Silverlight 3 out-of-browser applications ( since those are portable at least between Windows and OS X , and hopefully , eventually , Moonlight will get there as well ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where Microsoft missed the mark is on the promise that their own applications would migrate to .NET.
For example, Microsoft Office would get re-written as a .NET application.I don't recall any promises that Office would be rewritten in .NET.
It's simply not feasible, considering the sheer amount of code - mostly C/C++ - that is there.
We're talking about tens of millions of lines of code here.
Rewriting such would be a monumental task; and then another one would be to ensure that it still works correctly with no regressions.Heck, rewriting Visual Studio core UI and editor in WPF in VS2010 wasn't easy, and that is comparatively minor in scale.For new stuff, though, there is definite .NET/WPF uptake.
See Expression Blend for an example.ad they been able to meet the portability objective (which they never promised), I think .NET could have been much more prevalent.
For now, it will continue to be a second-best development environment for Windows computers (with C/C++ being the primary).It will be interesting to see how this will work out with Silverlight 3 out-of-browser applications (since those are portable at least between Windows and OS X, and hopefully, eventually, Moonlight will get there as well).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488342</id>
	<title>Re:.Not</title>
	<author>bunglebungle</author>
	<datestamp>1261156440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Microsoft tools (+ReSharper) are now as nice as tools for Java, ASP.NET is as good as any Java web framework, and WPF totally kills SWING on the client.</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't do much GUI programming in either, so I'll concede the third point, but I've used both Eclipse and Visual Studio for years, and trialed ReSharper, and Eclipse is still far better.  ASP.NET is nice, and easier to get started with, but still not as good as putting together some of the best Java tools, mainly Spring Web.  WAR deployments are better than the (non-existent)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET model, and the wealth of free libraries for Java (Jakarta, Codehaus, etc) still beats what's available for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft tools ( + ReSharper ) are now as nice as tools for Java , ASP.NET is as good as any Java web framework , and WPF totally kills SWING on the client.I do n't do much GUI programming in either , so I 'll concede the third point , but I 've used both Eclipse and Visual Studio for years , and trialed ReSharper , and Eclipse is still far better .
ASP.NET is nice , and easier to get started with , but still not as good as putting together some of the best Java tools , mainly Spring Web .
WAR deployments are better than the ( non-existent ) .NET model , and the wealth of free libraries for Java ( Jakarta , Codehaus , etc ) still beats what 's available for .NET .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft tools (+ReSharper) are now as nice as tools for Java, ASP.NET is as good as any Java web framework, and WPF totally kills SWING on the client.I don't do much GUI programming in either, so I'll concede the third point, but I've used both Eclipse and Visual Studio for years, and trialed ReSharper, and Eclipse is still far better.
ASP.NET is nice, and easier to get started with, but still not as good as putting together some of the best Java tools, mainly Spring Web.
WAR deployments are better than the (non-existent) .NET model, and the wealth of free libraries for Java (Jakarta, Codehaus, etc) still beats what's available for .NET.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30507776</id>
	<title>Re:Point &amp; Click programming</title>
	<author>Turzyx</author>
	<datestamp>1261314960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This means more people can do it</p> </div><p>Good! Not every application needs to be perfectly optimised or debugged, and there are lots of situations where it is important to get something working quickly albeit not as elegantly as possible; LabVIEW and Matlab also facilitate this.<br> <br>There's no reason to employ someone who is just going to reinvent the wheel every time they write an app; IDE's that simplify the most basic of operations are a godsend.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This means more people can do it Good !
Not every application needs to be perfectly optimised or debugged , and there are lots of situations where it is important to get something working quickly albeit not as elegantly as possible ; LabVIEW and Matlab also facilitate this .
There 's no reason to employ someone who is just going to reinvent the wheel every time they write an app ; IDE 's that simplify the most basic of operations are a godsend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This means more people can do it Good!
Not every application needs to be perfectly optimised or debugged, and there are lots of situations where it is important to get something working quickly albeit not as elegantly as possible; LabVIEW and Matlab also facilitate this.
There's no reason to employ someone who is just going to reinvent the wheel every time they write an app; IDE's that simplify the most basic of operations are a godsend.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486674</id>
	<title>Performance?</title>
	<author>FranTaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1261149180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see anyone talking about performance.</p><p>I don't do<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET so I have no idea of its performance.</p><p>I do like the concept that Java is far removed from the physical hardware so the compiler can make all sorts of simplifying assumptions and nifty optimizations.</p><p>Modern Java compilers turn your java code into machine code that runs just as fast as languages like C and C++ which are pretty much just fancy macro assemblers.</p><p>Can someone with experience speak as to the relative performance of java and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see anyone talking about performance.I do n't do .NET so I have no idea of its performance.I do like the concept that Java is far removed from the physical hardware so the compiler can make all sorts of simplifying assumptions and nifty optimizations.Modern Java compilers turn your java code into machine code that runs just as fast as languages like C and C + + which are pretty much just fancy macro assemblers.Can someone with experience speak as to the relative performance of java and .NET ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see anyone talking about performance.I don't do .NET so I have no idea of its performance.I do like the concept that Java is far removed from the physical hardware so the compiler can make all sorts of simplifying assumptions and nifty optimizations.Modern Java compilers turn your java code into machine code that runs just as fast as languages like C and C++ which are pretty much just fancy macro assemblers.Can someone with experience speak as to the relative performance of java and .NET?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489392</id>
	<title>Re:Java too complex</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261160580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One thing I've noticed with generics as a "Java-by-profession, C#-by-hobby" developer is that I prefer many parts of the Java implementation. Having access to the generic parameter type in C# is useful, but it is far more likely that I need the "PARAM\_TYPE extends SomeClassOrInterface" method rather than C#'s fixed generic parameters (at least in C# 2.0, which is what I target since Mono has good support and it isn't too huge a download for WinXP users if they don't have it).</p></div><p>C# 2.0 has constraints on generic type parameters of classes and methods, which are exactly equivalent (albeit more verbose) than Java "extends". E.g. you can write:</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>void Sort(T[] a) where T: IComparable&lt;T&gt;</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>It doesn't have wildcards, though those can always be replaced by named parameters in generic declaration context.</p><p>There are two things missing. First, you cannot write anything equivalent to this Java code:</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>List&lt;? extends Foo&gt; list;</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>Again, this is because wildcards aren't supported, and it's not a generic declaration, so there's no way to introduce a named type parameter.</p><p>The other thing that's missing is "super" constraint. For example, this cannot be rewritten in C# while preserving full genericity of the method:</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>&lt;T&gt; void add(List&lt;? super T&gt; xs, T x) {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; xs.add(x);<br>}</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>because "add" is contravariant, this needs the corresponding supertype constraint if we want this to work on any compatible list, but there is none in C#.</p><p>On the other hand, C# generics are fully reified - so you can have <tt>T[]</tt>, and <tt>new T()</tt>, and <tt>x is T</tt>.</p><p>Also, in C# 4, a new feature is declaration-site covariance and contravariance of classes. For example, IEnumerable - which is the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET counterpart of Java Iterable - is now declared thus:</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>interface IEnumerable&lt;out T<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/* covariant*/&gt; {<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... }</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>which means that you can write:</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>IEnumerable&lt;Derived&gt; xs;<br>IEnumerable&lt;Base&gt; ys = xs;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// implicit upcast</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>In Java, you'd have to use "? extends Base" on the second line above, and in any similar context.</p><p>Unfortunately, this doesn't help with classes for which some operations are covariant, and some are contravariant, like List. For those, Java wildcards and constraints (which are effectively use-site variance declarations) do better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing I 've noticed with generics as a " Java-by-profession , C # -by-hobby " developer is that I prefer many parts of the Java implementation .
Having access to the generic parameter type in C # is useful , but it is far more likely that I need the " PARAM \ _TYPE extends SomeClassOrInterface " method rather than C # 's fixed generic parameters ( at least in C # 2.0 , which is what I target since Mono has good support and it is n't too huge a download for WinXP users if they do n't have it ) .C # 2.0 has constraints on generic type parameters of classes and methods , which are exactly equivalent ( albeit more verbose ) than Java " extends " .
E.g. you can write : void Sort ( T [ ] a ) where T : IComparable It does n't have wildcards , though those can always be replaced by named parameters in generic declaration context.There are two things missing .
First , you can not write anything equivalent to this Java code : List list ; Again , this is because wildcards are n't supported , and it 's not a generic declaration , so there 's no way to introduce a named type parameter.The other thing that 's missing is " super " constraint .
For example , this can not be rewritten in C # while preserving full genericity of the method : void add ( List xs , T x ) {     xs.add ( x ) ; } because " add " is contravariant , this needs the corresponding supertype constraint if we want this to work on any compatible list , but there is none in C # .On the other hand , C # generics are fully reified - so you can have T [ ] , and new T ( ) , and x is T.Also , in C # 4 , a new feature is declaration-site covariance and contravariance of classes .
For example , IEnumerable - which is the .NET counterpart of Java Iterable - is now declared thus : interface IEnumerable / * covariant * / &gt; { ... } which means that you can write : IEnumerable xs ; IEnumerable ys = xs ; // implicit upcast In Java , you 'd have to use " ?
extends Base " on the second line above , and in any similar context.Unfortunately , this does n't help with classes for which some operations are covariant , and some are contravariant , like List .
For those , Java wildcards and constraints ( which are effectively use-site variance declarations ) do better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing I've noticed with generics as a "Java-by-profession, C#-by-hobby" developer is that I prefer many parts of the Java implementation.
Having access to the generic parameter type in C# is useful, but it is far more likely that I need the "PARAM\_TYPE extends SomeClassOrInterface" method rather than C#'s fixed generic parameters (at least in C# 2.0, which is what I target since Mono has good support and it isn't too huge a download for WinXP users if they don't have it).C# 2.0 has constraints on generic type parameters of classes and methods, which are exactly equivalent (albeit more verbose) than Java "extends".
E.g. you can write: void Sort(T[] a) where T: IComparable It doesn't have wildcards, though those can always be replaced by named parameters in generic declaration context.There are two things missing.
First, you cannot write anything equivalent to this Java code: List list; Again, this is because wildcards aren't supported, and it's not a generic declaration, so there's no way to introduce a named type parameter.The other thing that's missing is "super" constraint.
For example, this cannot be rewritten in C# while preserving full genericity of the method:  void add(List xs, T x) {
    xs.add(x);} because "add" is contravariant, this needs the corresponding supertype constraint if we want this to work on any compatible list, but there is none in C#.On the other hand, C# generics are fully reified - so you can have T[], and new T(), and x is T.Also, in C# 4, a new feature is declaration-site covariance and contravariance of classes.
For example, IEnumerable - which is the .NET counterpart of Java Iterable - is now declared thus: interface IEnumerable /* covariant*/&gt; { ... } which means that you can write: IEnumerable xs;IEnumerable ys = xs; // implicit upcast In Java, you'd have to use "?
extends Base" on the second line above, and in any similar context.Unfortunately, this doesn't help with classes for which some operations are covariant, and some are contravariant, like List.
For those, Java wildcards and constraints (which are effectively use-site variance declarations) do better.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486156</id>
	<title>a decade?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261146720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has not been a decade jackass! I know this will not be posted because<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is so one sided and the articles are posted by the same people every day. This was a community site but that is long gone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has not been a decade jackass !
I know this will not be posted because / .
is so one sided and the articles are posted by the same people every day .
This was a community site but that is long gone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has not been a decade jackass!
I know this will not be posted because /.
is so one sided and the articles are posted by the same people every day.
This was a community site but that is long gone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489334</id>
	<title>Re:C# first choice? Ummm, no.</title>
	<author>jlechem</author>
	<datestamp>1261160340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have to agree 100\%.  I have several desktop based applications that I wrote in C#.  I found getting users to download and install the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net framework was a huge PITA.  You can guard against this if you have a decent installer solution that required the user to download the framework and the smallest framework redistributable is 25 MB I believe.  Because of this I have pretty much given up on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net for the desktop.  I'm moving back to native code only so users don't have to download entire frameworks to run my apps.  With windows 7 this might change since the OS has the latest framework.  And I heard somewhere MS is now going to distribute the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net framework via windows update (why they didn't do this from day 1 I have no idea).  Java IMO has the same issues users still have to download a runtime and deal with different versions of said runtime.  Servers are a different matter entirely, code whatever best suites you and your needs there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to agree 100 \ % .
I have several desktop based applications that I wrote in C # .
I found getting users to download and install the .net framework was a huge PITA .
You can guard against this if you have a decent installer solution that required the user to download the framework and the smallest framework redistributable is 25 MB I believe .
Because of this I have pretty much given up on .net for the desktop .
I 'm moving back to native code only so users do n't have to download entire frameworks to run my apps .
With windows 7 this might change since the OS has the latest framework .
And I heard somewhere MS is now going to distribute the .net framework via windows update ( why they did n't do this from day 1 I have no idea ) .
Java IMO has the same issues users still have to download a runtime and deal with different versions of said runtime .
Servers are a different matter entirely , code whatever best suites you and your needs there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to agree 100\%.
I have several desktop based applications that I wrote in C#.
I found getting users to download and install the .net framework was a huge PITA.
You can guard against this if you have a decent installer solution that required the user to download the framework and the smallest framework redistributable is 25 MB I believe.
Because of this I have pretty much given up on .net for the desktop.
I'm moving back to native code only so users don't have to download entire frameworks to run my apps.
With windows 7 this might change since the OS has the latest framework.
And I heard somewhere MS is now going to distribute the .net framework via windows update (why they didn't do this from day 1 I have no idea).
Java IMO has the same issues users still have to download a runtime and deal with different versions of said runtime.
Servers are a different matter entirely, code whatever best suites you and your needs there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486076</id>
	<title>.NET is not limited to C#</title>
	<author>Katchu</author>
	<datestamp>1261146300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>.NET is not limited to C#, although that is probably the most usual. Any language can be used so long as it is made to conform to the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET CLR (Computer Language Runtime (?)) standard. In addition to the usual MS suspects, there are Third Party implementations of other languages that fit within that framework. This gives<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET development a flexibility that encourages development from experts in many domains dominated by other languages.

Has it delivered? If it continues to exist, yes.

Is it the best? Depends on your prejudices. Few have the ability to make a truly objective assessment. Objective.</htmltext>
<tokenext>.NET is not limited to C # , although that is probably the most usual .
Any language can be used so long as it is made to conform to the .NET CLR ( Computer Language Runtime ( ?
) ) standard .
In addition to the usual MS suspects , there are Third Party implementations of other languages that fit within that framework .
This gives .NET development a flexibility that encourages development from experts in many domains dominated by other languages .
Has it delivered ?
If it continues to exist , yes .
Is it the best ?
Depends on your prejudices .
Few have the ability to make a truly objective assessment .
Objective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.NET is not limited to C#, although that is probably the most usual.
Any language can be used so long as it is made to conform to the .NET CLR (Computer Language Runtime (?
)) standard.
In addition to the usual MS suspects, there are Third Party implementations of other languages that fit within that framework.
This gives .NET development a flexibility that encourages development from experts in many domains dominated by other languages.
Has it delivered?
If it continues to exist, yes.
Is it the best?
Depends on your prejudices.
Few have the ability to make a truly objective assessment.
Objective.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30492320</id>
	<title>Re:Almost</title>
	<author>jzhos</author>
	<datestamp>1261127520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Where Microsoft missed the mark is on the promise that their own applications would migrate to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET. For example, Microsoft Office would get re-written as a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET application. Ironically, I think it's because of the lack of cross platform capability that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET was unable to meet this need. </p></div><p>No, that was because it was a huge task because of the size of the current code base. And poor invest/return ratio.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where Microsoft missed the mark is on the promise that their own applications would migrate to .NET .
For example , Microsoft Office would get re-written as a .NET application .
Ironically , I think it 's because of the lack of cross platform capability that .NET was unable to meet this need .
No , that was because it was a huge task because of the size of the current code base .
And poor invest/return ratio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where Microsoft missed the mark is on the promise that their own applications would migrate to .NET.
For example, Microsoft Office would get re-written as a .NET application.
Ironically, I think it's because of the lack of cross platform capability that .NET was unable to meet this need.
No, that was because it was a huge task because of the size of the current code base.
And poor invest/return ratio.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30500852</id>
	<title>Why doesn't MS use .Net themselves?</title>
	<author>dingen</author>
	<datestamp>1261221840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've always wondered about this:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is around now for 10 years or so and still most products shipped by MS are not built using it. Why is that? It sends off a really strange message in my opinion... like a chef who doesn't eat his own food.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always wondered about this : .NET is around now for 10 years or so and still most products shipped by MS are not built using it .
Why is that ?
It sends off a really strange message in my opinion... like a chef who does n't eat his own food .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always wondered about this: .NET is around now for 10 years or so and still most products shipped by MS are not built using it.
Why is that?
It sends off a really strange message in my opinion... like a chef who doesn't eat his own food.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488026</id>
	<title>Re:Performance?</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1261155180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I assume that both of them have years of optimization behind it they are pretty similar in performance, and java is the same speed as machine code is mostly a myth, it is fast enough, but in real world szenarios it does not reach the performance levels of raw and hardly the ones of C++.<br>But as I said it is fast enough, and you can do big programs with it, it simply has become a workhorse!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume that both of them have years of optimization behind it they are pretty similar in performance , and java is the same speed as machine code is mostly a myth , it is fast enough , but in real world szenarios it does not reach the performance levels of raw and hardly the ones of C + + .But as I said it is fast enough , and you can do big programs with it , it simply has become a workhorse !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume that both of them have years of optimization behind it they are pretty similar in performance, and java is the same speed as machine code is mostly a myth, it is fast enough, but in real world szenarios it does not reach the performance levels of raw and hardly the ones of C++.But as I said it is fast enough, and you can do big programs with it, it simply has become a workhorse!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486176</id>
	<title>Almost</title>
	<author>esarjeant</author>
	<datestamp>1261146840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speaking strictly from a Windows development perspective, I think<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET has improved the experience somewhat compared to other kludgy frameworks (MFC / ATL). Assuming you don't plan on any cross platform deployments, you can implement your application within<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET using all of the capabilities of the operating system in an object oriented fashion. It's quick - it's easy - and C# is close enough to C/C++ that anyone with a programming background can pick it up.</p><p>Where Microsoft missed the mark is on the promise that their own applications would migrate to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET. For example, Microsoft Office would get re-written as a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET application. Ironically, I think it's because of the lack of cross platform capability that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET was unable to meet this need. Microsoft has a number of key software products that need to run on both Mac and Windows. While native C/C++ can be easily ported, without a compatible CLR moving to Mac isn't that easy.</p><p>Had they been able to meet the portability objective (which they never promised), I think<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET could have been much more prevalent. For now, it will continue to be a second-best development environment for Windows computers (with C/C++ being the primary).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking strictly from a Windows development perspective , I think .NET has improved the experience somewhat compared to other kludgy frameworks ( MFC / ATL ) .
Assuming you do n't plan on any cross platform deployments , you can implement your application within .NET using all of the capabilities of the operating system in an object oriented fashion .
It 's quick - it 's easy - and C # is close enough to C/C + + that anyone with a programming background can pick it up.Where Microsoft missed the mark is on the promise that their own applications would migrate to .NET .
For example , Microsoft Office would get re-written as a .NET application .
Ironically , I think it 's because of the lack of cross platform capability that .NET was unable to meet this need .
Microsoft has a number of key software products that need to run on both Mac and Windows .
While native C/C + + can be easily ported , without a compatible CLR moving to Mac is n't that easy.Had they been able to meet the portability objective ( which they never promised ) , I think .NET could have been much more prevalent .
For now , it will continue to be a second-best development environment for Windows computers ( with C/C + + being the primary ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking strictly from a Windows development perspective, I think .NET has improved the experience somewhat compared to other kludgy frameworks (MFC / ATL).
Assuming you don't plan on any cross platform deployments, you can implement your application within .NET using all of the capabilities of the operating system in an object oriented fashion.
It's quick - it's easy - and C# is close enough to C/C++ that anyone with a programming background can pick it up.Where Microsoft missed the mark is on the promise that their own applications would migrate to .NET.
For example, Microsoft Office would get re-written as a .NET application.
Ironically, I think it's because of the lack of cross platform capability that .NET was unable to meet this need.
Microsoft has a number of key software products that need to run on both Mac and Windows.
While native C/C++ can be easily ported, without a compatible CLR moving to Mac isn't that easy.Had they been able to meet the portability objective (which they never promised), I think .NET could have been much more prevalent.
For now, it will continue to be a second-best development environment for Windows computers (with C/C++ being the primary).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486702</id>
	<title>Re:I love .Net for the desktop</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1261149300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
If you're noobs, as opposed to, you know, l44t (sp?), use code obfuscator.
</p><p>
If you're leet (sp?), wrap it as a Perl script.  It's the only way to be sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're noobs , as opposed to , you know , l44t ( sp ?
) , use code obfuscator .
If you 're leet ( sp ?
) , wrap it as a Perl script .
It 's the only way to be sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
If you're noobs, as opposed to, you know, l44t (sp?
), use code obfuscator.
If you're leet (sp?
), wrap it as a Perl script.
It's the only way to be sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30491138</id>
	<title>Re:Ease of writing doesn't convince me</title>
	<author>elnyka</author>
	<datestamp>1261166280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am not convinced that it is such a bad thing that Java-the-language is 'stagnated'. As language, Java was designed from the start to eliminate features that were, in the parlance of the day, "Considered Harmful". So yes, it was and is a bit restrictive. C# has a richer syntax, including "goto"... The richer syntax can be a plus because it often saves time in coding.</p><p>But creating code is what, 20\% of the lifetime cost of a software package? And meanwhile C# provides the less disciplined programmer with plenty of opportunities to create write-only code. Never mind lambdas and closures --- I am not so sure that having <em>properties</em> in C# is a great idea, because their very purpose is to hide that code invocation happens. And I positively dislike the opt-out from declaring which exceptions a method throws. Exception handling is simply too important.</p></div><p>Dude, "goto" was never eliminated in Java. It exists in Java in the extremely restricted form of a labeled break statement. And even without a full goto statement, the language still contains pretty much all the potentially harmful constructs (meaning all programming/control statements.) No amount of feature filtering will eliminate programming suckage as the idea of a "safer" programming language is an academic fallacy in anything but the narrowest, best well defined problem domains.</p><p>

As a professional Java developer my conclusion is that <b>the language</b> is stagnant. Many of the ideas we originally thought were useful and that would conduct to better programming had turned out not to be such good ideas at all. In fact, they turned out to be bad ideas, syntactic/semantic "leaky abstractions" with an associated negative cost that no one would have expected back then between 1995-2000 when we were going OOOH JAVA:

</p><ol>
<li>Replacing multiple (class)  interface inheritance - how do you modify an interface down the road (even good software is subject to changes) after it's been inherited by a bazillion entities w/o breaking code compatibility</li><li><p>.
</p></li><li>Checked exceptions - they aren't that bad of an idea except that Java never provided a mechanism for preventing them cross-cutting all over the place. </li><li>String "+" operator - in the hands of sucky Java programmers (who are a dime a dozen) is the bane of garbage collectors. It is funny in a sad way that immutable strings were thought to help in memory management,but no one gave a shit of a thought about the poor implementation of the String "+" operator.</li><li>Not having a non-synchronized string builder until Java 1.5, and refusing to deprecate Vector and HashMap = brainfart.</li><li>Still having a debate about having support for lambdas and closures on Java 7 == a bigger brainfart.</li><li>Not having an explicit namespace mechanism (which forces you to use classes as namespaces) == another brainfart.</li><li><p>

Each and every one of the brainfarts above were thought to be good ideas, but practice has proved them to be, well, brainfarts, very expensive brainfarts. If it weren't because the JVM is rock-solid and multiplatform, we would be dead in the water. The value of JEE stopped being the language a while ago, and the language innovations that were supposed to help implement software of a better quality turned to actually increase the cost of software development.</p><p>

I have nothing but praise to Gosling and all the bright people that brought Java to us. But you can't stay perpetually in awe as if it were 1995. We gotta recognize what's good and what's broken and learn from past experience. Acknowledging that Java, the language, is stagnant, that's an step forward.</p></li></ol></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not convinced that it is such a bad thing that Java-the-language is 'stagnated' .
As language , Java was designed from the start to eliminate features that were , in the parlance of the day , " Considered Harmful " .
So yes , it was and is a bit restrictive .
C # has a richer syntax , including " goto " ... The richer syntax can be a plus because it often saves time in coding.But creating code is what , 20 \ % of the lifetime cost of a software package ?
And meanwhile C # provides the less disciplined programmer with plenty of opportunities to create write-only code .
Never mind lambdas and closures --- I am not so sure that having properties in C # is a great idea , because their very purpose is to hide that code invocation happens .
And I positively dislike the opt-out from declaring which exceptions a method throws .
Exception handling is simply too important.Dude , " goto " was never eliminated in Java .
It exists in Java in the extremely restricted form of a labeled break statement .
And even without a full goto statement , the language still contains pretty much all the potentially harmful constructs ( meaning all programming/control statements .
) No amount of feature filtering will eliminate programming suckage as the idea of a " safer " programming language is an academic fallacy in anything but the narrowest , best well defined problem domains .
As a professional Java developer my conclusion is that the language is stagnant .
Many of the ideas we originally thought were useful and that would conduct to better programming had turned out not to be such good ideas at all .
In fact , they turned out to be bad ideas , syntactic/semantic " leaky abstractions " with an associated negative cost that no one would have expected back then between 1995-2000 when we were going OOOH JAVA : Replacing multiple ( class ) interface inheritance - how do you modify an interface down the road ( even good software is subject to changes ) after it 's been inherited by a bazillion entities w/o breaking code compatibility .
Checked exceptions - they are n't that bad of an idea except that Java never provided a mechanism for preventing them cross-cutting all over the place .
String " + " operator - in the hands of sucky Java programmers ( who are a dime a dozen ) is the bane of garbage collectors .
It is funny in a sad way that immutable strings were thought to help in memory management,but no one gave a shit of a thought about the poor implementation of the String " + " operator.Not having a non-synchronized string builder until Java 1.5 , and refusing to deprecate Vector and HashMap = brainfart.Still having a debate about having support for lambdas and closures on Java 7 = = a bigger brainfart.Not having an explicit namespace mechanism ( which forces you to use classes as namespaces ) = = another brainfart .
Each and every one of the brainfarts above were thought to be good ideas , but practice has proved them to be , well , brainfarts , very expensive brainfarts .
If it were n't because the JVM is rock-solid and multiplatform , we would be dead in the water .
The value of JEE stopped being the language a while ago , and the language innovations that were supposed to help implement software of a better quality turned to actually increase the cost of software development .
I have nothing but praise to Gosling and all the bright people that brought Java to us .
But you ca n't stay perpetually in awe as if it were 1995 .
We got ta recognize what 's good and what 's broken and learn from past experience .
Acknowledging that Java , the language , is stagnant , that 's an step forward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not convinced that it is such a bad thing that Java-the-language is 'stagnated'.
As language, Java was designed from the start to eliminate features that were, in the parlance of the day, "Considered Harmful".
So yes, it was and is a bit restrictive.
C# has a richer syntax, including "goto"... The richer syntax can be a plus because it often saves time in coding.But creating code is what, 20\% of the lifetime cost of a software package?
And meanwhile C# provides the less disciplined programmer with plenty of opportunities to create write-only code.
Never mind lambdas and closures --- I am not so sure that having properties in C# is a great idea, because their very purpose is to hide that code invocation happens.
And I positively dislike the opt-out from declaring which exceptions a method throws.
Exception handling is simply too important.Dude, "goto" was never eliminated in Java.
It exists in Java in the extremely restricted form of a labeled break statement.
And even without a full goto statement, the language still contains pretty much all the potentially harmful constructs (meaning all programming/control statements.
) No amount of feature filtering will eliminate programming suckage as the idea of a "safer" programming language is an academic fallacy in anything but the narrowest, best well defined problem domains.
As a professional Java developer my conclusion is that the language is stagnant.
Many of the ideas we originally thought were useful and that would conduct to better programming had turned out not to be such good ideas at all.
In fact, they turned out to be bad ideas, syntactic/semantic "leaky abstractions" with an associated negative cost that no one would have expected back then between 1995-2000 when we were going OOOH JAVA:


Replacing multiple (class)  interface inheritance - how do you modify an interface down the road (even good software is subject to changes) after it's been inherited by a bazillion entities w/o breaking code compatibility.
Checked exceptions - they aren't that bad of an idea except that Java never provided a mechanism for preventing them cross-cutting all over the place.
String "+" operator - in the hands of sucky Java programmers (who are a dime a dozen) is the bane of garbage collectors.
It is funny in a sad way that immutable strings were thought to help in memory management,but no one gave a shit of a thought about the poor implementation of the String "+" operator.Not having a non-synchronized string builder until Java 1.5, and refusing to deprecate Vector and HashMap = brainfart.Still having a debate about having support for lambdas and closures on Java 7 == a bigger brainfart.Not having an explicit namespace mechanism (which forces you to use classes as namespaces) == another brainfart.
Each and every one of the brainfarts above were thought to be good ideas, but practice has proved them to be, well, brainfarts, very expensive brainfarts.
If it weren't because the JVM is rock-solid and multiplatform, we would be dead in the water.
The value of JEE stopped being the language a while ago, and the language innovations that were supposed to help implement software of a better quality turned to actually increase the cost of software development.
I have nothing but praise to Gosling and all the bright people that brought Java to us.
But you can't stay perpetually in awe as if it were 1995.
We gotta recognize what's good and what's broken and learn from past experience.
Acknowledging that Java, the language, is stagnant, that's an step forward.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487920</id>
	<title>MS done good.</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1261154640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we also include the fact that M$ has a 90\% market share for desktop pc, and that to use a sony product with a sony products begats using a ms product with an ms product, it is no real surprise here! I program with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net vb and c# alike, and have found the fact that you can so easily integrate office products into your development and real added bonus, especially now with linq etc.... i think they are a notch above the rest for making innovation easy for developers trying to bring about code in a short amount of time.</p><p>Jave requires you know so much about all the modules and constantly keep updated with it, where as most of the time ms usually has a good solid base for you to incorporate modules within the framework itself. Java has yet to prove to me its efficiency in this department. I would much prefer using java (back then) for linux porting, however with wine being able to run the framework, even this now is not a selling feature for java.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we also include the fact that M $ has a 90 \ % market share for desktop pc , and that to use a sony product with a sony products begats using a ms product with an ms product , it is no real surprise here !
I program with .net vb and c # alike , and have found the fact that you can so easily integrate office products into your development and real added bonus , especially now with linq etc.... i think they are a notch above the rest for making innovation easy for developers trying to bring about code in a short amount of time.Jave requires you know so much about all the modules and constantly keep updated with it , where as most of the time ms usually has a good solid base for you to incorporate modules within the framework itself .
Java has yet to prove to me its efficiency in this department .
I would much prefer using java ( back then ) for linux porting , however with wine being able to run the framework , even this now is not a selling feature for java .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we also include the fact that M$ has a 90\% market share for desktop pc, and that to use a sony product with a sony products begats using a ms product with an ms product, it is no real surprise here!
I program with .net vb and c# alike, and have found the fact that you can so easily integrate office products into your development and real added bonus, especially now with linq etc.... i think they are a notch above the rest for making innovation easy for developers trying to bring about code in a short amount of time.Jave requires you know so much about all the modules and constantly keep updated with it, where as most of the time ms usually has a good solid base for you to incorporate modules within the framework itself.
Java has yet to prove to me its efficiency in this department.
I would much prefer using java (back then) for linux porting, however with wine being able to run the framework, even this now is not a selling feature for java.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004</id>
	<title>Java too complex</title>
	<author>HNS-I</author>
	<datestamp>1261145880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that java had the momentum, and the quality, so ultimately there was something structurally wrong with it that caused the decline in marketshare. The webapp share was taken over by flash, which is far slower than the java vm, because actionscript was easier to program in. If sun had made a ligthweight version of the vm for the browser and simpler language like visual basic, things might have been very different.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that java had the momentum , and the quality , so ultimately there was something structurally wrong with it that caused the decline in marketshare .
The webapp share was taken over by flash , which is far slower than the java vm , because actionscript was easier to program in .
If sun had made a ligthweight version of the vm for the browser and simpler language like visual basic , things might have been very different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that java had the momentum, and the quality, so ultimately there was something structurally wrong with it that caused the decline in marketshare.
The webapp share was taken over by flash, which is far slower than the java vm, because actionscript was easier to program in.
If sun had made a ligthweight version of the vm for the browser and simpler language like visual basic, things might have been very different.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486118</id>
	<title>Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261146540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There isn't another language that can be compared to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net it's quite unique in many positive ways. There is always a 'best' set of languages for particular applications, but i find<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net has many bases covered well. And yea it's fun.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is n't another language that can be compared to .net it 's quite unique in many positive ways .
There is always a 'best ' set of languages for particular applications , but i find .net has many bases covered well .
And yea it 's fun .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>There isn't another language that can be compared to .net it's quite unique in many positive ways.
There is always a 'best' set of languages for particular applications, but i find .net has many bases covered well.
And yea it's fun.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488462</id>
	<title>Re:.Not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261156860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It wouldn't be as bad if Java was improving. But right now it's stagnating fast.</p></div><p>I say this only to be funny and not mean:  I think the phrase "stagnating fast" is an oxymoron.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would n't be as bad if Java was improving .
But right now it 's stagnating fast.I say this only to be funny and not mean : I think the phrase " stagnating fast " is an oxymoron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wouldn't be as bad if Java was improving.
But right now it's stagnating fast.I say this only to be funny and not mean:  I think the phrase "stagnating fast" is an oxymoron.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30506694</id>
	<title>Re:Classic ASP</title>
	<author>tirnacopu</author>
	<datestamp>1261304520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever heard of cookies?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever heard of cookies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever heard of cookies?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486646</id>
	<title>Re:Asp.Net is NOT a 'popular' business framework.</title>
	<author>milosoftware</author>
	<datestamp>1261149000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must work for the pr0n industry then. And it looks like you can't get it up<br>percase.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must work for the pr0n industry then .
And it looks like you ca n't get it uppercase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must work for the pr0n industry then.
And it looks like you can't get it uppercase.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487786</id>
	<title>Re:Asp.Net is NOT a 'popular' business framework.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261154220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Others have correctly pointed out that rentacoder is not "the industry", nor does it represent enterprise-level development.  Having said that, they take refuge in the popularity of ASP<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET vs PHP, with many declarations about the superiority of MS in the enterprise.  The argument of one vs. the other is sadly lacking in specificity on either side -- perhaps because EITHER can be used to achieve the same result.  Upside potential and risk are pretty much the same.</p><p>Among the benefits of LAMP are vastly simplified licensing.  When you use LAMP, the BSA never calls.  And you don't get pesky little offers from MS partners to do "SAM" audits.  Even if you have no license problem, who needs the BS?  System uptime is another benefit.  I have worked long enough with both to see a big difference.</p><p>To me, the benefit of ASP<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is the commoditization of  developers.  I think it is easier to treat people interchangeably in a world where the architectural choices are narrow.  Some enterprises live in perpetual "risk management" mode, one of the chief risks being sudden departure of key employees.  If there is one place where the MS platform shines, this is it.  The next geek can be inserted almost as readily a replacing a USB mouse.</p><p>Garbage code is abundant on both platforms.  In the world of LAMP, there is the lower echelon of rentacoder where people try to cobble together systems for pocket change.  The amazing part is not that it works well, but that it works at all.   In the enterprise world, I have seen dreadful apps that are forced upon a captive population of corporate employees.  For reasons that have nothing to do with technology, the management strategies that highlight the advantages of ASP often include the side effect of rigid time and cost constraints. When the money runs out, development stops.  Some (but not all) of these enterprises would be far better off with an army of LAMP rentacoders.</p><p>It takes real money to develop systems.  If you have lots of it, a reasonably competent project mgr. can spend his/her way to success.  But if you don't, the cost of ASP (including entire Windows environment) is money that could be redirected to man hours of developer time.</p><p>The real enemy of LAMP and ASP is not Java, it is Flash.  Foolish people are easily swayed by cute graphics -- even when eye candy is not helping.  I am surprised the PHB in Dilbert has not converted the entire software development team to Flash.  I'll check again this Sunday.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Others have correctly pointed out that rentacoder is not " the industry " , nor does it represent enterprise-level development .
Having said that , they take refuge in the popularity of ASP .NET vs PHP , with many declarations about the superiority of MS in the enterprise .
The argument of one vs. the other is sadly lacking in specificity on either side -- perhaps because EITHER can be used to achieve the same result .
Upside potential and risk are pretty much the same.Among the benefits of LAMP are vastly simplified licensing .
When you use LAMP , the BSA never calls .
And you do n't get pesky little offers from MS partners to do " SAM " audits .
Even if you have no license problem , who needs the BS ?
System uptime is another benefit .
I have worked long enough with both to see a big difference.To me , the benefit of ASP .NET is the commoditization of developers .
I think it is easier to treat people interchangeably in a world where the architectural choices are narrow .
Some enterprises live in perpetual " risk management " mode , one of the chief risks being sudden departure of key employees .
If there is one place where the MS platform shines , this is it .
The next geek can be inserted almost as readily a replacing a USB mouse.Garbage code is abundant on both platforms .
In the world of LAMP , there is the lower echelon of rentacoder where people try to cobble together systems for pocket change .
The amazing part is not that it works well , but that it works at all .
In the enterprise world , I have seen dreadful apps that are forced upon a captive population of corporate employees .
For reasons that have nothing to do with technology , the management strategies that highlight the advantages of ASP often include the side effect of rigid time and cost constraints .
When the money runs out , development stops .
Some ( but not all ) of these enterprises would be far better off with an army of LAMP rentacoders.It takes real money to develop systems .
If you have lots of it , a reasonably competent project mgr .
can spend his/her way to success .
But if you do n't , the cost of ASP ( including entire Windows environment ) is money that could be redirected to man hours of developer time.The real enemy of LAMP and ASP is not Java , it is Flash .
Foolish people are easily swayed by cute graphics -- even when eye candy is not helping .
I am surprised the PHB in Dilbert has not converted the entire software development team to Flash .
I 'll check again this Sunday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Others have correctly pointed out that rentacoder is not "the industry", nor does it represent enterprise-level development.
Having said that, they take refuge in the popularity of ASP .NET vs PHP, with many declarations about the superiority of MS in the enterprise.
The argument of one vs. the other is sadly lacking in specificity on either side -- perhaps because EITHER can be used to achieve the same result.
Upside potential and risk are pretty much the same.Among the benefits of LAMP are vastly simplified licensing.
When you use LAMP, the BSA never calls.
And you don't get pesky little offers from MS partners to do "SAM" audits.
Even if you have no license problem, who needs the BS?
System uptime is another benefit.
I have worked long enough with both to see a big difference.To me, the benefit of ASP .NET is the commoditization of  developers.
I think it is easier to treat people interchangeably in a world where the architectural choices are narrow.
Some enterprises live in perpetual "risk management" mode, one of the chief risks being sudden departure of key employees.
If there is one place where the MS platform shines, this is it.
The next geek can be inserted almost as readily a replacing a USB mouse.Garbage code is abundant on both platforms.
In the world of LAMP, there is the lower echelon of rentacoder where people try to cobble together systems for pocket change.
The amazing part is not that it works well, but that it works at all.
In the enterprise world, I have seen dreadful apps that are forced upon a captive population of corporate employees.
For reasons that have nothing to do with technology, the management strategies that highlight the advantages of ASP often include the side effect of rigid time and cost constraints.
When the money runs out, development stops.
Some (but not all) of these enterprises would be far better off with an army of LAMP rentacoders.It takes real money to develop systems.
If you have lots of it, a reasonably competent project mgr.
can spend his/her way to success.
But if you don't, the cost of ASP (including entire Windows environment) is money that could be redirected to man hours of developer time.The real enemy of LAMP and ASP is not Java, it is Flash.
Foolish people are easily swayed by cute graphics -- even when eye candy is not helping.
I am surprised the PHB in Dilbert has not converted the entire software development team to Flash.
I'll check again this Sunday.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490920</id>
	<title>Re:I think they made a small mistake.</title>
	<author>KitsuneSoftware</author>
	<datestamp>1261165560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I only used VB in my Computing A-level because the teacher didn't know any other languages.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I only used VB in my Computing A-level because the teacher did n't know any other languages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I only used VB in my Computing A-level because the teacher didn't know any other languages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486462</id>
	<title>No It is Not</title>
	<author>curmudgeon99</author>
	<datestamp>1261148100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On What planet do you live?

Java is clearly the standard when it comes to university computer science. I have heard of hundreds of CS programs that use Java and not one that uses<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET. More MS BS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On What planet do you live ?
Java is clearly the standard when it comes to university computer science .
I have heard of hundreds of CS programs that use Java and not one that uses .NET .
More MS BS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On What planet do you live?
Java is clearly the standard when it comes to university computer science.
I have heard of hundreds of CS programs that use Java and not one that uses .NET.
More MS BS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486656</id>
	<title>Re:Java too complex</title>
	<author>minginqunt</author>
	<datestamp>1261149060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right, of course. Microsoft Research has a number of fellows who are at the very cutting edge of programming language research, including the likes of Simon Peyton Jones (Mr Haskell) and Don Syme.</p><p>And these people have had a direct hand in the evolution of C# (through its type inference, lambdas and LINQ), through F# (which started as a project to port Haskell, and then O'Caml to the CLR), the DLR, Parallel Extensions...</p><p>The level of geekiness that Microsoft encourages at the top end of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is remarkable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , of course .
Microsoft Research has a number of fellows who are at the very cutting edge of programming language research , including the likes of Simon Peyton Jones ( Mr Haskell ) and Don Syme.And these people have had a direct hand in the evolution of C # ( through its type inference , lambdas and LINQ ) , through F # ( which started as a project to port Haskell , and then O'Caml to the CLR ) , the DLR , Parallel Extensions...The level of geekiness that Microsoft encourages at the top end of .NET is remarkable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, of course.
Microsoft Research has a number of fellows who are at the very cutting edge of programming language research, including the likes of Simon Peyton Jones (Mr Haskell) and Don Syme.And these people have had a direct hand in the evolution of C# (through its type inference, lambdas and LINQ), through F# (which started as a project to port Haskell, and then O'Caml to the CLR), the DLR, Parallel Extensions...The level of geekiness that Microsoft encourages at the top end of .NET is remarkable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30492808</id>
	<title>Re:I think they made a small mistake.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261129320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Either a troll or doesn't know what he's talking about.</p><p>For the last time people, VB.Net <i>essentially is C#</i> with minor syntactic differences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Either a troll or does n't know what he 's talking about.For the last time people , VB.Net essentially is C # with minor syntactic differences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either a troll or doesn't know what he's talking about.For the last time people, VB.Net essentially is C# with minor syntactic differences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486870</id>
	<title>Re:Asp.Net is NOT a 'popular' business framework.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261150020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Haha, so rentacoder is the enterprise now?  Don't think so, rent a coder is for people to poor to hire a real developer.  Asp.net MVC &gt; crappy php, they don't even compare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Haha , so rentacoder is the enterprise now ?
Do n't think so , rent a coder is for people to poor to hire a real developer .
Asp.net MVC &gt; crappy php , they do n't even compare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haha, so rentacoder is the enterprise now?
Don't think so, rent a coder is for people to poor to hire a real developer.
Asp.net MVC &gt; crappy php, they don't even compare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486730</id>
	<title>Re:Asp.Net is NOT a 'popular' business framework.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261149480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>alot of opinions with very little backing. from what i've seen of the "industry" is alot of homehacking kids that learn php and haven't really tried anything else. granted, i haven't touched many php-based projects in a while, but the ones i have (phpbb, oscommerce, joomla) is that they are horrible, horrible mess of spaghetti-code. i understand the need for developers that are specialized in these platforms because they are AWFUL to develop for. truly. i dare anyone to claim otherwise.</p><p>my 2 cents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>alot of opinions with very little backing .
from what i 've seen of the " industry " is alot of homehacking kids that learn php and have n't really tried anything else .
granted , i have n't touched many php-based projects in a while , but the ones i have ( phpbb , oscommerce , joomla ) is that they are horrible , horrible mess of spaghetti-code .
i understand the need for developers that are specialized in these platforms because they are AWFUL to develop for .
truly. i dare anyone to claim otherwise.my 2 cents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>alot of opinions with very little backing.
from what i've seen of the "industry" is alot of homehacking kids that learn php and haven't really tried anything else.
granted, i haven't touched many php-based projects in a while, but the ones i have (phpbb, oscommerce, joomla) is that they are horrible, horrible mess of spaghetti-code.
i understand the need for developers that are specialized in these platforms because they are AWFUL to develop for.
truly. i dare anyone to claim otherwise.my 2 cents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30492952</id>
	<title>Re:I think they made a small mistake.</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1261129980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not? Because they'll switch to "real" languages when they become professional programmers? Most will never do that; they'll go into some other line of work and maybe do a little programming on the side or as a minor part of their job. And a lot of software gets written that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not ?
Because they 'll switch to " real " languages when they become professional programmers ?
Most will never do that ; they 'll go into some other line of work and maybe do a little programming on the side or as a minor part of their job .
And a lot of software gets written that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not?
Because they'll switch to "real" languages when they become professional programmers?
Most will never do that; they'll go into some other line of work and maybe do a little programming on the side or as a minor part of their job.
And a lot of software gets written that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487206</id>
	<title>Re:Asp.Net is NOT a 'popular' business framework.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261151760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps your focus is just very narrow. I'm a developer who doesn't specialize, because I'm good enough to do the task right in almost any field/language. I've done a lot of web dev recently, because that's where the jobs/money are. It's been 100\% C#/ASP.NET. These are not huge corporations, mostly, but they use<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET because php is slow and unreliable.</p><p>Maybe php is "assumed" when dealing with the sort of developers that have to "specialize" in Joomla or whatever, but ASP.NET is certainly heavily in use in industry, at all levels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps your focus is just very narrow .
I 'm a developer who does n't specialize , because I 'm good enough to do the task right in almost any field/language .
I 've done a lot of web dev recently , because that 's where the jobs/money are .
It 's been 100 \ % C # /ASP.NET .
These are not huge corporations , mostly , but they use .NET because php is slow and unreliable.Maybe php is " assumed " when dealing with the sort of developers that have to " specialize " in Joomla or whatever , but ASP.NET is certainly heavily in use in industry , at all levels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps your focus is just very narrow.
I'm a developer who doesn't specialize, because I'm good enough to do the task right in almost any field/language.
I've done a lot of web dev recently, because that's where the jobs/money are.
It's been 100\% C#/ASP.NET.
These are not huge corporations, mostly, but they use .NET because php is slow and unreliable.Maybe php is "assumed" when dealing with the sort of developers that have to "specialize" in Joomla or whatever, but ASP.NET is certainly heavily in use in industry, at all levels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489970</id>
	<title>Re:C# first choice? Ummm, no.</title>
	<author>jabelli</author>
	<datestamp>1261162380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Visual Studio isn't "major commercially-available software?" Process Explorer is telling me that "devenv.exe" is a a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Visual Studio is n't " major commercially-available software ?
" Process Explorer is telling me that " devenv.exe " is a a .NET process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Visual Studio isn't "major commercially-available software?
" Process Explorer is telling me that "devenv.exe" is a a .NET process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30491576</id>
	<title>Re:I think they made a small mistake.</title>
	<author>maatthias</author>
	<datestamp>1261168200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>32\% of job vacancies in the UK.  What's that got to do with high school?</htmltext>
<tokenext>32 \ % of job vacancies in the UK .
What 's that got to do with high school ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>32\% of job vacancies in the UK.
What's that got to do with high school?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30491000</id>
	<title>Re:Java too complex</title>
	<author>avatar\_of\_entropy</author>
	<datestamp>1261165800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you mean like the <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/d5x73970.aspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">where clause</a> [microsoft.com]?  It's <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms379564(VS.80).aspx#csharp\_generics\_topic4" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">been around since 2.0</a> [microsoft.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>you mean like the where clause [ microsoft.com ] ?
It 's been around since 2.0 [ microsoft.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you mean like the where clause [microsoft.com]?
It's been around since 2.0 [microsoft.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488500</id>
	<title>Re:I think they made a small mistake.</title>
	<author>molarmass192</author>
	<datestamp>1261157040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html" title="tiobe.com">http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html</a> [tiobe.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html [ tiobe.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html [tiobe.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30485994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489006</id>
	<title>Re:.Not</title>
	<author>Mongoose Disciple</author>
	<datestamp>1261159080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>but I've used both Eclipse and Visual Studio for years, and trialed ReSharper, and Eclipse is still far better. </i></p><p>Without starting a holy war, that's a matter of opinion.</p><p>I just need to spend too much time dicking around with Eclipse and configuring it to be the way I want and not enough time actually getting something useful done.  That's my experience; obviously yours is different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but I 've used both Eclipse and Visual Studio for years , and trialed ReSharper , and Eclipse is still far better .
Without starting a holy war , that 's a matter of opinion.I just need to spend too much time dicking around with Eclipse and configuring it to be the way I want and not enough time actually getting something useful done .
That 's my experience ; obviously yours is different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but I've used both Eclipse and Visual Studio for years, and trialed ReSharper, and Eclipse is still far better.
Without starting a holy war, that's a matter of opinion.I just need to spend too much time dicking around with Eclipse and configuring it to be the way I want and not enough time actually getting something useful done.
That's my experience; obviously yours is different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30498876</id>
	<title>Re:Current Monster Numbers: Java vs .NET</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261242960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could those stats include...JavaScript?</p><p>I have been doing Web development since 1995, and I ran scared the first time I opened a PHP book. One giant step bakcwards for man...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could those stats include...JavaScript ? I have been doing Web development since 1995 , and I ran scared the first time I opened a PHP book .
One giant step bakcwards for man.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could those stats include...JavaScript?I have been doing Web development since 1995, and I ran scared the first time I opened a PHP book.
One giant step bakcwards for man...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487984</id>
	<title>Re:Java too complex</title>
	<author>marcosdumay</author>
	<datestamp>1261155000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Or at least, Java is in the process of losing."</p></div> </blockquote><p>That's a long and tortuous process. Anything can change, any time. Java probably won't escape it, but the winner may be some competitor that isn't even mentioned here.</p><p>Anyway, "Developers, developers, developers!" is the right mindset, MS thrived with it, and is losing mindshare on every aspect that forgot to take it into acount. It is funny too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Or at least , Java is in the process of losing .
" That 's a long and tortuous process .
Anything can change , any time .
Java probably wo n't escape it , but the winner may be some competitor that is n't even mentioned here.Anyway , " Developers , developers , developers !
" is the right mindset , MS thrived with it , and is losing mindshare on every aspect that forgot to take it into acount .
It is funny too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Or at least, Java is in the process of losing.
" That's a long and tortuous process.
Anything can change, any time.
Java probably won't escape it, but the winner may be some competitor that isn't even mentioned here.Anyway, "Developers, developers, developers!
" is the right mindset, MS thrived with it, and is losing mindshare on every aspect that forgot to take it into acount.
It is funny too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489062</id>
	<title>Re:Java too complex</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1261159260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I think people unnecessarily mock Ballmer for "Developers, developers, developers!"</p></div></blockquote><p>People don't mock him for saying "developers, developers, developers" but for the way <em>how</em> he said it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think people unnecessarily mock Ballmer for " Developers , developers , developers !
" People do n't mock him for saying " developers , developers , developers " but for the way how he said it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think people unnecessarily mock Ballmer for "Developers, developers, developers!
"People don't mock him for saying "developers, developers, developers" but for the way how he said it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486596</id>
	<title>Re:Asp.Net is NOT a 'popular' business framework.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261148700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>the projects you will see in contract websites like elance, rentacoder and the like will be predominantly php+mysql</i>
<p>Well of course you will. The projects on those sites are looking for cheap implementation and damn any sort of quality or maintainability. The register didn't look at those sorts of sites, they looked at recruiting sites instead, the ones businesses use. Using the slime pool that is the "Write me a twitter clone for $100" sites to say LAMP is the most popular in businesses is laughable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the projects you will see in contract websites like elance , rentacoder and the like will be predominantly php + mysql Well of course you will .
The projects on those sites are looking for cheap implementation and damn any sort of quality or maintainability .
The register did n't look at those sorts of sites , they looked at recruiting sites instead , the ones businesses use .
Using the slime pool that is the " Write me a twitter clone for $ 100 " sites to say LAMP is the most popular in businesses is laughable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the projects you will see in contract websites like elance, rentacoder and the like will be predominantly php+mysql
Well of course you will.
The projects on those sites are looking for cheap implementation and damn any sort of quality or maintainability.
The register didn't look at those sorts of sites, they looked at recruiting sites instead, the ones businesses use.
Using the slime pool that is the "Write me a twitter clone for $100" sites to say LAMP is the most popular in businesses is laughable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489508</id>
	<title>Re:MS really does care about making devs happy</title>
	<author>MrSteveSD</author>
	<datestamp>1261160940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Visual Basic is a good example, all sorts of geeks liked to hate on VB as being stupid. While they were on to something in that VB wasn't powerful like C/C++, they missed that the reason was that VB was a managed language back before such a thing was popular. It allowed you to easily churn out UIs and things like that with minimal effort and without the need to check for the gotchas you got with something like C. Hence it was quite popular.</p></div><p>
It was very popular. Millions upon millions of lines of code were written in VB. The company I used to work for had invested a lot of money over many years in their VB apps. Then microsoft dumped VB6. We tried upgrading to VB.NET (using various wizards) but it proved virtually impossible. Basically we were screwed. The company that made the language we depended on had totally shafted us. We just didn't have the finances to rewrite everything in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET and at the time I left the company, they still had no real way forward. I suspect similar stories have occurred in small software houses all over the world.
<br>
<br>
This is a real danger when using a proprietary language. If they stop making it, you're screwed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Visual Basic is a good example , all sorts of geeks liked to hate on VB as being stupid .
While they were on to something in that VB was n't powerful like C/C + + , they missed that the reason was that VB was a managed language back before such a thing was popular .
It allowed you to easily churn out UIs and things like that with minimal effort and without the need to check for the gotchas you got with something like C. Hence it was quite popular .
It was very popular .
Millions upon millions of lines of code were written in VB .
The company I used to work for had invested a lot of money over many years in their VB apps .
Then microsoft dumped VB6 .
We tried upgrading to VB.NET ( using various wizards ) but it proved virtually impossible .
Basically we were screwed .
The company that made the language we depended on had totally shafted us .
We just did n't have the finances to rewrite everything in .NET and at the time I left the company , they still had no real way forward .
I suspect similar stories have occurred in small software houses all over the world .
This is a real danger when using a proprietary language .
If they stop making it , you 're screwed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Visual Basic is a good example, all sorts of geeks liked to hate on VB as being stupid.
While they were on to something in that VB wasn't powerful like C/C++, they missed that the reason was that VB was a managed language back before such a thing was popular.
It allowed you to easily churn out UIs and things like that with minimal effort and without the need to check for the gotchas you got with something like C. Hence it was quite popular.
It was very popular.
Millions upon millions of lines of code were written in VB.
The company I used to work for had invested a lot of money over many years in their VB apps.
Then microsoft dumped VB6.
We tried upgrading to VB.NET (using various wizards) but it proved virtually impossible.
Basically we were screwed.
The company that made the language we depended on had totally shafted us.
We just didn't have the finances to rewrite everything in .NET and at the time I left the company, they still had no real way forward.
I suspect similar stories have occurred in small software houses all over the world.
This is a real danger when using a proprietary language.
If they stop making it, you're screwed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486210</id>
	<title>It is not a Java vs .NET world</title>
	<author>rodrix79</author>
	<datestamp>1261147020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the register is oversimplifying here. PHP, Ruby on Rails, Python, Scala... Sure Java is a complicated beast and it has become more and more difficult to sell to new customers, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is not the only one eating Java's pie.
Now, I wonder: how much<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET customers have found out they overpaid for a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET application when they could have done as good with an X language alternative?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the register is oversimplifying here .
PHP , Ruby on Rails , Python , Scala... Sure Java is a complicated beast and it has become more and more difficult to sell to new customers , but .NET is not the only one eating Java 's pie .
Now , I wonder : how much .NET customers have found out they overpaid for a .NET application when they could have done as good with an X language alternative ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the register is oversimplifying here.
PHP, Ruby on Rails, Python, Scala... Sure Java is a complicated beast and it has become more and more difficult to sell to new customers, but .NET is not the only one eating Java's pie.
Now, I wonder: how much .NET customers have found out they overpaid for a .NET application when they could have done as good with an X language alternative?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30496698</id>
	<title>Re:Java too complex</title>
	<author>spongman</author>
	<datestamp>1261160520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>he's probably referring to the likes of <a href="http://channel9.msdn.com/tags/Erik+Meijer/" title="msdn.com">Dr. Eric Meijer</a> [msdn.com] who is a member of the C# language design team. check out his <a href="http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going+Deep/Lecture-Series-Erik-Meijer-Functional-Programming-Fundamentals-Chapter-1/" title="msdn.com">13-part functional programming fundamentals(in haskell) lecture videos</a> [msdn.com], <a href="http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/Charles/Philip-Wadler-and-Erik-Meijer-Perspectives-on-Programming-Language-Theory-and-Practice/" title="msdn.com">his discussion with Philip Wadler</a> [msdn.com] (co-author of my favorite university text-book), and others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>he 's probably referring to the likes of Dr. Eric Meijer [ msdn.com ] who is a member of the C # language design team .
check out his 13-part functional programming fundamentals ( in haskell ) lecture videos [ msdn.com ] , his discussion with Philip Wadler [ msdn.com ] ( co-author of my favorite university text-book ) , and others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he's probably referring to the likes of Dr. Eric Meijer [msdn.com] who is a member of the C# language design team.
check out his 13-part functional programming fundamentals(in haskell) lecture videos [msdn.com], his discussion with Philip Wadler [msdn.com] (co-author of my favorite university text-book), and others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486910</id>
	<title>Re:Java too complex</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1261150200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Java is relatively stagnant but that is also the reason why big buisnesses simply love it, if you want to stay on the edge and keep the platform then use scala or groovy, there you have closures etc...<br>The platform is more healthy than ever and java as language has become the same status as cobol had in the 70s, stagnant but widely used!<br>As for the JCP you know that 90\% of the work the JCP does revolves around the platform not the language?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Java is relatively stagnant but that is also the reason why big buisnesses simply love it , if you want to stay on the edge and keep the platform then use scala or groovy , there you have closures etc...The platform is more healthy than ever and java as language has become the same status as cobol had in the 70s , stagnant but widely used ! As for the JCP you know that 90 \ % of the work the JCP does revolves around the platform not the language ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Java is relatively stagnant but that is also the reason why big buisnesses simply love it, if you want to stay on the edge and keep the platform then use scala or groovy, there you have closures etc...The platform is more healthy than ever and java as language has become the same status as cobol had in the 70s, stagnant but widely used!As for the JCP you know that 90\% of the work the JCP does revolves around the platform not the language?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486536</id>
	<title>Re:Point &amp; Click programming</title>
	<author>tompatman</author>
	<datestamp>1261148460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, you're looking for job security by continuing to use languages where it is difficult to code something up? Good luck with that. If point and click programming does the job well and can be done quickly, why would a manager not want to use that style of programming for their projects? I wonder how much C# programming you've done yourself. It's an excellent language and very readable/maintainable when used by software engineer who pays attention to quality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you 're looking for job security by continuing to use languages where it is difficult to code something up ?
Good luck with that .
If point and click programming does the job well and can be done quickly , why would a manager not want to use that style of programming for their projects ?
I wonder how much C # programming you 've done yourself .
It 's an excellent language and very readable/maintainable when used by software engineer who pays attention to quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you're looking for job security by continuing to use languages where it is difficult to code something up?
Good luck with that.
If point and click programming does the job well and can be done quickly, why would a manager not want to use that style of programming for their projects?
I wonder how much C# programming you've done yourself.
It's an excellent language and very readable/maintainable when used by software engineer who pays attention to quality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489320</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1261160280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There isn't another language that can be compared to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net</p></div></blockquote><p>Of course not.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET isn't a language, but a virtual machine. There are several languages targeting<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, where C# is the best-known, but there's also C++/CLI, VB.net and F# (and possibly others).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is n't another language that can be compared to .netOf course not .
.NET is n't a language , but a virtual machine .
There are several languages targeting .NET , where C # is the best-known , but there 's also C + + /CLI , VB.net and F # ( and possibly others ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There isn't another language that can be compared to .netOf course not.
.NET isn't a language, but a virtual machine.
There are several languages targeting .NET, where C# is the best-known, but there's also C++/CLI, VB.net and F# (and possibly others).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489666</id>
	<title>Re:Well according to Dice.com...</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1261161420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As an aside, Flex has about 268 job opportunities which is roughly equal to 25\% of the number of Microsoft based development jobs.</p></div></blockquote><p>Who had thought there is so much demand for an <a href="http://flex.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net" rel="nofollow">Open Source lexer?</a> [sourceforge.net]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an aside , Flex has about 268 job opportunities which is roughly equal to 25 \ % of the number of Microsoft based development jobs.Who had thought there is so much demand for an Open Source lexer ?
[ sourceforge.net ] : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an aside, Flex has about 268 job opportunities which is roughly equal to 25\% of the number of Microsoft based development jobs.Who had thought there is so much demand for an Open Source lexer?
[sourceforge.net] :-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487936</id>
	<title>Re:Asp.Net is NOT a 'popular' business framework.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261154700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Servers are Linux, specifically CentOS 5.4 based. We don't and will NOT EVER AGAIN go any where near any thing win related for servers or software..</p><p>After 2.5 years with no results from a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net/asp mess there will never be anything from that again.</p><p>The decision has been made that as things are upgraded, Linux will replace win on desktops, and in the server area. NOTHING BUT LINUX based comes in.</p><p>So that means NO vb, no<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net  (WE SPECIFICALLY BAN mono/moonlight bs), no<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.asp.</p><p>To get cross platform programs, that means Java, and thats where we are going.</p><p>I won't even considering any applicants who have ms backgrounds, I simply do not want their bs tainting my staff.</p><p>There were no vista upgrades, there will be no win 7 upgrades.The only upgrades will be to Linux on the desktop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Servers are Linux , specifically CentOS 5.4 based .
We do n't and will NOT EVER AGAIN go any where near any thing win related for servers or software..After 2.5 years with no results from a .net/asp mess there will never be anything from that again.The decision has been made that as things are upgraded , Linux will replace win on desktops , and in the server area .
NOTHING BUT LINUX based comes in.So that means NO vb , no .net ( WE SPECIFICALLY BAN mono/moonlight bs ) , no .asp.To get cross platform programs , that means Java , and thats where we are going.I wo n't even considering any applicants who have ms backgrounds , I simply do not want their bs tainting my staff.There were no vista upgrades , there will be no win 7 upgrades.The only upgrades will be to Linux on the desktop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Servers are Linux, specifically CentOS 5.4 based.
We don't and will NOT EVER AGAIN go any where near any thing win related for servers or software..After 2.5 years with no results from a .net/asp mess there will never be anything from that again.The decision has been made that as things are upgraded, Linux will replace win on desktops, and in the server area.
NOTHING BUT LINUX based comes in.So that means NO vb, no .net  (WE SPECIFICALLY BAN mono/moonlight bs), no .asp.To get cross platform programs, that means Java, and thats where we are going.I won't even considering any applicants who have ms backgrounds, I simply do not want their bs tainting my staff.There were no vista upgrades, there will be no win 7 upgrades.The only upgrades will be to Linux on the desktop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30492062</id>
	<title>Re:Ease of writing doesn't convince me</title>
	<author>elnyka</author>
	<datestamp>1261169820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am not so sure that having <em>properties</em> in C# is a great idea, because their very purpose is to hide that code invocation happens.</p> </div><p>Nope. The very purpose is to simplify code usage. I don't gain anything by saying <tt>o.setName("name")</tt> when I can <i>semantically</i> get the same by saying <tt>o.name = "name"</tt>. It was one of the greatest things that came out of Delphi, and there is a reason why it is the default way to access bean properties in EL/JSTL (firmly a Java technology) as well as in Groovy.</p><p>

Unless that verbosity gets me something (clarity, better semantics) it is just <i>syntactic salt</i> with no associated benefit and certainly with an associated cost. When you start working with a whole bunch of goddam POJOs, you'd wish you'd have properties. I used to be in that camp that worshiped verbosity for the sake of it. Fortunately, first hand work experience in its associated cost helped me grew out of it.</p><p>

I don't gain anything in knowing whether <tt>o.name = "name"</tt> executes code or not. I want that name to be "set". Whether that "set" operation carries additional semantics beyond assignment (.ie. synchronization, reference count or what not), I don't need to know. I don't want to know. Just as I would not want to know the "hidden" internals of calling a method in an object. </p><p>

In fact, YOU WANT TO HIDE THE CODE INVOCATION. In programming, you simplify out of a context the things that you don't need to know. If you have two constructs that, by design-by-contract, carry the same semantics, you opt for the less verbose one. Always.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And I positively dislike the opt-out from declaring which exceptions a method throws. Exception handling is simply too important.</p></div><p>Prove to me that "good" exception handling absolutely requires checked exceptions, and then you might have an argument. In my experience, the worst exception handling mechanisms I've seen have been implemented with checked exceptions. No other language introduces them. </p><p>

Now think about this. The folks implementing Groovy, Scala, C# as well as those that support and extend the C++ standard, these are all people experienced in programming language theory (not counting their industrial experience). And, by what they know, and by their industrial experience, they opt not to implement checked exceptions. Moreover, there are a lot of systems implemented in Java and otherwise that have excellent exception handling without checked exceptions. What should that tell you? Checked exceptions sounded good on paper, but it turned out not to be the case.</p><p>

Exception handling (or design by contract for that matter) does not require checked exceptions. Sorry. Checked exceptions introduce code entanglement at various levels, and Java does not provide a way to abstract them out. The only way to really use checked exceptions in a controlled manner would be if Java provided a mechanism to declare exceptions as checked within a scope (say a package or an architectural layer) or by concentrating them within template patterns (which is basically what I have to do in a project I'm working on.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not so sure that having properties in C # is a great idea , because their very purpose is to hide that code invocation happens .
Nope. The very purpose is to simplify code usage .
I do n't gain anything by saying o.setName ( " name " ) when I can semantically get the same by saying o.name = " name " .
It was one of the greatest things that came out of Delphi , and there is a reason why it is the default way to access bean properties in EL/JSTL ( firmly a Java technology ) as well as in Groovy .
Unless that verbosity gets me something ( clarity , better semantics ) it is just syntactic salt with no associated benefit and certainly with an associated cost .
When you start working with a whole bunch of goddam POJOs , you 'd wish you 'd have properties .
I used to be in that camp that worshiped verbosity for the sake of it .
Fortunately , first hand work experience in its associated cost helped me grew out of it .
I do n't gain anything in knowing whether o.name = " name " executes code or not .
I want that name to be " set " .
Whether that " set " operation carries additional semantics beyond assignment ( .ie .
synchronization , reference count or what not ) , I do n't need to know .
I do n't want to know .
Just as I would not want to know the " hidden " internals of calling a method in an object .
In fact , YOU WANT TO HIDE THE CODE INVOCATION .
In programming , you simplify out of a context the things that you do n't need to know .
If you have two constructs that , by design-by-contract , carry the same semantics , you opt for the less verbose one .
Always.And I positively dislike the opt-out from declaring which exceptions a method throws .
Exception handling is simply too important.Prove to me that " good " exception handling absolutely requires checked exceptions , and then you might have an argument .
In my experience , the worst exception handling mechanisms I 've seen have been implemented with checked exceptions .
No other language introduces them .
Now think about this .
The folks implementing Groovy , Scala , C # as well as those that support and extend the C + + standard , these are all people experienced in programming language theory ( not counting their industrial experience ) .
And , by what they know , and by their industrial experience , they opt not to implement checked exceptions .
Moreover , there are a lot of systems implemented in Java and otherwise that have excellent exception handling without checked exceptions .
What should that tell you ?
Checked exceptions sounded good on paper , but it turned out not to be the case .
Exception handling ( or design by contract for that matter ) does not require checked exceptions .
Sorry. Checked exceptions introduce code entanglement at various levels , and Java does not provide a way to abstract them out .
The only way to really use checked exceptions in a controlled manner would be if Java provided a mechanism to declare exceptions as checked within a scope ( say a package or an architectural layer ) or by concentrating them within template patterns ( which is basically what I have to do in a project I 'm working on .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not so sure that having properties in C# is a great idea, because their very purpose is to hide that code invocation happens.
Nope. The very purpose is to simplify code usage.
I don't gain anything by saying o.setName("name") when I can semantically get the same by saying o.name = "name".
It was one of the greatest things that came out of Delphi, and there is a reason why it is the default way to access bean properties in EL/JSTL (firmly a Java technology) as well as in Groovy.
Unless that verbosity gets me something (clarity, better semantics) it is just syntactic salt with no associated benefit and certainly with an associated cost.
When you start working with a whole bunch of goddam POJOs, you'd wish you'd have properties.
I used to be in that camp that worshiped verbosity for the sake of it.
Fortunately, first hand work experience in its associated cost helped me grew out of it.
I don't gain anything in knowing whether o.name = "name" executes code or not.
I want that name to be "set".
Whether that "set" operation carries additional semantics beyond assignment (.ie.
synchronization, reference count or what not), I don't need to know.
I don't want to know.
Just as I would not want to know the "hidden" internals of calling a method in an object.
In fact, YOU WANT TO HIDE THE CODE INVOCATION.
In programming, you simplify out of a context the things that you don't need to know.
If you have two constructs that, by design-by-contract, carry the same semantics, you opt for the less verbose one.
Always.And I positively dislike the opt-out from declaring which exceptions a method throws.
Exception handling is simply too important.Prove to me that "good" exception handling absolutely requires checked exceptions, and then you might have an argument.
In my experience, the worst exception handling mechanisms I've seen have been implemented with checked exceptions.
No other language introduces them.
Now think about this.
The folks implementing Groovy, Scala, C# as well as those that support and extend the C++ standard, these are all people experienced in programming language theory (not counting their industrial experience).
And, by what they know, and by their industrial experience, they opt not to implement checked exceptions.
Moreover, there are a lot of systems implemented in Java and otherwise that have excellent exception handling without checked exceptions.
What should that tell you?
Checked exceptions sounded good on paper, but it turned out not to be the case.
Exception handling (or design by contract for that matter) does not require checked exceptions.
Sorry. Checked exceptions introduce code entanglement at various levels, and Java does not provide a way to abstract them out.
The only way to really use checked exceptions in a controlled manner would be if Java provided a mechanism to declare exceptions as checked within a scope (say a package or an architectural layer) or by concentrating them within template patterns (which is basically what I have to do in a project I'm working on.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486352</id>
	<title>Re:Java too complex</title>
	<author>IBBoard</author>
	<datestamp>1261147680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing I've noticed with generics as a "Java-by-profession, C#-by-hobby" developer is that I prefer many parts of the Java implementation. Having access to the generic parameter type in C# is useful, but it is far more likely that I need the "PARAM\_TYPE extends SomeClassOrInterface" method rather than C#'s fixed generic parameters (at least in C# 2.0, which is what I target since Mono has good support and it isn't too huge a download for WinXP users if they don't have it).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing I 've noticed with generics as a " Java-by-profession , C # -by-hobby " developer is that I prefer many parts of the Java implementation .
Having access to the generic parameter type in C # is useful , but it is far more likely that I need the " PARAM \ _TYPE extends SomeClassOrInterface " method rather than C # 's fixed generic parameters ( at least in C # 2.0 , which is what I target since Mono has good support and it is n't too huge a download for WinXP users if they do n't have it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing I've noticed with generics as a "Java-by-profession, C#-by-hobby" developer is that I prefer many parts of the Java implementation.
Having access to the generic parameter type in C# is useful, but it is far more likely that I need the "PARAM\_TYPE extends SomeClassOrInterface" method rather than C#'s fixed generic parameters (at least in C# 2.0, which is what I target since Mono has good support and it isn't too huge a download for WinXP users if they don't have it).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487778</id>
	<title>yea. laughable.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1261154220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and all the projects which are contracted out in those sites are made up of 'give me a twitter clone for $100'.</p><p>excuse me, but if you are going to retort about something, go learn about it first. the minimum budget of ANYthing on elance can be $50, leave aside a twitter clone for $100. and most often than not, in such postings like the one you mentioned, the budget in the end comes up being readjusted to become more realistic, if there isnt anyone who already has a premade script that fully or approximately satisfies the client's demands for an acceptable budget.</p><p>next time you are going to shit online about something you dont know well, dont. you are making yourself look ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and all the projects which are contracted out in those sites are made up of 'give me a twitter clone for $ 100'.excuse me , but if you are going to retort about something , go learn about it first .
the minimum budget of ANYthing on elance can be $ 50 , leave aside a twitter clone for $ 100 .
and most often than not , in such postings like the one you mentioned , the budget in the end comes up being readjusted to become more realistic , if there isnt anyone who already has a premade script that fully or approximately satisfies the client 's demands for an acceptable budget.next time you are going to shit online about something you dont know well , dont .
you are making yourself look ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and all the projects which are contracted out in those sites are made up of 'give me a twitter clone for $100'.excuse me, but if you are going to retort about something, go learn about it first.
the minimum budget of ANYthing on elance can be $50, leave aside a twitter clone for $100.
and most often than not, in such postings like the one you mentioned, the budget in the end comes up being readjusted to become more realistic, if there isnt anyone who already has a premade script that fully or approximately satisfies the client's demands for an acceptable budget.next time you are going to shit online about something you dont know well, dont.
you are making yourself look ridiculous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30492756</id>
	<title>Re:I think they made a small mistake.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261129140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then we shouldn't count all the high school students using Java, either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then we should n't count all the high school students using Java , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then we shouldn't count all the high school students using Java, either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30492276</id>
	<title>Re:.net is great for programmers but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261127340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, this is too true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , this is too true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, this is too true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30485994</id>
	<title>I think they made a small mistake.</title>
	<author>Burnhard</author>
	<datestamp>1261145820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article says that demand for c# is around 32\%, but it should also add in the demand for vb.net, which is less but should be added to the total, as it is in use.  In my view, the language features, excellent development environment and comprehensive libraries make<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET a win for most LOB applications - which is the vast majority of all PC applications in use at the moment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article says that demand for c # is around 32 \ % , but it should also add in the demand for vb.net , which is less but should be added to the total , as it is in use .
In my view , the language features , excellent development environment and comprehensive libraries make .NET a win for most LOB applications - which is the vast majority of all PC applications in use at the moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article says that demand for c# is around 32\%, but it should also add in the demand for vb.net, which is less but should be added to the total, as it is in use.
In my view, the language features, excellent development environment and comprehensive libraries make .NET a win for most LOB applications - which is the vast majority of all PC applications in use at the moment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486852</id>
	<title>Re:I think they made a small mistake.</title>
	<author>Saint Gerbil</author>
	<datestamp>1261149960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the same source as the article it adds 7-8\% which is down from a few years ago with a high of 10\%</p><p><a href="http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/jobs/uk/vb.net.do" title="itjobswatch.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/jobs/uk/vb.net.do</a> [itjobswatch.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the same source as the article it adds 7-8 \ % which is down from a few years ago with a high of 10 \ % http : //www.itjobswatch.co.uk/jobs/uk/vb.net.do [ itjobswatch.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the same source as the article it adds 7-8\% which is down from a few years ago with a high of 10\%http://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/jobs/uk/vb.net.do [itjobswatch.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30485994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487718</id>
	<title>Don't use it</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1261153980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And avoid any program which requires<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net - its dot bloat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And avoid any program which requires .net - its dot bloat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And avoid any program which requires .net - its dot bloat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30503196</id>
	<title>Not quite...</title>
	<author>dudeeh</author>
	<datestamp>1261312620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Though I must agree with some previous posters that java has not really progressed much lately feature-wise, but it is most definatly the corporate standard, at least around these parts (europe). I work in the EAI sector which uses both plain java EE and platforms built on java to integrate a number of systems. Our company works with a lot of suites built on java and only one built on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net... which is microsoft's own suite of course. I even see entire microsoft shops opting for java-based technologies instead of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net.</p><p>Java still dominates the industry by far and I don't think this is likely to change. And though java may have stagnated a bit feature wise, there are (much like in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net world) other languages filling in the gaps. Scala and their ilk can offer features that java does not have, and still run side by side on the jvm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Though I must agree with some previous posters that java has not really progressed much lately feature-wise , but it is most definatly the corporate standard , at least around these parts ( europe ) .
I work in the EAI sector which uses both plain java EE and platforms built on java to integrate a number of systems .
Our company works with a lot of suites built on java and only one built on .net... which is microsoft 's own suite of course .
I even see entire microsoft shops opting for java-based technologies instead of .net.Java still dominates the industry by far and I do n't think this is likely to change .
And though java may have stagnated a bit feature wise , there are ( much like in the .net world ) other languages filling in the gaps .
Scala and their ilk can offer features that java does not have , and still run side by side on the jvm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though I must agree with some previous posters that java has not really progressed much lately feature-wise, but it is most definatly the corporate standard, at least around these parts (europe).
I work in the EAI sector which uses both plain java EE and platforms built on java to integrate a number of systems.
Our company works with a lot of suites built on java and only one built on .net... which is microsoft's own suite of course.
I even see entire microsoft shops opting for java-based technologies instead of .net.Java still dominates the industry by far and I don't think this is likely to change.
And though java may have stagnated a bit feature wise, there are (much like in the .net world) other languages filling in the gaps.
Scala and their ilk can offer features that java does not have, and still run side by side on the jvm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30485938</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>smooth wombat</author>
	<datestamp>1261145460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Next question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Next question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next question.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490600</id>
	<title>Re:Current Monster Numbers: Java vs .NET</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1261164360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Curiously enough, U.S. is not the most<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET-friendly market.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET seems to be somewhat more popular in Canada, <em>very</em> popular in Australia in NZ, and also India and China. Europe likes Java and PHP. Russia still clings to Delphi.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Curiously enough , U.S. is not the most .NET-friendly market .
.NET seems to be somewhat more popular in Canada , very popular in Australia in NZ , and also India and China .
Europe likes Java and PHP .
Russia still clings to Delphi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Curiously enough, U.S. is not the most .NET-friendly market.
.NET seems to be somewhat more popular in Canada, very popular in Australia in NZ, and also India and China.
Europe likes Java and PHP.
Russia still clings to Delphi.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486952</id>
	<title>Ease of writing doesn't convince me</title>
	<author>Mutatis Mutandis</author>
	<datestamp>1261150500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not convinced that it is such a bad thing that Java-the-language is 'stagnated'. As language, Java was designed from the start to eliminate features that were, in the parlance of the day, "Considered Harmful". So yes, it was and is a bit restrictive. C# has a richer syntax, including "goto"... The richer syntax can be a plus because it often saves time in coding.</p><p>But creating code is what, 20\% of the lifetime cost of a software package? And meanwhile C# provides the less disciplined programmer with plenty of opportunities to create write-only code. Never mind lambdas and closures --- I am not so sure that having <em>properties</em> in C# is a great idea, because their very purpose is to hide that code invocation happens. And I positively dislike the opt-out from declaring which exceptions a method throws. Exception handling is simply too important.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not convinced that it is such a bad thing that Java-the-language is 'stagnated' .
As language , Java was designed from the start to eliminate features that were , in the parlance of the day , " Considered Harmful " .
So yes , it was and is a bit restrictive .
C # has a richer syntax , including " goto " ... The richer syntax can be a plus because it often saves time in coding.But creating code is what , 20 \ % of the lifetime cost of a software package ?
And meanwhile C # provides the less disciplined programmer with plenty of opportunities to create write-only code .
Never mind lambdas and closures --- I am not so sure that having properties in C # is a great idea , because their very purpose is to hide that code invocation happens .
And I positively dislike the opt-out from declaring which exceptions a method throws .
Exception handling is simply too important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not convinced that it is such a bad thing that Java-the-language is 'stagnated'.
As language, Java was designed from the start to eliminate features that were, in the parlance of the day, "Considered Harmful".
So yes, it was and is a bit restrictive.
C# has a richer syntax, including "goto"... The richer syntax can be a plus because it often saves time in coding.But creating code is what, 20\% of the lifetime cost of a software package?
And meanwhile C# provides the less disciplined programmer with plenty of opportunities to create write-only code.
Never mind lambdas and closures --- I am not so sure that having properties in C# is a great idea, because their very purpose is to hide that code invocation happens.
And I positively dislike the opt-out from declaring which exceptions a method throws.
Exception handling is simply too important.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488644</id>
	<title>Re:Java too complex</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261157640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's wrong with "where PARAM\_TYPE : SomeClassOrInterface" ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's wrong with " where PARAM \ _TYPE : SomeClassOrInterface " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's wrong with "where PARAM\_TYPE : SomeClassOrInterface" ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489780</id>
	<title>Re:MS really does care about making devs happy</title>
	<author>Capt\_Morgan</author>
	<datestamp>1261161720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That sounds like a great idea... making a language that can be used by less skilled developers that allows for quicker development

Of course the flip side of this is the poor code that is produced and often terrible performance of applications.... not to mention high support costs

Almost all of my customers use Java for their "real" / "heavy" applications...... of course the fact that most smart orgs use linux or unix to host their "real" apps plays a part in this</htmltext>
<tokenext>That sounds like a great idea... making a language that can be used by less skilled developers that allows for quicker development Of course the flip side of this is the poor code that is produced and often terrible performance of applications.... not to mention high support costs Almost all of my customers use Java for their " real " / " heavy " applications...... of course the fact that most smart orgs use linux or unix to host their " real " apps plays a part in this</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That sounds like a great idea... making a language that can be used by less skilled developers that allows for quicker development

Of course the flip side of this is the poor code that is produced and often terrible performance of applications.... not to mention high support costs

Almost all of my customers use Java for their "real" / "heavy" applications...... of course the fact that most smart orgs use linux or unix to host their "real" apps plays a part in this</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490284</id>
	<title>can we end this Java vs. C# thing?</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1261163340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look, both languages will be around for a long time.
<br>
<br>
Java == geared for maintainable/long term functionality (code that can be <i>refactored</i>)
<br>
<br>
C# == geared for short lived, variable customer-changing functionality (code that can be <i>reengineered</i>).
<br>
<br>
nuff said.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , both languages will be around for a long time .
Java = = geared for maintainable/long term functionality ( code that can be refactored ) C # = = geared for short lived , variable customer-changing functionality ( code that can be reengineered ) .
nuff said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, both languages will be around for a long time.
Java == geared for maintainable/long term functionality (code that can be refactored)


C# == geared for short lived, variable customer-changing functionality (code that can be reengineered).
nuff said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30497770</id>
	<title>Re:Current Monster Numbers: Java vs .NET</title>
	<author>ljw1004</author>
	<datestamp>1261226100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From monster.com, searching for the past 7 days:</p><p>C# + Visual Basic: 915+556 = 1471<br>Java: 1565</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From monster.com , searching for the past 7 days : C # + Visual Basic : 915 + 556 = 1471Java : 1565</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From monster.com, searching for the past 7 days:C# + Visual Basic: 915+556 = 1471Java: 1565</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490350</id>
	<title>Re:"mentioned"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261163520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I'm looking for a blowjob, I don't want to wait around for days.  That's why I run perl and ruby on my python.  What I want (a blowjob) when I want it (now).</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I 'm looking for a blowjob , I do n't want to wait around for days .
That 's why I run perl and ruby on my python .
What I want ( a blowjob ) when I want it ( now ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I'm looking for a blowjob, I don't want to wait around for days.
That's why I run perl and ruby on my python.
What I want (a blowjob) when I want it (now).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486298</id>
	<title>Re:Java too complex</title>
	<author>Anpheus</author>
	<datestamp>1261147440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Moreover, Microsoft seems to earnestly care about putting the geekiest of the geeks in charge of their language development. They have quite a few functional programmers who have a significant say in the future of languages like F#, and continue to produce great libraries for the CLR.</p><p>And now of course, IronPython is a dream scripting language that's incredibly easy to host and entirely open source to boot.</p><p>I think people unnecessarily mock Ballmer for "Developers, developers, developers!" He was right. It worked, and Java lost, despite having done so many things right first, and having nailed cross-platform application and service design. Or at least, Java is in the process of losing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Moreover , Microsoft seems to earnestly care about putting the geekiest of the geeks in charge of their language development .
They have quite a few functional programmers who have a significant say in the future of languages like F # , and continue to produce great libraries for the CLR.And now of course , IronPython is a dream scripting language that 's incredibly easy to host and entirely open source to boot.I think people unnecessarily mock Ballmer for " Developers , developers , developers !
" He was right .
It worked , and Java lost , despite having done so many things right first , and having nailed cross-platform application and service design .
Or at least , Java is in the process of losing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moreover, Microsoft seems to earnestly care about putting the geekiest of the geeks in charge of their language development.
They have quite a few functional programmers who have a significant say in the future of languages like F#, and continue to produce great libraries for the CLR.And now of course, IronPython is a dream scripting language that's incredibly easy to host and entirely open source to boot.I think people unnecessarily mock Ballmer for "Developers, developers, developers!
" He was right.
It worked, and Java lost, despite having done so many things right first, and having nailed cross-platform application and service design.
Or at least, Java is in the process of losing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30497054</id>
	<title>Re:Java too complex</title>
	<author>Taevin</author>
	<datestamp>1261165440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you think C# is 'better' than Java then you are a shitty programmer. Neither one of them has anything that really is impressive over the other, outside of the IDE itself. Stop blaming the language, its not the problem. Its possible for a language to make certain things a little easier, but once you reach a certain point the additions to a language are of trivial advantage to a good programmer. They may help out less experienced or talented developers who can't figure out how to do the same thing without a special language construct for it, but for the experienced they end up the same.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Bullshit. If you think that "fully reified generics, lambdas and closures, arbitrary monadic comprehensions and Hindley-Milner type inference" has not added some impressive usability and expressiveness to the language, then it is <i>you</i> who is either the shitty programmer or one who does nothing more complex than some widgets that move data in and out of a database with a raw SQL call.
<br> <br>
It's not always about providing a language construct to solve a problem for untalented developers. Can you not see how something like "var minors = people.Where(p =&gt; p.Age &lt; 18);" is much more expressive than the alternatives? By your logic, I would write something like that because I'm too stupid to write:
<br>
function getMinors(List&lt;Person&gt; people) {<br>
List&lt;Person&gt; minors = new List&lt;Person&gt;();<br>
for (int i = 0; i &lt; people.Count; i++) {<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// foreach is stupid<br>
    if (people[i].Age &lt; 18) minors.Add(people[i]);<br>
}<br>
return minors;<br>
}<br>

Or worse, just inline it. A quick anonymous function provided by the lambda in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Where() is <i>much</i> more concise and can be very quickly implemented and is immediately 100\% clear to all those reading it. If you think maintainability is not of critical importance... I'll refer you to my previous comment about programmers and the complexity of programs they write. And that's the most trivial use of a lambda function.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think C # is 'better ' than Java then you are a shitty programmer .
Neither one of them has anything that really is impressive over the other , outside of the IDE itself .
Stop blaming the language , its not the problem .
Its possible for a language to make certain things a little easier , but once you reach a certain point the additions to a language are of trivial advantage to a good programmer .
They may help out less experienced or talented developers who ca n't figure out how to do the same thing without a special language construct for it , but for the experienced they end up the same .
Bullshit. If you think that " fully reified generics , lambdas and closures , arbitrary monadic comprehensions and Hindley-Milner type inference " has not added some impressive usability and expressiveness to the language , then it is you who is either the shitty programmer or one who does nothing more complex than some widgets that move data in and out of a database with a raw SQL call .
It 's not always about providing a language construct to solve a problem for untalented developers .
Can you not see how something like " var minors = people.Where ( p = &gt; p.Age function getMinors ( List people ) { List minors = new List ( ) ; for ( int i = 0 ; i // foreach is stupid if ( people [ i ] .Age } return minors ; } Or worse , just inline it .
A quick anonymous function provided by the lambda in the .Where ( ) is much more concise and can be very quickly implemented and is immediately 100 \ % clear to all those reading it .
If you think maintainability is not of critical importance... I 'll refer you to my previous comment about programmers and the complexity of programs they write .
And that 's the most trivial use of a lambda function .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think C# is 'better' than Java then you are a shitty programmer.
Neither one of them has anything that really is impressive over the other, outside of the IDE itself.
Stop blaming the language, its not the problem.
Its possible for a language to make certain things a little easier, but once you reach a certain point the additions to a language are of trivial advantage to a good programmer.
They may help out less experienced or talented developers who can't figure out how to do the same thing without a special language construct for it, but for the experienced they end up the same.
Bullshit. If you think that "fully reified generics, lambdas and closures, arbitrary monadic comprehensions and Hindley-Milner type inference" has not added some impressive usability and expressiveness to the language, then it is you who is either the shitty programmer or one who does nothing more complex than some widgets that move data in and out of a database with a raw SQL call.
It's not always about providing a language construct to solve a problem for untalented developers.
Can you not see how something like "var minors = people.Where(p =&gt; p.Age 
function getMinors(List people) {
List minors = new List();
for (int i = 0; i  // foreach is stupid
    if (people[i].Age 
}
return minors;
}

Or worse, just inline it.
A quick anonymous function provided by the lambda in the .Where() is much more concise and can be very quickly implemented and is immediately 100\% clear to all those reading it.
If you think maintainability is not of critical importance... I'll refer you to my previous comment about programmers and the complexity of programs they write.
And that's the most trivial use of a lambda function.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30495208</id>
	<title>Re:.Not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261142460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>unfortunately it appears to be non-trivial to run all this software back on windows, i'd love to try f-spot, banshee and a couple of other apps that i use in gnome, under windows, alas, no one's built these apps for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET proper yet, there must be a reason.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is, by design, tied to windows, mono will always be behind and microsoft do not maintain a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net runtime for any platform other than their own, even a simple winforms app like paint.net isn't quite there yet when it comes to running under mono on linux or similar. The thing is, no one cares,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is the future for all those win-coders out there and portability doesn't matter one jot, and microsoft wouldn't want it any other way, obviously(not a criticism per se, they just want to stay in the powerful market position they've enjoyed for years)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>unfortunately it appears to be non-trivial to run all this software back on windows , i 'd love to try f-spot , banshee and a couple of other apps that i use in gnome , under windows , alas , no one 's built these apps for .NET proper yet , there must be a reason .
.NET is , by design , tied to windows , mono will always be behind and microsoft do not maintain a .net runtime for any platform other than their own , even a simple winforms app like paint.net is n't quite there yet when it comes to running under mono on linux or similar .
The thing is , no one cares , .NET is the future for all those win-coders out there and portability does n't matter one jot , and microsoft would n't want it any other way , obviously ( not a criticism per se , they just want to stay in the powerful market position they 've enjoyed for years )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>unfortunately it appears to be non-trivial to run all this software back on windows, i'd love to try f-spot, banshee and a couple of other apps that i use in gnome, under windows, alas, no one's built these apps for .NET proper yet, there must be a reason.
.NET is, by design, tied to windows, mono will always be behind and microsoft do not maintain a .net runtime for any platform other than their own, even a simple winforms app like paint.net isn't quite there yet when it comes to running under mono on linux or similar.
The thing is, no one cares, .NET is the future for all those win-coders out there and portability doesn't matter one jot, and microsoft wouldn't want it any other way, obviously(not a criticism per se, they just want to stay in the powerful market position they've enjoyed for years)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486986</id>
	<title>Re:Java too complex</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1261150740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But you must agree, that java is still going very strong and even is dominant in some sectors.</p><p>I agree with the language stagnating. But I don&rsquo;t care much, since I see it as fundamentally wrong to graft functional programming concepts on an OO / procedural language. It can only end in a Windows-ME-like mess of an inverse pyramid.</p><p>For those reasons, and because it just fits my model of thought, I started to move to Haskell. And boy did I not regret it.<br>Like Gentoo moved me from &ldquo;just a user&rdquo; to someone that can solve *any* problem with the OS and being a real power user, Haskell moved me from being &ldquo;just a programmer&rdquo;, to being on the forefront of computer science and programming language theory.<br>I now can write elegant functional programming in any language. Even PHP. It&rsquo;s true, that the language does not matter that much, if you&rsquo;re past a certain point.<br>(Funnily, Haskell also can work as a language for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, and there are many Microsoft people active in its community.)</p><p>I think, in the long run, I will stop writing Java too, and never start with C#. (I loathe the ugliness of C-like languages anyway.)<br>If only GHC (the coolest compiler/debugger I have ever seen) would support mobile phone development...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But you must agree , that java is still going very strong and even is dominant in some sectors.I agree with the language stagnating .
But I don    t care much , since I see it as fundamentally wrong to graft functional programming concepts on an OO / procedural language .
It can only end in a Windows-ME-like mess of an inverse pyramid.For those reasons , and because it just fits my model of thought , I started to move to Haskell .
And boy did I not regret it.Like Gentoo moved me from    just a user    to someone that can solve * any * problem with the OS and being a real power user , Haskell moved me from being    just a programmer    , to being on the forefront of computer science and programming language theory.I now can write elegant functional programming in any language .
Even PHP .
It    s true , that the language does not matter that much , if you    re past a certain point .
( Funnily , Haskell also can work as a language for .NET , and there are many Microsoft people active in its community .
) I think , in the long run , I will stop writing Java too , and never start with C # .
( I loathe the ugliness of C-like languages anyway .
) If only GHC ( the coolest compiler/debugger I have ever seen ) would support mobile phone development.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you must agree, that java is still going very strong and even is dominant in some sectors.I agree with the language stagnating.
But I don’t care much, since I see it as fundamentally wrong to graft functional programming concepts on an OO / procedural language.
It can only end in a Windows-ME-like mess of an inverse pyramid.For those reasons, and because it just fits my model of thought, I started to move to Haskell.
And boy did I not regret it.Like Gentoo moved me from “just a user” to someone that can solve *any* problem with the OS and being a real power user, Haskell moved me from being “just a programmer”, to being on the forefront of computer science and programming language theory.I now can write elegant functional programming in any language.
Even PHP.
It’s true, that the language does not matter that much, if you’re past a certain point.
(Funnily, Haskell also can work as a language for .NET, and there are many Microsoft people active in its community.
)I think, in the long run, I will stop writing Java too, and never start with C#.
(I loathe the ugliness of C-like languages anyway.
)If only GHC (the coolest compiler/debugger I have ever seen) would support mobile phone development...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486882</id>
	<title>Re:Asp.Net is NOT a 'popular' business framework.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261150080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wow you seem to have no grasp on true corporate development.</p><p>but it's cute to watch you try.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wow you seem to have no grasp on true corporate development.but it 's cute to watch you try .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wow you seem to have no grasp on true corporate development.but it's cute to watch you try.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489234</id>
	<title>Re:"mentioned"</title>
	<author>dunkelfalke</author>
	<datestamp>1261159920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Beware, I know both Delphi and C#<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-p</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Beware , I know both Delphi and C # : -p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Beware, I know both Delphi and C# :-p</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486334</id>
	<title>Java Is Victorious</title>
	<author>curmudgeon99</author>
	<datestamp>1261147620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What planet do these guys live on?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET and C# are being destroyed in the market. Go to Monster.com or Dice.com and do a search on Java/J2EE/JEE versus<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET/C#.

Java has won and the complexity of the platform is merely a sign of its maturity. Also, no shop uses everything--they use what they want and build their own stack. That's not something that's possible in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET world where, to paraphrase Henry Ford, you can have any color as long as it's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET/C#. They define the stack, not you.

I gave up on Microsoft technologies in 1998 and have never spent another dime on any MS products since. I marvel that people still do, given he torrent of trojans/viruses and other malware that plague the platform.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What planet do these guys live on ?
.NET and C # are being destroyed in the market .
Go to Monster.com or Dice.com and do a search on Java/J2EE/JEE versus .NET/C # .
Java has won and the complexity of the platform is merely a sign of its maturity .
Also , no shop uses everything--they use what they want and build their own stack .
That 's not something that 's possible in the .NET world where , to paraphrase Henry Ford , you can have any color as long as it 's .NET/C # .
They define the stack , not you .
I gave up on Microsoft technologies in 1998 and have never spent another dime on any MS products since .
I marvel that people still do , given he torrent of trojans/viruses and other malware that plague the platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What planet do these guys live on?
.NET and C# are being destroyed in the market.
Go to Monster.com or Dice.com and do a search on Java/J2EE/JEE versus .NET/C#.
Java has won and the complexity of the platform is merely a sign of its maturity.
Also, no shop uses everything--they use what they want and build their own stack.
That's not something that's possible in the .NET world where, to paraphrase Henry Ford, you can have any color as long as it's .NET/C#.
They define the stack, not you.
I gave up on Microsoft technologies in 1998 and have never spent another dime on any MS products since.
I marvel that people still do, given he torrent of trojans/viruses and other malware that plague the platform.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486134</id>
	<title>I love .Net for the desktop</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261146600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But it has always seemed to me that shipping a commercial closed source product based on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net is a huge challenge to ensure that it remains closed source.  What do people do?  Do they simply rely on one of the many obsfucation products out there?</p><p>At least in the good old days you could guarantee that disassembling your binary didn't give someone your C code without a bucket load more work</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it has always seemed to me that shipping a commercial closed source product based on .Net is a huge challenge to ensure that it remains closed source .
What do people do ?
Do they simply rely on one of the many obsfucation products out there ? At least in the good old days you could guarantee that disassembling your binary did n't give someone your C code without a bucket load more work</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it has always seemed to me that shipping a commercial closed source product based on .Net is a huge challenge to ensure that it remains closed source.
What do people do?
Do they simply rely on one of the many obsfucation products out there?At least in the good old days you could guarantee that disassembling your binary didn't give someone your C code without a bucket load more work</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486320</id>
	<title>Goods and Bads</title>
	<author>dcray2000</author>
	<datestamp>1261147560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>We use both heavily in our enterprise.  I tend to lean toward Java because of the wide spread use across platforms.  But I agree that the underlying framework of Java is ridiculously complex.  We spend a huge amount of time dealing with the JRE rather than writing and supporting actual code.<br> <br>On the other hand,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net, visual studio, MSSQL, AD, and IIS are a seriously tight integrated platform.  I've seen even our most junior devs author amazing sites using the pure Microsoft tools.<br> <br>Overall, I'd say I'm on the fence.  I wish Sun would remove head from ass and get the JRE to a better versioning system that allows old apps to keep running along with new apps, similar to the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net framework methodology.  If they could pull that off Java would really start to storm our environments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We use both heavily in our enterprise .
I tend to lean toward Java because of the wide spread use across platforms .
But I agree that the underlying framework of Java is ridiculously complex .
We spend a huge amount of time dealing with the JRE rather than writing and supporting actual code .
On the other hand , .net , visual studio , MSSQL , AD , and IIS are a seriously tight integrated platform .
I 've seen even our most junior devs author amazing sites using the pure Microsoft tools .
Overall , I 'd say I 'm on the fence .
I wish Sun would remove head from ass and get the JRE to a better versioning system that allows old apps to keep running along with new apps , similar to the .net framework methodology .
If they could pull that off Java would really start to storm our environments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We use both heavily in our enterprise.
I tend to lean toward Java because of the wide spread use across platforms.
But I agree that the underlying framework of Java is ridiculously complex.
We spend a huge amount of time dealing with the JRE rather than writing and supporting actual code.
On the other hand, .net, visual studio, MSSQL, AD, and IIS are a seriously tight integrated platform.
I've seen even our most junior devs author amazing sites using the pure Microsoft tools.
Overall, I'd say I'm on the fence.
I wish Sun would remove head from ass and get the JRE to a better versioning system that allows old apps to keep running along with new apps, similar to the .net framework methodology.
If they could pull that off Java would really start to storm our environments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486676</id>
	<title>Re:Point &amp; Click programming</title>
	<author>Mr2001</author>
	<datestamp>1261149180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You realize the "point and click" stuff is for laying out dialog boxes, right?</p><p>Writing boilerplate code to lay out controls and handle window messages wasn't some noble art that's been lost. It was low level tedium that distracted from real programming. I remember opening Petzold's Windows programming book and being horrified that the code for "Hello World" spanned several pages.</p><p>I don't know about your wages, but I get paid a fair amount for my time to write C#, and that time is a lot more productive and enjoyable thanks to such things as IDEs and component libraries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You realize the " point and click " stuff is for laying out dialog boxes , right ? Writing boilerplate code to lay out controls and handle window messages was n't some noble art that 's been lost .
It was low level tedium that distracted from real programming .
I remember opening Petzold 's Windows programming book and being horrified that the code for " Hello World " spanned several pages.I do n't know about your wages , but I get paid a fair amount for my time to write C # , and that time is a lot more productive and enjoyable thanks to such things as IDEs and component libraries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You realize the "point and click" stuff is for laying out dialog boxes, right?Writing boilerplate code to lay out controls and handle window messages wasn't some noble art that's been lost.
It was low level tedium that distracted from real programming.
I remember opening Petzold's Windows programming book and being horrified that the code for "Hello World" spanned several pages.I don't know about your wages, but I get paid a fair amount for my time to write C#, and that time is a lot more productive and enjoyable thanks to such things as IDEs and component libraries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486358</id>
	<title>Asp.Net is NOT a 'popular' business framework.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261147740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>please dont bullcrap if you are not in industry. i am one of the web developers who specializes in ecommerce web development. and the current situation is, nothing is able to come close to php+mysql for developing ecommerce/business websites. leave aside individual requests for quotes, the projects you will see in contract websites like elance, rentacoder and the like will be predominantly php+mysql. you will be hard pressed to find asp / asp.net projects as a fraction of them even.</p><p>the situation is so ridiculous that despite new lamp developers get into business every single day, demand seems to be rising faster than the supply and there is not a lack of projects, even for people who are charging a few times the rate indian houses charge.</p><p>the only clients who go with, or stuck with asp.net are corporate clients which are bigger than medium size. because they are already locked in with microsoft products, the natural route they choose happens to be going ms all the way. however, the number of such clients are few, because a corporation which is of medium size and larger would easily be able to have their own i.t. department, and make them work on their ecommerce/business project. few such projects are contracted out to software houses or developers. not that there are many medium+ sized corporations looking to set up an ecommerce/business presence on the web either<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>therefore lamp is the predominant choice in all respects. its so very curious that a 'php developer' has become a broad, generic definition - there have come up a lot of specializations. 'scripts' of yesterday have grown to become specialization areas in themselves. the 'php' part is expected by default<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...... ecommerce developer. oscommerce developer. phpbb developer. vbulletin developer. joomla developer. postnuke developer. people post up jobs with these titles, not even needing to mention php, because its accepted as default.</p><p>dont err me by thinking that i am a php fanatic, or ms enemy. true, i love php. and true, i dislike ms. but foremost, im a professional. the current state of market is as thus, and all are - naturally - obliged to respect its demands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>please dont bullcrap if you are not in industry .
i am one of the web developers who specializes in ecommerce web development .
and the current situation is , nothing is able to come close to php + mysql for developing ecommerce/business websites .
leave aside individual requests for quotes , the projects you will see in contract websites like elance , rentacoder and the like will be predominantly php + mysql .
you will be hard pressed to find asp / asp.net projects as a fraction of them even.the situation is so ridiculous that despite new lamp developers get into business every single day , demand seems to be rising faster than the supply and there is not a lack of projects , even for people who are charging a few times the rate indian houses charge.the only clients who go with , or stuck with asp.net are corporate clients which are bigger than medium size .
because they are already locked in with microsoft products , the natural route they choose happens to be going ms all the way .
however , the number of such clients are few , because a corporation which is of medium size and larger would easily be able to have their own i.t .
department , and make them work on their ecommerce/business project .
few such projects are contracted out to software houses or developers .
not that there are many medium + sized corporations looking to set up an ecommerce/business presence on the web either ...therefore lamp is the predominant choice in all respects .
its so very curious that a 'php developer ' has become a broad , generic definition - there have come up a lot of specializations .
'scripts ' of yesterday have grown to become specialization areas in themselves .
the 'php ' part is expected by default ...... ecommerce developer .
oscommerce developer .
phpbb developer .
vbulletin developer .
joomla developer .
postnuke developer .
people post up jobs with these titles , not even needing to mention php , because its accepted as default.dont err me by thinking that i am a php fanatic , or ms enemy .
true , i love php .
and true , i dislike ms. but foremost , im a professional .
the current state of market is as thus , and all are - naturally - obliged to respect its demands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>please dont bullcrap if you are not in industry.
i am one of the web developers who specializes in ecommerce web development.
and the current situation is, nothing is able to come close to php+mysql for developing ecommerce/business websites.
leave aside individual requests for quotes, the projects you will see in contract websites like elance, rentacoder and the like will be predominantly php+mysql.
you will be hard pressed to find asp / asp.net projects as a fraction of them even.the situation is so ridiculous that despite new lamp developers get into business every single day, demand seems to be rising faster than the supply and there is not a lack of projects, even for people who are charging a few times the rate indian houses charge.the only clients who go with, or stuck with asp.net are corporate clients which are bigger than medium size.
because they are already locked in with microsoft products, the natural route they choose happens to be going ms all the way.
however, the number of such clients are few, because a corporation which is of medium size and larger would easily be able to have their own i.t.
department, and make them work on their ecommerce/business project.
few such projects are contracted out to software houses or developers.
not that there are many medium+ sized corporations looking to set up an ecommerce/business presence on the web either ...therefore lamp is the predominant choice in all respects.
its so very curious that a 'php developer' has become a broad, generic definition - there have come up a lot of specializations.
'scripts' of yesterday have grown to become specialization areas in themselves.
the 'php' part is expected by default ...... ecommerce developer.
oscommerce developer.
phpbb developer.
vbulletin developer.
joomla developer.
postnuke developer.
people post up jobs with these titles, not even needing to mention php, because its accepted as default.dont err me by thinking that i am a php fanatic, or ms enemy.
true, i love php.
and true, i dislike ms. but foremost, im a professional.
the current state of market is as thus, and all are - naturally - obliged to respect its demands.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487144</id>
	<title>Re:"mentioned"</title>
	<author>Evildonald</author>
	<datestamp>1261151580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is funny because it's true!  I USED to be a Delphi developer, but the work started drying up in Australia and I changed over to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net<br> <br>I have never looked back.  My skills are always in demand.  When I am looking for a new job, I get one in days.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is funny because it 's true !
I USED to be a Delphi developer , but the work started drying up in Australia and I changed over to .Net I have never looked back .
My skills are always in demand .
When I am looking for a new job , I get one in days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is funny because it's true!
I USED to be a Delphi developer, but the work started drying up in Australia and I changed over to .Net I have never looked back.
My skills are always in demand.
When I am looking for a new job, I get one in days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487388</id>
	<title>Re:.Not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261152600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...just uses C# with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET anyhow.?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Just about. I use C++ for system stuff and to wrap win32 in managed code so that, <i>then</i> I can call the method in C# - P/Invokes can be a real pain in the ass sometimes.</p></div></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...just uses C # with .NET anyhow .
? Just about .
I use C + + for system stuff and to wrap win32 in managed code so that , then I can call the method in C # - P/Invokes can be a real pain in the ass sometimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...just uses C# with .NET anyhow.
?Just about.
I use C++ for system stuff and to wrap win32 in managed code so that, then I can call the method in C# - P/Invokes can be a real pain in the ass sometimes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486006</id>
	<title>.Not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261145880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Joking aside, Java is multiplatform in practice and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net is only in theory.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Joking aside , Java is multiplatform in practice and .Net is only in theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Joking aside, Java is multiplatform in practice and .Net is only in theory.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486106</id>
	<title>Re:.Not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261146420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Joking aside, Java is multiplatform in practice and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net is only in theory.</p><p>Well except for all the software written in C# to run on Mono...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Joking aside , Java is multiplatform in practice and .Net is only in theory.Well except for all the software written in C # to run on Mono.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Joking aside, Java is multiplatform in practice and .Net is only in theory.Well except for all the software written in C# to run on Mono...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486680</id>
	<title>Current Monster Numbers: Java vs .NET</title>
	<author>CritterNYC</author>
	<datestamp>1261149180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought the article may be overstating<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET's popularity, so let's take a quick look at listings on monster.com.  Here are the results of a US-wide search for each of the terms (at 9am on 2009-12-18):</p><p>C#: 2,920<br>(Just)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET: 3,632<br>ASP.NET: 1,714<br>Java: 5,000+</p><p>If we narrow it to posts in the last 7 days:</p><p>C#: 971<br>(Just)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET: 1,095<br>ASP.NET: 524<br>Java: 1,608</p><p>Or if I select my location, New York City, over the last 60 days:</p><p>C#: 223<br>(Just)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET: 239<br>ASP.NET: 91<br>Java: 591</p><p>As expected, there is a lot more demand for Java developers than C#, ASP.NET or even<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework itself.</p><p>(Note: I added the prefix (Just) to the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET line as otherwise SourceForge won't let it be separated onto a new line)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the article may be overstating .NET 's popularity , so let 's take a quick look at listings on monster.com .
Here are the results of a US-wide search for each of the terms ( at 9am on 2009-12-18 ) : C # : 2,920 ( Just ) .NET : 3,632ASP.NET : 1,714Java : 5,000 + If we narrow it to posts in the last 7 days : C # : 971 ( Just ) .NET : 1,095ASP.NET : 524Java : 1,608Or if I select my location , New York City , over the last 60 days : C # : 223 ( Just ) .NET : 239ASP.NET : 91Java : 591As expected , there is a lot more demand for Java developers than C # , ASP.NET or even .NET framework itself .
( Note : I added the prefix ( Just ) to the .NET line as otherwise SourceForge wo n't let it be separated onto a new line )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the article may be overstating .NET's popularity, so let's take a quick look at listings on monster.com.
Here are the results of a US-wide search for each of the terms (at 9am on 2009-12-18):C#: 2,920(Just) .NET: 3,632ASP.NET: 1,714Java: 5,000+If we narrow it to posts in the last 7 days:C#: 971(Just) .NET: 1,095ASP.NET: 524Java: 1,608Or if I select my location, New York City, over the last 60 days:C#: 223(Just) .NET: 239ASP.NET: 91Java: 591As expected, there is a lot more demand for Java developers than C#, ASP.NET or even .NET framework itself.
(Note: I added the prefix (Just) to the .NET line as otherwise SourceForge won't let it be separated onto a new line)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486254</id>
	<title>Re:"mentioned"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261147260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're just sore because you made the wrong decision to learn Delphi.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're just sore because you made the wrong decision to learn Delphi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're just sore because you made the wrong decision to learn Delphi.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489206</id>
	<title>.net is great for programmers but...</title>
	<author>nilbog</author>
	<datestamp>1261159800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Me: "Hey programmer guy, we need a small program that does XYZ."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET guy: "It's going to take 6 months and we'll need to buy a license for these modules."</p><p>PHP guy: "Sure, I can square that away in one caffein-fueled night."</p><p>I'm not saying PHP is pretty or that it's better, but this sort of thing is a regular occurrence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Me : " Hey programmer guy , we need a small program that does XYZ .
" .NET guy : " It 's going to take 6 months and we 'll need to buy a license for these modules .
" PHP guy : " Sure , I can square that away in one caffein-fueled night .
" I 'm not saying PHP is pretty or that it 's better , but this sort of thing is a regular occurrence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Me: "Hey programmer guy, we need a small program that does XYZ.
" .NET guy: "It's going to take 6 months and we'll need to buy a license for these modules.
"PHP guy: "Sure, I can square that away in one caffein-fueled night.
"I'm not saying PHP is pretty or that it's better, but this sort of thing is a regular occurrence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486796</id>
	<title>Re:Java too complex</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261149720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ballmer was not mocked for his message he was mocked for his delivery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ballmer was not mocked for his message he was mocked for his delivery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ballmer was not mocked for his message he was mocked for his delivery.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487714</id>
	<title>Re:Java too complex</title>
	<author>obijuanvaldez</author>
	<datestamp>1261153920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As someone else mentioned, C# does in fact include constraints on generic type parameters.  The syntax is slightly different, of course.  But it also provides, necessarily, an additional constraint where the Type specified by T must also have a default constructor, which is really handy as well as constraints requiring T to be either a reference or value type:<blockquote><div><p> <tt>public class GenericContainer&lt;T&gt; where T : IContents, new(), class<br>{<br>public T GetNewContent()<br>{<br>return new T();<br>}<br>}</tt></p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone else mentioned , C # does in fact include constraints on generic type parameters .
The syntax is slightly different , of course .
But it also provides , necessarily , an additional constraint where the Type specified by T must also have a default constructor , which is really handy as well as constraints requiring T to be either a reference or value type : public class GenericContainer where T : IContents , new ( ) , class { public T GetNewContent ( ) { return new T ( ) ; } }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone else mentioned, C# does in fact include constraints on generic type parameters.
The syntax is slightly different, of course.
But it also provides, necessarily, an additional constraint where the Type specified by T must also have a default constructor, which is really handy as well as constraints requiring T to be either a reference or value type: public class GenericContainer where T : IContents, new(), class{public T GetNewContent(){return new T();}} 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30497366</id>
	<title>Why is C# 5x slower than plain ANSI-C scripts?</title>
	<author>BugHappy</author>
	<datestamp>1261216920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>The notion of "progress" should involve, err, some kind of enhancement.
<br> <br>
IIS 7.0 ASP.Net C# (footprint=1GB) being 5 TIMES slower than plain TrustLeap G-WAN ANSI C89 scripts (footprint=100KB), the question is simple: where is the progress?
</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>The notion of " progress " should involve , err , some kind of enhancement .
IIS 7.0 ASP.Net C # ( footprint = 1GB ) being 5 TIMES slower than plain TrustLeap G-WAN ANSI C89 scripts ( footprint = 100KB ) , the question is simple : where is the progress ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The notion of "progress" should involve, err, some kind of enhancement.
IIS 7.0 ASP.Net C# (footprint=1GB) being 5 TIMES slower than plain TrustLeap G-WAN ANSI C89 scripts (footprint=100KB), the question is simple: where is the progress?
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489962</id>
	<title>Re:.Not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261162320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lies and misinformation about scala : scala has had for quite a while very good plugin in intellij, netbeans and eclipse</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lies and misinformation about scala : scala has had for quite a while very good plugin in intellij , netbeans and eclipse</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lies and misinformation about scala : scala has had for quite a while very good plugin in intellij, netbeans and eclipse</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30496892</id>
	<title>Re:Java too complex</title>
	<author>Mr2001</author>
	<datestamp>1261163100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Its possible for a language to make certain things a little easier, but once you reach a certain point the additions to a language are of trivial advantage to a good programmer. They may help out less experienced or talented developers who can't figure out how to do the same thing without a special language construct for it, but for the experienced they end up the same.</p></div><p>I disagree. Closures, for example, provide a nontrivial advantage, and not just for people who can't figure out how to do the same trickery the compiler does (create a private class, move your local variables into it, change local variable expressions to field access expressions). Doing all that stuff by hand is enough of a pain that even if you know how to do it, you <i>won't</i> do it, and you'll end up designing a different program.</p><p>Another example: iterators. Yes, you can write your own state machine to implement IEnumerable by hand, but it's such a pain that you'll probably choose to do something else instead, like writing a method that allocates and fills a huge array all at once (even though you might only use the first few elements). The fact that the compiler can implement the lazy-sequence pattern for you means you're free to use it more often.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its possible for a language to make certain things a little easier , but once you reach a certain point the additions to a language are of trivial advantage to a good programmer .
They may help out less experienced or talented developers who ca n't figure out how to do the same thing without a special language construct for it , but for the experienced they end up the same.I disagree .
Closures , for example , provide a nontrivial advantage , and not just for people who ca n't figure out how to do the same trickery the compiler does ( create a private class , move your local variables into it , change local variable expressions to field access expressions ) .
Doing all that stuff by hand is enough of a pain that even if you know how to do it , you wo n't do it , and you 'll end up designing a different program.Another example : iterators .
Yes , you can write your own state machine to implement IEnumerable by hand , but it 's such a pain that you 'll probably choose to do something else instead , like writing a method that allocates and fills a huge array all at once ( even though you might only use the first few elements ) .
The fact that the compiler can implement the lazy-sequence pattern for you means you 're free to use it more often .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its possible for a language to make certain things a little easier, but once you reach a certain point the additions to a language are of trivial advantage to a good programmer.
They may help out less experienced or talented developers who can't figure out how to do the same thing without a special language construct for it, but for the experienced they end up the same.I disagree.
Closures, for example, provide a nontrivial advantage, and not just for people who can't figure out how to do the same trickery the compiler does (create a private class, move your local variables into it, change local variable expressions to field access expressions).
Doing all that stuff by hand is enough of a pain that even if you know how to do it, you won't do it, and you'll end up designing a different program.Another example: iterators.
Yes, you can write your own state machine to implement IEnumerable by hand, but it's such a pain that you'll probably choose to do something else instead, like writing a method that allocates and fills a huge array all at once (even though you might only use the first few elements).
The fact that the compiler can implement the lazy-sequence pattern for you means you're free to use it more often.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488560</id>
	<title>Re:Ease of writing doesn't convince me</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1261157280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ugh...</p><p>I don't think I've ever seen goto in a C# program.</p><p>The richer syntax means I can get my work done faster, without wasting time with boilerplate nonsense.</p><p>Your quipe about properties is particually stupid;  the property setter and getter are compiled into methods anyway, its just syntatic sugar that means I can type less, but more reable code.</p><p>In math, do you write set\_X( newValue), or do you write X = newValue?  C# allows you to have myObj.X = newValue instead of myObj.set\_X( newValue ).</p><p>It makes it clearer whats going on; changing state instead of performing an action.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ugh...I do n't think I 've ever seen goto in a C # program.The richer syntax means I can get my work done faster , without wasting time with boilerplate nonsense.Your quipe about properties is particually stupid ; the property setter and getter are compiled into methods anyway , its just syntatic sugar that means I can type less , but more reable code.In math , do you write set \ _X ( newValue ) , or do you write X = newValue ?
C # allows you to have myObj.X = newValue instead of myObj.set \ _X ( newValue ) .It makes it clearer whats going on ; changing state instead of performing an action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ugh...I don't think I've ever seen goto in a C# program.The richer syntax means I can get my work done faster, without wasting time with boilerplate nonsense.Your quipe about properties is particually stupid;  the property setter and getter are compiled into methods anyway, its just syntatic sugar that means I can type less, but more reable code.In math, do you write set\_X( newValue), or do you write X = newValue?
C# allows you to have myObj.X = newValue instead of myObj.set\_X( newValue ).It makes it clearer whats going on; changing state instead of performing an action.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489466</id>
	<title>Re:Ease of writing doesn't convince me</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1261160760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am not so sure that having properties in C# is a great idea, because their very purpose is to hide that code invocation happens.</p> </div><p>I often hear that argument, but is it really any better than Java, where all public attributes - even when they're simple fields - wrapped in get/set methods anyway? You could say that, in Java, the opposite is the case - the <em>lack</em> of meaningful code invocation is hidden.</p><p>In practice, no-one cares. If you access what looks like a field of any object other that "this" in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, it is invariably a property. Similarly, when you write your class in Java, you always wrap all your fields in gettors/settors, since your clients expect to see such a pattern.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not so sure that having properties in C # is a great idea , because their very purpose is to hide that code invocation happens .
I often hear that argument , but is it really any better than Java , where all public attributes - even when they 're simple fields - wrapped in get/set methods anyway ?
You could say that , in Java , the opposite is the case - the lack of meaningful code invocation is hidden.In practice , no-one cares .
If you access what looks like a field of any object other that " this " in .NET , it is invariably a property .
Similarly , when you write your class in Java , you always wrap all your fields in gettors/settors , since your clients expect to see such a pattern .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not so sure that having properties in C# is a great idea, because their very purpose is to hide that code invocation happens.
I often hear that argument, but is it really any better than Java, where all public attributes - even when they're simple fields - wrapped in get/set methods anyway?
You could say that, in Java, the opposite is the case - the lack of meaningful code invocation is hidden.In practice, no-one cares.
If you access what looks like a field of any object other that "this" in .NET, it is invariably a property.
Similarly, when you write your class in Java, you always wrap all your fields in gettors/settors, since your clients expect to see such a pattern.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489690</id>
	<title>it's always about Java is dying, etc etc..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261161540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Java has nothing to do with this article.  It's about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET and yes, I believe Microsoft has delivered somewhat.</p><p>Nevertheless,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET has ramped up it's complexity (especially when you go past the core libraries)..</p><p>Just look at the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET technology soup (Windows Communication Foundation, Windows Presentation Foundation, Entity Framework, LINQ, ASP.NET MVC, Enterprise Library, Managed Extensibility Framework, Windows Worfklow Foundation, etc etc)..  Reality is Microsoft is trying their hardest build something more complicated than J2EE for the Enterprise - lol.</p><p>Nevertheless, the recently released JEE6 platform (with the help of the larger Java community) improves that stack and makes it easier for enterprise developers to write systems (really started with JEE5).  Nevertheless, it'll be another three to four years or so before it becomes the standard deployment platform.  Currently, only Glassfish V3 supports the new API's.</p><p>Redhat with JBOSS 6 will once again be very late, Oracle should have JEE6 supported added to Weblogic about a year, and IBM will once again take it sweet time (2+ years) to get WebSphere 8 out the door.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Java has nothing to do with this article .
It 's about .NET and yes , I believe Microsoft has delivered somewhat.Nevertheless , .NET has ramped up it 's complexity ( especially when you go past the core libraries ) ..Just look at the .NET technology soup ( Windows Communication Foundation , Windows Presentation Foundation , Entity Framework , LINQ , ASP.NET MVC , Enterprise Library , Managed Extensibility Framework , Windows Worfklow Foundation , etc etc ) .. Reality is Microsoft is trying their hardest build something more complicated than J2EE for the Enterprise - lol.Nevertheless , the recently released JEE6 platform ( with the help of the larger Java community ) improves that stack and makes it easier for enterprise developers to write systems ( really started with JEE5 ) .
Nevertheless , it 'll be another three to four years or so before it becomes the standard deployment platform .
Currently , only Glassfish V3 supports the new API 's.Redhat with JBOSS 6 will once again be very late , Oracle should have JEE6 supported added to Weblogic about a year , and IBM will once again take it sweet time ( 2 + years ) to get WebSphere 8 out the door .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Java has nothing to do with this article.
It's about .NET and yes, I believe Microsoft has delivered somewhat.Nevertheless, .NET has ramped up it's complexity (especially when you go past the core libraries)..Just look at the .NET technology soup (Windows Communication Foundation, Windows Presentation Foundation, Entity Framework, LINQ, ASP.NET MVC, Enterprise Library, Managed Extensibility Framework, Windows Worfklow Foundation, etc etc)..  Reality is Microsoft is trying their hardest build something more complicated than J2EE for the Enterprise - lol.Nevertheless, the recently released JEE6 platform (with the help of the larger Java community) improves that stack and makes it easier for enterprise developers to write systems (really started with JEE5).
Nevertheless, it'll be another three to four years or so before it becomes the standard deployment platform.
Currently, only Glassfish V3 supports the new API's.Redhat with JBOSS 6 will once again be very late, Oracle should have JEE6 supported added to Weblogic about a year, and IBM will once again take it sweet time (2+ years) to get WebSphere 8 out the door.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486202</id>
	<title>Almost</title>
	<author>Balau</author>
	<datestamp>1261146960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is a good compromise (meaning that it is not the best but it is often good enough) on:<br>
- learning curve (easy by design)<br>
- functionalities (reflection, anonymous methods, attributes...)<br>
- portability to different "Windows" (Mobile, Server...) and to other OS' (Mono)<br>
- execution speed<br>
<br>
I also agree that if Microsoft had distributed more software written in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET (up to a complete OS) maybe the framework would have become more mature and more adopted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think .NET is a good compromise ( meaning that it is not the best but it is often good enough ) on : - learning curve ( easy by design ) - functionalities ( reflection , anonymous methods , attributes... ) - portability to different " Windows " ( Mobile , Server... ) and to other OS ' ( Mono ) - execution speed I also agree that if Microsoft had distributed more software written in .NET ( up to a complete OS ) maybe the framework would have become more mature and more adopted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think .NET is a good compromise (meaning that it is not the best but it is often good enough) on:
- learning curve (easy by design)
- functionalities (reflection, anonymous methods, attributes...)
- portability to different "Windows" (Mobile, Server...) and to other OS' (Mono)
- execution speed

I also agree that if Microsoft had distributed more software written in .NET (up to a complete OS) maybe the framework would have become more mature and more adopted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486574</id>
	<title>Java vs .NET</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261148580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Java:</p><p>-requires 1000's of "class libraries" to do anything useful, better hope you have the right versions too<br>-requires hundreds of MB of bloatware to be installed<br>-requires 3 different versions of the interpreter,"just in case" someone decided to use old/obfuscated functions, etc<br>-slow as frozen molasses, on a good day</p><p>Microsoft ".NET"<br>-requires hundreds of MB of bloatware to be installed<br>-requires 1000's of "DLL" files to do anything useful, better hope you have the right versions too<br>-requires 3 different versions of the "interpreter" or "runtime framework". "just in case" someone decided to use old/obfuscated functions, etc<br>-fast as a bat out of hell, when it decides to work</p><p>I'd say they are about the same, except for speed, I'd go with Microsoft [for once]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Java : -requires 1000 's of " class libraries " to do anything useful , better hope you have the right versions too-requires hundreds of MB of bloatware to be installed-requires 3 different versions of the interpreter , " just in case " someone decided to use old/obfuscated functions , etc-slow as frozen molasses , on a good dayMicrosoft " .NET " -requires hundreds of MB of bloatware to be installed-requires 1000 's of " DLL " files to do anything useful , better hope you have the right versions too-requires 3 different versions of the " interpreter " or " runtime framework " .
" just in case " someone decided to use old/obfuscated functions , etc-fast as a bat out of hell , when it decides to workI 'd say they are about the same , except for speed , I 'd go with Microsoft [ for once ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Java:-requires 1000's of "class libraries" to do anything useful, better hope you have the right versions too-requires hundreds of MB of bloatware to be installed-requires 3 different versions of the interpreter,"just in case" someone decided to use old/obfuscated functions, etc-slow as frozen molasses, on a good dayMicrosoft ".NET"-requires hundreds of MB of bloatware to be installed-requires 1000's of "DLL" files to do anything useful, better hope you have the right versions too-requires 3 different versions of the "interpreter" or "runtime framework".
"just in case" someone decided to use old/obfuscated functions, etc-fast as a bat out of hell, when it decides to workI'd say they are about the same, except for speed, I'd go with Microsoft [for once]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30496662</id>
	<title>Re:I think they made a small mistake.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261159800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did  you make that up all by yourself?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you make that up all by yourself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did  you make that up all by yourself?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30500676</id>
	<title>Re:Ease of writing doesn't convince me</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1261219140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that maintainability of code is helped most by writing the code in a way that closely follows the high-level model of the program. Neither C# nor Java are very good for that, because both require you to add a lot of boilerplate code and neither offers elegant metaprogramming. In other words, understanding the code is going to be hard because of the sheer amount of noise in it.</p><p>Sure, offering more powerful constructs such as macros would offer more ways to make the program a horrible mess, and some of the extra annotations that are in Java and C# code actually give some clue as to what is happening, so the knife cuts both ways. But I think bad programmers are going to write bad code in any language simply because they don't have the right mindset, whereas good programmers are going to write better code in a language that doesn't restrict them as much as C# and Java do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that maintainability of code is helped most by writing the code in a way that closely follows the high-level model of the program .
Neither C # nor Java are very good for that , because both require you to add a lot of boilerplate code and neither offers elegant metaprogramming .
In other words , understanding the code is going to be hard because of the sheer amount of noise in it.Sure , offering more powerful constructs such as macros would offer more ways to make the program a horrible mess , and some of the extra annotations that are in Java and C # code actually give some clue as to what is happening , so the knife cuts both ways .
But I think bad programmers are going to write bad code in any language simply because they do n't have the right mindset , whereas good programmers are going to write better code in a language that does n't restrict them as much as C # and Java do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that maintainability of code is helped most by writing the code in a way that closely follows the high-level model of the program.
Neither C# nor Java are very good for that, because both require you to add a lot of boilerplate code and neither offers elegant metaprogramming.
In other words, understanding the code is going to be hard because of the sheer amount of noise in it.Sure, offering more powerful constructs such as macros would offer more ways to make the program a horrible mess, and some of the extra annotations that are in Java and C# code actually give some clue as to what is happening, so the knife cuts both ways.
But I think bad programmers are going to write bad code in any language simply because they don't have the right mindset, whereas good programmers are going to write better code in a language that doesn't restrict them as much as C# and Java do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490712</id>
	<title>Classic ASP</title>
	<author>Halotron1</author>
	<datestamp>1261164780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Microsoft really cared about devs, then the next version of IIS would allow Classic ASP and ASP.NET to share session state.<br>Nothing like releasing ASP.NET and obsoleting millions of lines of code.</p><p>Unlike VB6 to VB.NET there is no migration path from Classic ASP to ASP.NET other than a complete rewrite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Microsoft really cared about devs , then the next version of IIS would allow Classic ASP and ASP.NET to share session state.Nothing like releasing ASP.NET and obsoleting millions of lines of code.Unlike VB6 to VB.NET there is no migration path from Classic ASP to ASP.NET other than a complete rewrite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Microsoft really cared about devs, then the next version of IIS would allow Classic ASP and ASP.NET to share session state.Nothing like releasing ASP.NET and obsoleting millions of lines of code.Unlike VB6 to VB.NET there is no migration path from Classic ASP to ASP.NET other than a complete rewrite.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489164</id>
	<title>Re:Current Monster Numbers: Java vs .NET</title>
	<author>owlstead</author>
	<datestamp>1261159620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What are the chances that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET and C# are in the SAME job listing? Pretty high I guess. So adding them up makes no sense whatsoever. The only way to get to the exact number is to count the number of articles that state either<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET (which automatically includes ASP.NET) and/or C# and compare that with java requirements. Note that even that number may not make too much sense - there's a lot of Java recruitement done through other means than Monster.com listings - there is no real meaningfull way of comparing their popularity.</p><p>Not that it matter too much: I don't even want for Java to become more popular if that means that any one feature gets added once there is a "market demand" for it. IMHO complexity is the main reason NOT to choose a programming language; the feature listings of the D language makes my hairs stand up straight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are the chances that .NET and C # are in the SAME job listing ?
Pretty high I guess .
So adding them up makes no sense whatsoever .
The only way to get to the exact number is to count the number of articles that state either .NET ( which automatically includes ASP.NET ) and/or C # and compare that with java requirements .
Note that even that number may not make too much sense - there 's a lot of Java recruitement done through other means than Monster.com listings - there is no real meaningfull way of comparing their popularity.Not that it matter too much : I do n't even want for Java to become more popular if that means that any one feature gets added once there is a " market demand " for it .
IMHO complexity is the main reason NOT to choose a programming language ; the feature listings of the D language makes my hairs stand up straight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are the chances that .NET and C# are in the SAME job listing?
Pretty high I guess.
So adding them up makes no sense whatsoever.
The only way to get to the exact number is to count the number of articles that state either .NET (which automatically includes ASP.NET) and/or C# and compare that with java requirements.
Note that even that number may not make too much sense - there's a lot of Java recruitement done through other means than Monster.com listings - there is no real meaningfull way of comparing their popularity.Not that it matter too much: I don't even want for Java to become more popular if that means that any one feature gets added once there is a "market demand" for it.
IMHO complexity is the main reason NOT to choose a programming language; the feature listings of the D language makes my hairs stand up straight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490022</id>
	<title>not a fair comparison</title>
	<author>farble1670</author>
	<datestamp>1261162560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>first, java never held a high percent of development positions. the only thing the article shows is that MSFT successfully converted their existing developers to C#.</p><p>second, a WORA language / SDK will never beat one that is written to run on a single platform.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is WORA in theory, Java is WORA in practice. there are necessarily some trade offs to be made if you are going to try to be WORA.</p><p>third, i agree with other people that Java really slacked in past in terms of providing a polished look and feel, but that has changed. take a look at the new releases of the netbeans IDE for an example.</p><p>and, for those that say it's not truly WORA, please point to an alternative that even comes close. yes there are sometimes differences to be worked out, but it's light years ahead of doing a traditional port.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>first , java never held a high percent of development positions .
the only thing the article shows is that MSFT successfully converted their existing developers to C # .second , a WORA language / SDK will never beat one that is written to run on a single platform .
.NET is WORA in theory , Java is WORA in practice .
there are necessarily some trade offs to be made if you are going to try to be WORA.third , i agree with other people that Java really slacked in past in terms of providing a polished look and feel , but that has changed .
take a look at the new releases of the netbeans IDE for an example.and , for those that say it 's not truly WORA , please point to an alternative that even comes close .
yes there are sometimes differences to be worked out , but it 's light years ahead of doing a traditional port .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first, java never held a high percent of development positions.
the only thing the article shows is that MSFT successfully converted their existing developers to C#.second, a WORA language / SDK will never beat one that is written to run on a single platform.
.NET is WORA in theory, Java is WORA in practice.
there are necessarily some trade offs to be made if you are going to try to be WORA.third, i agree with other people that Java really slacked in past in terms of providing a polished look and feel, but that has changed.
take a look at the new releases of the netbeans IDE for an example.and, for those that say it's not truly WORA, please point to an alternative that even comes close.
yes there are sometimes differences to be worked out, but it's light years ahead of doing a traditional port.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486754</id>
	<title>Make us jealous ..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261149540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, never touched it, only superficially read some articles on it, never took the effort to read a book about it,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... because there was no convincing argument to do so. Call me ignorant.</p><p>Now if I have a look at what's interesting in the Java world in the last couple of years (hadoop, android, GWT, antlr,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...), I definitely want to stay on this side of the fence.</p><p>Please tell me what interesting developments in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET world are we Java developers missing out on ? There surely must be something that should make us jealous...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know .NET , never touched it , only superficially read some articles on it , never took the effort to read a book about it , ... because there was no convincing argument to do so .
Call me ignorant.Now if I have a look at what 's interesting in the Java world in the last couple of years ( hadoop , android , GWT , antlr , ... ) , I definitely want to stay on this side of the fence.Please tell me what interesting developments in the .NET world are we Java developers missing out on ?
There surely must be something that should make us jealous.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know .NET, never touched it, only superficially read some articles on it, never took the effort to read a book about it, ... because there was no convincing argument to do so.
Call me ignorant.Now if I have a look at what's interesting in the Java world in the last couple of years (hadoop, android, GWT, antlr, ...), I definitely want to stay on this side of the fence.Please tell me what interesting developments in the .NET world are we Java developers missing out on ?
There surely must be something that should make us jealous...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486820</id>
	<title>MS really does care about making devs happy</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1261149840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course their reasons for doing it are not benevolent, they want software designed for Windows so that users want to use Windows. Regardless, they produce extremely slick dev tools because of it. Often the things maligned by self proclaimed "real" programmers are actually quite useful dev tools in the right situations.</p><p>Visual Basic is a good example, all sorts of geeks liked to hate on VB as being stupid. While they were on to something in that VB wasn't powerful like C/C++, they missed that the reason was that VB was a managed language back before such a thing was popular. It allowed you to easily churn out UIs and things like that with minimal effort and without the need to check for the gotchas you got with something like C. Hence it was quite popular.</p><p>What MS has done real well is realized that most developers out there are NOT the hard core "Give me a text editor or give me death!" types. They are people in business trying to get something done, and get it done with minimal fuss and hassle. They also likely have to put up with management idiots who want to change the requirements every 5 minutes and thus being able to rapidly change the software is a benefit.</p><p>They really do seem to be a company that is in touch with what developers want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course their reasons for doing it are not benevolent , they want software designed for Windows so that users want to use Windows .
Regardless , they produce extremely slick dev tools because of it .
Often the things maligned by self proclaimed " real " programmers are actually quite useful dev tools in the right situations.Visual Basic is a good example , all sorts of geeks liked to hate on VB as being stupid .
While they were on to something in that VB was n't powerful like C/C + + , they missed that the reason was that VB was a managed language back before such a thing was popular .
It allowed you to easily churn out UIs and things like that with minimal effort and without the need to check for the gotchas you got with something like C. Hence it was quite popular.What MS has done real well is realized that most developers out there are NOT the hard core " Give me a text editor or give me death !
" types .
They are people in business trying to get something done , and get it done with minimal fuss and hassle .
They also likely have to put up with management idiots who want to change the requirements every 5 minutes and thus being able to rapidly change the software is a benefit.They really do seem to be a company that is in touch with what developers want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course their reasons for doing it are not benevolent, they want software designed for Windows so that users want to use Windows.
Regardless, they produce extremely slick dev tools because of it.
Often the things maligned by self proclaimed "real" programmers are actually quite useful dev tools in the right situations.Visual Basic is a good example, all sorts of geeks liked to hate on VB as being stupid.
While they were on to something in that VB wasn't powerful like C/C++, they missed that the reason was that VB was a managed language back before such a thing was popular.
It allowed you to easily churn out UIs and things like that with minimal effort and without the need to check for the gotchas you got with something like C. Hence it was quite popular.What MS has done real well is realized that most developers out there are NOT the hard core "Give me a text editor or give me death!
" types.
They are people in business trying to get something done, and get it done with minimal fuss and hassle.
They also likely have to put up with management idiots who want to change the requirements every 5 minutes and thus being able to rapidly change the software is a benefit.They really do seem to be a company that is in touch with what developers want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486130</id>
	<title>Point &amp; Click programming</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1261146600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>People like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net because MS offers tools to allow point &amp; click programming.  This means more people can do it and companies can lower wages.
<br> <br>
That is one big reason not to support it. We don't need more shitty software that people don't understand how they've created it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People like .Net because MS offers tools to allow point &amp; click programming .
This means more people can do it and companies can lower wages .
That is one big reason not to support it .
We do n't need more shitty software that people do n't understand how they 've created it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People like .Net because MS offers tools to allow point &amp; click programming.
This means more people can do it and companies can lower wages.
That is one big reason not to support it.
We don't need more shitty software that people don't understand how they've created it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30495830</id>
	<title>Re:Current Monster Numbers: Java vs .NET</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1261148760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you go down the route of adding up, then you need to add at least J2EE to Java.  But in doing this, you are counting a large number of jobs twice, or even three times for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET (as you have three terms, all of which might match).</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you go down the route of adding up , then you need to add at least J2EE to Java .
But in doing this , you are counting a large number of jobs twice , or even three times for .NET ( as you have three terms , all of which might match ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you go down the route of adding up, then you need to add at least J2EE to Java.
But in doing this, you are counting a large number of jobs twice, or even three times for .NET (as you have three terms, all of which might match).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487442</id>
	<title>I do both Java and C#</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1261152900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do software development in both Java and C# (mostly Java) and what i see happening is that C# is winning in the GUI/Desktop environment (mostly by replacing VB and VS.MFC) while Java is winning in the server space (mostly because in the server space with non-GUI applications Write-Once-Run-Anywhere is mostly true).</p><p>Nowadays, almost nobody does GUI development in Java, while at the same time C# never managed to get traction in the server space largelly because in parallel Linux has replaced Windows as the OS of choice for cheap servers.</p><p>That said Sun has done little for the success of Java and as of late might in fact have hindered it's adoption by going for increasingly complex, heavy and underperformant libraries/frameworks, making the learning curve for Java in the server steeper and harder to overcome.</p><p>The success of Java in the server space has come thanks to Open Source and <i>in spite of</i> Sun - there are now thousands of open source tools, libraries and frameworks for Java which improve the software development process and free developers from having to waste time in "infrastructure" work. As a mater of fact, in the last 4 or 5 years, the Java world has been moving steadilly away from Sun's heavy and complex approach to the server space (J2EE) and towards less monolitic approaches and lightweight frameworks and libraries (such as Spring) designed specifically to replace J2EE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do software development in both Java and C # ( mostly Java ) and what i see happening is that C # is winning in the GUI/Desktop environment ( mostly by replacing VB and VS.MFC ) while Java is winning in the server space ( mostly because in the server space with non-GUI applications Write-Once-Run-Anywhere is mostly true ) .Nowadays , almost nobody does GUI development in Java , while at the same time C # never managed to get traction in the server space largelly because in parallel Linux has replaced Windows as the OS of choice for cheap servers.That said Sun has done little for the success of Java and as of late might in fact have hindered it 's adoption by going for increasingly complex , heavy and underperformant libraries/frameworks , making the learning curve for Java in the server steeper and harder to overcome.The success of Java in the server space has come thanks to Open Source and in spite of Sun - there are now thousands of open source tools , libraries and frameworks for Java which improve the software development process and free developers from having to waste time in " infrastructure " work .
As a mater of fact , in the last 4 or 5 years , the Java world has been moving steadilly away from Sun 's heavy and complex approach to the server space ( J2EE ) and towards less monolitic approaches and lightweight frameworks and libraries ( such as Spring ) designed specifically to replace J2EE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do software development in both Java and C# (mostly Java) and what i see happening is that C# is winning in the GUI/Desktop environment (mostly by replacing VB and VS.MFC) while Java is winning in the server space (mostly because in the server space with non-GUI applications Write-Once-Run-Anywhere is mostly true).Nowadays, almost nobody does GUI development in Java, while at the same time C# never managed to get traction in the server space largelly because in parallel Linux has replaced Windows as the OS of choice for cheap servers.That said Sun has done little for the success of Java and as of late might in fact have hindered it's adoption by going for increasingly complex, heavy and underperformant libraries/frameworks, making the learning curve for Java in the server steeper and harder to overcome.The success of Java in the server space has come thanks to Open Source and in spite of Sun - there are now thousands of open source tools, libraries and frameworks for Java which improve the software development process and free developers from having to waste time in "infrastructure" work.
As a mater of fact, in the last 4 or 5 years, the Java world has been moving steadilly away from Sun's heavy and complex approach to the server space (J2EE) and towards less monolitic approaches and lightweight frameworks and libraries (such as Spring) designed specifically to replace J2EE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487068</id>
	<title>Re:Asp.Net is NOT a 'popular' business framework.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261151220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a half decent post, but why don't you use some proper grammar and at least capitalize the first letter of your sentences?  It makes you look stupid and it's more difficult to read.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a half decent post , but why do n't you use some proper grammar and at least capitalize the first letter of your sentences ?
It makes you look stupid and it 's more difficult to read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a half decent post, but why don't you use some proper grammar and at least capitalize the first letter of your sentences?
It makes you look stupid and it's more difficult to read.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487834</id>
	<title>No, They Made Huge Mistakes</title>
	<author>segedunum</author>
	<datestamp>1261154340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. They pissed all over Visual Basic, which has been used in a lot of fairly critical business applications since the mid-nineties to create applications quickly. Say what you like about it, but an experienced developer could develop very quickly and well with it and it is very widely used. With VB.Net they created an unnecessary and new object oriented language, the need for which was already being fulfilled by C#. I cannot see the point in it as it is merely another<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net language that differs via syntax only.<br> <br>

2. Again, VB related, for the first time you couldn't take your VB code, compile it in a new version of Visual Studio and get all the benefits. Expecting people to throw away millions of lines of code and start fresh for no benefit whatsoever is an epic fail and Microsoft diverged totally from their past views on this.<br> <br>

3. VB related again, but there is still no RAD environment for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net. Many developers simply don't need the complexity of an object oriented environment foisted on them. They should have implemented VB with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net as they have with IronPython and at least made it API compatible so you could recompile, or learned from Ruby with or without Rails. Java might be complex but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net is still complex compared to what else is on offer.<br> <br>

4. As such, a great deal of applications, mostly VB, that could went web based and weren't re-written in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net. At least with web applications you only need a very simple client and don't have to deal with that deployment shit.<br> <br>

5. There is still a ton of stuff written with COM, and interacting with it is still a huge PITA when it comes to deployment issues. They should have focused on simplifying this as much as possible. The<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net -&gt; COM and COM -&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net interaction seems to have been bolted on as an afterthought like they were being forced into it.<br> <br>

6. There are still a lot of applications where developers are not comfortable running it in a VM.<br> <br>

7. One area where<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net is even worse than Java is the moving goalposts. Over the years people have asked whether they should being using WinForms, Avalon and then WPF. No one seems to know. When Windows 9 or 10 comes out then why should I migrate to a yet another new UI or other technology that will not benefit existing users in any way, thereby not making me any money, because Microsoft now won't make new components like WPF available for existing platforms? At least if you develop for XP any applications on there will work on Vista or 7. They might not look as pretty, but making things pretty for a limited userbase doesn't make any money. Just take a look at the Mac.<br> <br>

Microsoft has lost a great deal of what made their development platforms attractive because they think they are losing money by doing it and there are too many divisions like MSDN wanting a piece of the action.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
They pissed all over Visual Basic , which has been used in a lot of fairly critical business applications since the mid-nineties to create applications quickly .
Say what you like about it , but an experienced developer could develop very quickly and well with it and it is very widely used .
With VB.Net they created an unnecessary and new object oriented language , the need for which was already being fulfilled by C # .
I can not see the point in it as it is merely another .Net language that differs via syntax only .
2. Again , VB related , for the first time you could n't take your VB code , compile it in a new version of Visual Studio and get all the benefits .
Expecting people to throw away millions of lines of code and start fresh for no benefit whatsoever is an epic fail and Microsoft diverged totally from their past views on this .
3. VB related again , but there is still no RAD environment for .Net .
Many developers simply do n't need the complexity of an object oriented environment foisted on them .
They should have implemented VB with .Net as they have with IronPython and at least made it API compatible so you could recompile , or learned from Ruby with or without Rails .
Java might be complex but .Net is still complex compared to what else is on offer .
4. As such , a great deal of applications , mostly VB , that could went web based and were n't re-written in .Net .
At least with web applications you only need a very simple client and do n't have to deal with that deployment shit .
5. There is still a ton of stuff written with COM , and interacting with it is still a huge PITA when it comes to deployment issues .
They should have focused on simplifying this as much as possible .
The .Net - &gt; COM and COM - &gt; .Net interaction seems to have been bolted on as an afterthought like they were being forced into it .
6. There are still a lot of applications where developers are not comfortable running it in a VM .
7. One area where .Net is even worse than Java is the moving goalposts .
Over the years people have asked whether they should being using WinForms , Avalon and then WPF .
No one seems to know .
When Windows 9 or 10 comes out then why should I migrate to a yet another new UI or other technology that will not benefit existing users in any way , thereby not making me any money , because Microsoft now wo n't make new components like WPF available for existing platforms ?
At least if you develop for XP any applications on there will work on Vista or 7 .
They might not look as pretty , but making things pretty for a limited userbase does n't make any money .
Just take a look at the Mac .
Microsoft has lost a great deal of what made their development platforms attractive because they think they are losing money by doing it and there are too many divisions like MSDN wanting a piece of the action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
They pissed all over Visual Basic, which has been used in a lot of fairly critical business applications since the mid-nineties to create applications quickly.
Say what you like about it, but an experienced developer could develop very quickly and well with it and it is very widely used.
With VB.Net they created an unnecessary and new object oriented language, the need for which was already being fulfilled by C#.
I cannot see the point in it as it is merely another .Net language that differs via syntax only.
2. Again, VB related, for the first time you couldn't take your VB code, compile it in a new version of Visual Studio and get all the benefits.
Expecting people to throw away millions of lines of code and start fresh for no benefit whatsoever is an epic fail and Microsoft diverged totally from their past views on this.
3. VB related again, but there is still no RAD environment for .Net.
Many developers simply don't need the complexity of an object oriented environment foisted on them.
They should have implemented VB with .Net as they have with IronPython and at least made it API compatible so you could recompile, or learned from Ruby with or without Rails.
Java might be complex but .Net is still complex compared to what else is on offer.
4. As such, a great deal of applications, mostly VB, that could went web based and weren't re-written in .Net.
At least with web applications you only need a very simple client and don't have to deal with that deployment shit.
5. There is still a ton of stuff written with COM, and interacting with it is still a huge PITA when it comes to deployment issues.
They should have focused on simplifying this as much as possible.
The .Net -&gt; COM and COM -&gt; .Net interaction seems to have been bolted on as an afterthought like they were being forced into it.
6. There are still a lot of applications where developers are not comfortable running it in a VM.
7. One area where .Net is even worse than Java is the moving goalposts.
Over the years people have asked whether they should being using WinForms, Avalon and then WPF.
No one seems to know.
When Windows 9 or 10 comes out then why should I migrate to a yet another new UI or other technology that will not benefit existing users in any way, thereby not making me any money, because Microsoft now won't make new components like WPF available for existing platforms?
At least if you develop for XP any applications on there will work on Vista or 7.
They might not look as pretty, but making things pretty for a limited userbase doesn't make any money.
Just take a look at the Mac.
Microsoft has lost a great deal of what made their development platforms attractive because they think they are losing money by doing it and there are too many divisions like MSDN wanting a piece of the action.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487742</id>
	<title>Re:Ease of writing doesn't convince me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261154040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So C has essentially been "dead" for over 20 years.    There have been some minor additions and changes that ANSI did but nothing terribly substantial.   What's more,  the standard library has some serious problems with all the overflows and holes out there in the world,  ANSI or ISO have been well within their rights to create new functions and deprecate old functions to avoid dependence on null termination, among other things, but the language is essentially "dead."   Who cares?  People use C because of that, your 20 year old C will just as soon compile and run as the C you wrote last week.</p><p>You talk about Java or something and the lack of changes to the language are somehow supposed to indicate that it's dead or dying or you shouldn't use the language.  If you look at Perl, the radical changes to the language have turned it from being the language of the internet into an also ran,  Perl will never be as popular as it was again and that's partially because they had to add a bunch of new shit.   Python is going to hurt itself migrating to 3.0,  it's going to be DLL hell only worse trying to cross the gap.   Ruby?  It's probably worse,  Rails made 1.8 popular, now there is Jruby, Ruby 1.9, and literally about a dozen more implementations all with varying degrees of support and compatibility;  just as  it was getting interesting the language is confused.</p><p>If they stop changing Java the language, that seems like a good thing to me.   What I'd really like to see are efforts to refactor, add to, and clean up the class libraries.   There are clearly some patterns that people use regularly that aren't part of it.  The Apache Commons proves the point.    J2EE 5 and 6 have really cleaned up a lot,  let's do that to the rest of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So C has essentially been " dead " for over 20 years .
There have been some minor additions and changes that ANSI did but nothing terribly substantial .
What 's more , the standard library has some serious problems with all the overflows and holes out there in the world , ANSI or ISO have been well within their rights to create new functions and deprecate old functions to avoid dependence on null termination , among other things , but the language is essentially " dead .
" Who cares ?
People use C because of that , your 20 year old C will just as soon compile and run as the C you wrote last week.You talk about Java or something and the lack of changes to the language are somehow supposed to indicate that it 's dead or dying or you should n't use the language .
If you look at Perl , the radical changes to the language have turned it from being the language of the internet into an also ran , Perl will never be as popular as it was again and that 's partially because they had to add a bunch of new shit .
Python is going to hurt itself migrating to 3.0 , it 's going to be DLL hell only worse trying to cross the gap .
Ruby ? It 's probably worse , Rails made 1.8 popular , now there is Jruby , Ruby 1.9 , and literally about a dozen more implementations all with varying degrees of support and compatibility ; just as it was getting interesting the language is confused.If they stop changing Java the language , that seems like a good thing to me .
What I 'd really like to see are efforts to refactor , add to , and clean up the class libraries .
There are clearly some patterns that people use regularly that are n't part of it .
The Apache Commons proves the point .
J2EE 5 and 6 have really cleaned up a lot , let 's do that to the rest of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So C has essentially been "dead" for over 20 years.
There have been some minor additions and changes that ANSI did but nothing terribly substantial.
What's more,  the standard library has some serious problems with all the overflows and holes out there in the world,  ANSI or ISO have been well within their rights to create new functions and deprecate old functions to avoid dependence on null termination, among other things, but the language is essentially "dead.
"   Who cares?
People use C because of that, your 20 year old C will just as soon compile and run as the C you wrote last week.You talk about Java or something and the lack of changes to the language are somehow supposed to indicate that it's dead or dying or you shouldn't use the language.
If you look at Perl, the radical changes to the language have turned it from being the language of the internet into an also ran,  Perl will never be as popular as it was again and that's partially because they had to add a bunch of new shit.
Python is going to hurt itself migrating to 3.0,  it's going to be DLL hell only worse trying to cross the gap.
Ruby?  It's probably worse,  Rails made 1.8 popular, now there is Jruby, Ruby 1.9, and literally about a dozen more implementations all with varying degrees of support and compatibility;  just as  it was getting interesting the language is confused.If they stop changing Java the language, that seems like a good thing to me.
What I'd really like to see are efforts to refactor, add to, and clean up the class libraries.
There are clearly some patterns that people use regularly that aren't part of it.
The Apache Commons proves the point.
J2EE 5 and 6 have really cleaned up a lot,  let's do that to the rest of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30497992</id>
	<title>Re:Ease of writing doesn't convince me</title>
	<author>Mutatis Mutandis</author>
	<datestamp>1261231140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The richer syntax means <em>you can write code faster</em>. But I am not so sure that that means that you can actually <em>get you work done faster</em>, although it of course depends on who you are and what you do. If you always work more or less in the same context, and that is not too complex, there will be no problem for you.</p><p>But my experience is that programmers spend half their time or more with trying to figure out what other programmers have done, and that they find that far more difficult and exhausting than writing their own code. That seems particularly true in an environment such as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, which comes with a rich set of libraries, including some that provide high levels of abstraction.</p><p>The problem with property syntax is not in the idea itself, but in its potential for abuse. As long as a.x = y is indeed a shorthand for a.setX(y), there is no problem. Dragons awake when somebody starts using it as a shorthand for a.addX(y). And yes, potentially somebody could write a.setX(y) and give it the functionality of a.addX(y), but the temptation to do so is much smaller.</p><p>But I admitted that I stretched it a bit when I quipped about properties being a bad idea. Operator overloading, however, almost certainly is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The richer syntax means you can write code faster .
But I am not so sure that that means that you can actually get you work done faster , although it of course depends on who you are and what you do .
If you always work more or less in the same context , and that is not too complex , there will be no problem for you.But my experience is that programmers spend half their time or more with trying to figure out what other programmers have done , and that they find that far more difficult and exhausting than writing their own code .
That seems particularly true in an environment such as .NET , which comes with a rich set of libraries , including some that provide high levels of abstraction.The problem with property syntax is not in the idea itself , but in its potential for abuse .
As long as a.x = y is indeed a shorthand for a.setX ( y ) , there is no problem .
Dragons awake when somebody starts using it as a shorthand for a.addX ( y ) .
And yes , potentially somebody could write a.setX ( y ) and give it the functionality of a.addX ( y ) , but the temptation to do so is much smaller.But I admitted that I stretched it a bit when I quipped about properties being a bad idea .
Operator overloading , however , almost certainly is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The richer syntax means you can write code faster.
But I am not so sure that that means that you can actually get you work done faster, although it of course depends on who you are and what you do.
If you always work more or less in the same context, and that is not too complex, there will be no problem for you.But my experience is that programmers spend half their time or more with trying to figure out what other programmers have done, and that they find that far more difficult and exhausting than writing their own code.
That seems particularly true in an environment such as .NET, which comes with a rich set of libraries, including some that provide high levels of abstraction.The problem with property syntax is not in the idea itself, but in its potential for abuse.
As long as a.x = y is indeed a shorthand for a.setX(y), there is no problem.
Dragons awake when somebody starts using it as a shorthand for a.addX(y).
And yes, potentially somebody could write a.setX(y) and give it the functionality of a.addX(y), but the temptation to do so is much smaller.But I admitted that I stretched it a bit when I quipped about properties being a bad idea.
Operator overloading, however, almost certainly is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486150</id>
	<title>A success from an Open Source standpoint I'd say</title>
	<author>Max Romantschuk</author>
	<datestamp>1261146660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So far it seems Microsoft has been sincere about not planning to litigate against projects implementing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET open source. I'd call that a success any day, given how the Microsoft of yesteryear would have thought about these things.</p><p>I'm very much pro-choice in terms of both choice of language/framework and in terms of proprietary vs. open source. Interoperability given a mix of these things is always good. With<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET you can choose different languages for different parts of your project, and properly written the result will run on both Microsoft's platform and Mono. I think that is success enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So far it seems Microsoft has been sincere about not planning to litigate against projects implementing .NET open source .
I 'd call that a success any day , given how the Microsoft of yesteryear would have thought about these things.I 'm very much pro-choice in terms of both choice of language/framework and in terms of proprietary vs. open source .
Interoperability given a mix of these things is always good .
With .NET you can choose different languages for different parts of your project , and properly written the result will run on both Microsoft 's platform and Mono .
I think that is success enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So far it seems Microsoft has been sincere about not planning to litigate against projects implementing .NET open source.
I'd call that a success any day, given how the Microsoft of yesteryear would have thought about these things.I'm very much pro-choice in terms of both choice of language/framework and in terms of proprietary vs. open source.
Interoperability given a mix of these things is always good.
With .NET you can choose different languages for different parts of your project, and properly written the result will run on both Microsoft's platform and Mono.
I think that is success enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487858</id>
	<title>Re:.Not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261154460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's even worse.   Prior to the Mono Project, Microsoft let non-techies think that multi-language meant multi-platform.    I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain that C/C++ is not a platform.  Secondly,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is now multi-platform because of a few misguided programmers who created Mono.   Mono is a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET stepchild that will never have the same love that Mom, Microsoft, will give her first born.  Yes, I hate Mono.  I could love it if Microsoft adopted it as a first-class project and kept it as up to date as it's Windows counter-part.    That's not gonna happen.   When something is wrong in Mono, Microsoft's answer will  be to write it and run it on Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's even worse .
Prior to the Mono Project , Microsoft let non-techies think that multi-language meant multi-platform .
I ca n't tell you how many times I 've had to explain that C/C + + is not a platform .
Secondly , .NET is now multi-platform because of a few misguided programmers who created Mono .
Mono is a .NET stepchild that will never have the same love that Mom , Microsoft , will give her first born .
Yes , I hate Mono .
I could love it if Microsoft adopted it as a first-class project and kept it as up to date as it 's Windows counter-part .
That 's not gon na happen .
When something is wrong in Mono , Microsoft 's answer will be to write it and run it on Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's even worse.
Prior to the Mono Project, Microsoft let non-techies think that multi-language meant multi-platform.
I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain that C/C++ is not a platform.
Secondly, .NET is now multi-platform because of a few misguided programmers who created Mono.
Mono is a .NET stepchild that will never have the same love that Mom, Microsoft, will give her first born.
Yes, I hate Mono.
I could love it if Microsoft adopted it as a first-class project and kept it as up to date as it's Windows counter-part.
That's not gonna happen.
When something is wrong in Mono, Microsoft's answer will  be to write it and run it on Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490252</id>
	<title>Re:Almost</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261163160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Had they been able to meet the portability objective (which they never promised), I think<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET could have been much more prevalent. For now, it will continue to be a second-best development environment for Windows computers (with C/C++ being the primary).</p></div><p>Really? How big would the share of todays VB and C# programmers be, that actually could manage to do much more pop a window using plain C and the windoze API?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Had they been able to meet the portability objective ( which they never promised ) , I think .NET could have been much more prevalent .
For now , it will continue to be a second-best development environment for Windows computers ( with C/C + + being the primary ) .Really ?
How big would the share of todays VB and C # programmers be , that actually could manage to do much more pop a window using plain C and the windoze API ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Had they been able to meet the portability objective (which they never promised), I think .NET could have been much more prevalent.
For now, it will continue to be a second-best development environment for Windows computers (with C/C++ being the primary).Really?
How big would the share of todays VB and C# programmers be, that actually could manage to do much more pop a window using plain C and the windoze API?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486930</id>
	<title>"The Register"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261150380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Register is probably the most unreliable site in the tech world. I would take anything these guys publish as highly suspect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Register is probably the most unreliable site in the tech world .
I would take anything these guys publish as highly suspect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Register is probably the most unreliable site in the tech world.
I would take anything these guys publish as highly suspect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486174</id>
	<title>Yes</title>
	<author>bit trollent</author>
	<datestamp>1261146840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If web application development was still as horrible as it was with asp.net 1.1, I would have given up years ago. With<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET 2.0, it finally became usable. When they introduced AJAX update panels, it became far better than anything else in the market.</p><p>I've been using asp.net 3.5 lately, and I have to say that I am very happy with this development environment. Every other data access layer feel like a complete waste of time compared to LINQ to SQL. I love the way it helps me produce insanely good work very quickly.</p><p>I can't even begin to express my gratitude for the programming language that has paid my bills for the last 3 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If web application development was still as horrible as it was with asp.net 1.1 , I would have given up years ago .
With .NET 2.0 , it finally became usable .
When they introduced AJAX update panels , it became far better than anything else in the market.I 've been using asp.net 3.5 lately , and I have to say that I am very happy with this development environment .
Every other data access layer feel like a complete waste of time compared to LINQ to SQL .
I love the way it helps me produce insanely good work very quickly.I ca n't even begin to express my gratitude for the programming language that has paid my bills for the last 3 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If web application development was still as horrible as it was with asp.net 1.1, I would have given up years ago.
With .NET 2.0, it finally became usable.
When they introduced AJAX update panels, it became far better than anything else in the market.I've been using asp.net 3.5 lately, and I have to say that I am very happy with this development environment.
Every other data access layer feel like a complete waste of time compared to LINQ to SQL.
I love the way it helps me produce insanely good work very quickly.I can't even begin to express my gratitude for the programming language that has paid my bills for the last 3 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487658</id>
	<title>It delivered Mono for MS</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1261153740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It further divided the open source desktop effectively by infecting Gnome and even GNU Benchmark Linux, Debian with Mono and made open source nerds call each other names in discussions.</p><p>There are millions of Mono infected servers out there which the administrator/IT manager has forced to agree some complex agreement with MS. Otherwise, these people wouldn't even care if MS has existed or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It further divided the open source desktop effectively by infecting Gnome and even GNU Benchmark Linux , Debian with Mono and made open source nerds call each other names in discussions.There are millions of Mono infected servers out there which the administrator/IT manager has forced to agree some complex agreement with MS. Otherwise , these people would n't even care if MS has existed or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It further divided the open source desktop effectively by infecting Gnome and even GNU Benchmark Linux, Debian with Mono and made open source nerds call each other names in discussions.There are millions of Mono infected servers out there which the administrator/IT manager has forced to agree some complex agreement with MS. Otherwise, these people wouldn't even care if MS has existed or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160</id>
	<title>Re:Java too complex</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261146720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a professional Java programmer, I've watched as Java-the-language has stagnated. Java-the-platform has only thrived thanks to Open Source, and no thanks to the sclerotic Java Community Process and an ineffectual steward in Sun Microsystems.</p><p>Java programmers have watched in horror as C# gained fully reified generics, lambdas and closures, arbitrary monadic comprehensions and Hindley-Milner type inference, whilst we've only grudgingly been allowed a broken generics model whilst Sun spent years rejecting and rewriting closure proposals that are still 1-2 years away from adoption.</p><p>C# is thriving because it has a benevolent dictator in the form of Anders Hjelberg. Java the language is a stagnant mess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a professional Java programmer , I 've watched as Java-the-language has stagnated .
Java-the-platform has only thrived thanks to Open Source , and no thanks to the sclerotic Java Community Process and an ineffectual steward in Sun Microsystems.Java programmers have watched in horror as C # gained fully reified generics , lambdas and closures , arbitrary monadic comprehensions and Hindley-Milner type inference , whilst we 've only grudgingly been allowed a broken generics model whilst Sun spent years rejecting and rewriting closure proposals that are still 1-2 years away from adoption.C # is thriving because it has a benevolent dictator in the form of Anders Hjelberg .
Java the language is a stagnant mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a professional Java programmer, I've watched as Java-the-language has stagnated.
Java-the-platform has only thrived thanks to Open Source, and no thanks to the sclerotic Java Community Process and an ineffectual steward in Sun Microsystems.Java programmers have watched in horror as C# gained fully reified generics, lambdas and closures, arbitrary monadic comprehensions and Hindley-Milner type inference, whilst we've only grudgingly been allowed a broken generics model whilst Sun spent years rejecting and rewriting closure proposals that are still 1-2 years away from adoption.C# is thriving because it has a benevolent dictator in the form of Anders Hjelberg.
Java the language is a stagnant mess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489878</id>
	<title>Re:.Not</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1261162080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Non-existent<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET model?  Huh?  "Right-Mouse-&gt;Deploy"?  msdeploy?  msbuild?  WIX?  VS2008 built in installer projects?  Seriously, there is only one type of person who thinks Eclipse is "far better" than VS2008, and that's someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.  Eclipse is certainly a better Java development environment, I'll give it that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Non-existent .NET model ?
Huh ? " Right-Mouse- &gt; Deploy " ?
msdeploy ? msbuild ?
WIX ? VS2008 built in installer projects ?
Seriously , there is only one type of person who thinks Eclipse is " far better " than VS2008 , and that 's someone who does n't know what he 's talking about .
Eclipse is certainly a better Java development environment , I 'll give it that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Non-existent .NET model?
Huh?  "Right-Mouse-&gt;Deploy"?
msdeploy?  msbuild?
WIX?  VS2008 built in installer projects?
Seriously, there is only one type of person who thinks Eclipse is "far better" than VS2008, and that's someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Eclipse is certainly a better Java development environment, I'll give it that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488110</id>
	<title>Re:Performance?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261155540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.Net in and of itself is performant enough as long as you...<br>don't ask it to do calculations on dates<br>don't use WPF as the UI<br>don't expect it to run as fast as C / C++ (~10-50x slower dependiong on tasks)<br>don't use it for realtime (or even close to realtime) performance (See london stock exchange and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net)<br>delegate real grunt tasks to dedicated software (Fortran or C)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.Net in and of itself is performant enough as long as you...do n't ask it to do calculations on datesdo n't use WPF as the UIdo n't expect it to run as fast as C / C + + ( ~ 10-50x slower dependiong on tasks ) do n't use it for realtime ( or even close to realtime ) performance ( See london stock exchange and .Net ) delegate real grunt tasks to dedicated software ( Fortran or C )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.Net in and of itself is performant enough as long as you...don't ask it to do calculations on datesdon't use WPF as the UIdon't expect it to run as fast as C / C++ (~10-50x slower dependiong on tasks)don't use it for realtime (or even close to realtime) performance (See london stock exchange and .Net)delegate real grunt tasks to dedicated software (Fortran or C)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486002</id>
	<title>"mentioned"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261145820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>steadily increasing demand for C#, which is now mentioned in around 32 per cent of UK IT programming vacancies</i>

<p>Yup see them every day

</p><p>"Please don't apply if you have C# experience"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>steadily increasing demand for C # , which is now mentioned in around 32 per cent of UK IT programming vacancies Yup see them every day " Please do n't apply if you have C # experience "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>steadily increasing demand for C#, which is now mentioned in around 32 per cent of UK IT programming vacancies

Yup see them every day

"Please don't apply if you have C# experience"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486208</id>
	<title>Re:.Not</title>
	<author>cabjf</author>
	<datestamp>1261147020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I got the feeling Microsoft looked at Java and said, "Gee, people really like things that are multi-something, instead of multi-platform, let's do multi-language."  Thus the CLI was born, but everyone just uses C# with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET anyhow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I got the feeling Microsoft looked at Java and said , " Gee , people really like things that are multi-something , instead of multi-platform , let 's do multi-language .
" Thus the CLI was born , but everyone just uses C # with .NET anyhow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got the feeling Microsoft looked at Java and said, "Gee, people really like things that are multi-something, instead of multi-platform, let's do multi-language.
"  Thus the CLI was born, but everyone just uses C# with .NET anyhow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486116</id>
	<title>Java vs C Sharp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261146480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think C# is a great language and the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net framework has many powerful features which make a developer productive.</p><p>But still, I think Java has a much wider range of tools to make the developer even more productive. Hibernate, Spring, Apache Shiro, Groovy, Grails, Lucene, Compass are some few of many.</p><p>Since I am a web developer, I've never been as productive as when I started with Grails. Compared to Asp<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net we've improved our productivity with 400\%</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think C # is a great language and the .Net framework has many powerful features which make a developer productive.But still , I think Java has a much wider range of tools to make the developer even more productive .
Hibernate , Spring , Apache Shiro , Groovy , Grails , Lucene , Compass are some few of many.Since I am a web developer , I 've never been as productive as when I started with Grails .
Compared to Asp .Net we 've improved our productivity with 400 \ %</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think C# is a great language and the .Net framework has many powerful features which make a developer productive.But still, I think Java has a much wider range of tools to make the developer even more productive.
Hibernate, Spring, Apache Shiro, Groovy, Grails, Lucene, Compass are some few of many.Since I am a web developer, I've never been as productive as when I started with Grails.
Compared to Asp .Net we've improved our productivity with 400\%</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487968</id>
	<title>Re:I love .Net for the desktop</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261154940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We simply give out the UI layer in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET / C# and any real calculation is done in a DLL written in Fortran and compiled. They are free to reprogram the UI if they want, we even sell the interface specifications if they want to integrate it.</p><p>But the simple thing is that you need a UI on top of a calculation kernel to sell. So WPF / C# in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is simply one of the most efficient ways we have found of providing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We simply give out the UI layer in .NET / C # and any real calculation is done in a DLL written in Fortran and compiled .
They are free to reprogram the UI if they want , we even sell the interface specifications if they want to integrate it.But the simple thing is that you need a UI on top of a calculation kernel to sell .
So WPF / C # in .NET is simply one of the most efficient ways we have found of providing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We simply give out the UI layer in .NET / C# and any real calculation is done in a DLL written in Fortran and compiled.
They are free to reprogram the UI if they want, we even sell the interface specifications if they want to integrate it.But the simple thing is that you need a UI on top of a calculation kernel to sell.
So WPF / C# in .NET is simply one of the most efficient ways we have found of providing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486978</id>
	<title>Re:Asp.Net is NOT a 'popular' business framework.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261150680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>please dont bullcrap if you are not in industry. i am one of the web developers who specializes in ecommerce web development. and the current situation is, nothing is able to come close to php+mysql for developing ecommerce/business websites.</p></div><p>I'm not familiar with what smaller ecommerce sites are running on, but the two biggest players in the e-commerce space, IBM WebSphere Commerce and ATG, are both running on the J2EE stack.  In fact, most of the eCommerce products that you'll see mentioned in trade mags and Gartner reports are running on Java; not PHP or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>please dont bullcrap if you are not in industry .
i am one of the web developers who specializes in ecommerce web development .
and the current situation is , nothing is able to come close to php + mysql for developing ecommerce/business websites.I 'm not familiar with what smaller ecommerce sites are running on , but the two biggest players in the e-commerce space , IBM WebSphere Commerce and ATG , are both running on the J2EE stack .
In fact , most of the eCommerce products that you 'll see mentioned in trade mags and Gartner reports are running on Java ; not PHP or .NET .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>please dont bullcrap if you are not in industry.
i am one of the web developers who specializes in ecommerce web development.
and the current situation is, nothing is able to come close to php+mysql for developing ecommerce/business websites.I'm not familiar with what smaller ecommerce sites are running on, but the two biggest players in the e-commerce space, IBM WebSphere Commerce and ATG, are both running on the J2EE stack.
In fact, most of the eCommerce products that you'll see mentioned in trade mags and Gartner reports are running on Java; not PHP or .NET.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488134</id>
	<title>Re:Performance?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261155600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Languages don't have speeds, algorithms do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Languages do n't have speeds , algorithms do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Languages don't have speeds, algorithms do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486398</id>
	<title>Re:Point &amp; Click programming</title>
	<author>minginqunt</author>
	<datestamp>1261147860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you feel about the time and resources Microsoft has poured into developing Visual F#, Linq, Parallel Extensions, the DLR, IronPython/IronRuby, not to mention the funding of Microsoft Research, many of whose fellows such as Simon Peyton-Jones (maintainer of the Glasgow Haskell Compiler) are at the very bleeding edge of programming language research?</p><p>Are these the actions of a company that wants to stultify programmers' minds?</p><p>Microsoft, for all its failings, understands its developers. Always has.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you feel about the time and resources Microsoft has poured into developing Visual F # , Linq , Parallel Extensions , the DLR , IronPython/IronRuby , not to mention the funding of Microsoft Research , many of whose fellows such as Simon Peyton-Jones ( maintainer of the Glasgow Haskell Compiler ) are at the very bleeding edge of programming language research ? Are these the actions of a company that wants to stultify programmers ' minds ? Microsoft , for all its failings , understands its developers .
Always has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you feel about the time and resources Microsoft has poured into developing Visual F#, Linq, Parallel Extensions, the DLR, IronPython/IronRuby, not to mention the funding of Microsoft Research, many of whose fellows such as Simon Peyton-Jones (maintainer of the Glasgow Haskell Compiler) are at the very bleeding edge of programming language research?Are these the actions of a company that wants to stultify programmers' minds?Microsoft, for all its failings, understands its developers.
Always has.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30502528</id>
	<title>Re:.Not</title>
	<author>goga7</author>
	<datestamp>1261252320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm on the verge of abandoning Java for my projects. Currently, there's just almost no business reason to use it. Microsoft tools (+ReSharper) are now as nice as tools for Java, ASP.NET is as good as any Java web framework, and WPF totally kills SWING on the client.</p></div><p>
Netbeans has freaken awsome refactoring. ReSharper has good number of features ( less then Netbeans). But that fucken thing makes VS so unstable and causes lots of issues.<br>
Unit testing is very unstable and VS is more stable without it.<br>
And.... here comes the kicker.............YOU HAVE TO F*CKEN PAY FOR THAT PIECE OF SHIT.....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm on the verge of abandoning Java for my projects .
Currently , there 's just almost no business reason to use it .
Microsoft tools ( + ReSharper ) are now as nice as tools for Java , ASP.NET is as good as any Java web framework , and WPF totally kills SWING on the client .
Netbeans has freaken awsome refactoring .
ReSharper has good number of features ( less then Netbeans ) .
But that fucken thing makes VS so unstable and causes lots of issues .
Unit testing is very unstable and VS is more stable without it .
And.... here comes the kicker.............YOU HAVE TO F * CKEN PAY FOR THAT PIECE OF SHIT.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm on the verge of abandoning Java for my projects.
Currently, there's just almost no business reason to use it.
Microsoft tools (+ReSharper) are now as nice as tools for Java, ASP.NET is as good as any Java web framework, and WPF totally kills SWING on the client.
Netbeans has freaken awsome refactoring.
ReSharper has good number of features ( less then Netbeans).
But that fucken thing makes VS so unstable and causes lots of issues.
Unit testing is very unstable and VS is more stable without it.
And.... here comes the kicker.............YOU HAVE TO F*CKEN PAY FOR THAT PIECE OF SHIT.....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486644</id>
	<title>Re:Java too complex</title>
	<author>DiegoBravo</author>
	<datestamp>1261149000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I've watched as Java-the-language has stagnated</p><p>I agree with your opinions but not with the apparent conclusions; I really don't need nor want a language with more complexity, despite some potential benefits of functional programming or any other "paradigm"; in other words, I don't want a new C++: That would be exciting for experimenting and playing, but terrible when introducing new members to our programming team.</p><p>Remember that C89 (forget C99) is still doing well; the same goes for COBOL, despite oddities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I 've watched as Java-the-language has stagnatedI agree with your opinions but not with the apparent conclusions ; I really do n't need nor want a language with more complexity , despite some potential benefits of functional programming or any other " paradigm " ; in other words , I do n't want a new C + + : That would be exciting for experimenting and playing , but terrible when introducing new members to our programming team.Remember that C89 ( forget C99 ) is still doing well ; the same goes for COBOL , despite oddities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I've watched as Java-the-language has stagnatedI agree with your opinions but not with the apparent conclusions; I really don't need nor want a language with more complexity, despite some potential benefits of functional programming or any other "paradigm"; in other words, I don't want a new C++: That would be exciting for experimenting and playing, but terrible when introducing new members to our programming team.Remember that C89 (forget C99) is still doing well; the same goes for COBOL, despite oddities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487414</id>
	<title>Re:Current Monster Numbers: Java vs .NET</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261152720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A few things:</p><p>First, ASP.NET isn't a programming language, it's a library. A lot of people write websites in C# using ASP.NET libraries.</p><p>Secondly, you have to add the numbers up.</p><p>So, using your values, we get:</p><p>US-Wide search results:<br>dotNET: 8266<br>Java: 5000</p><p>Last 7 days:<br>dotNET: 2590<br>Java: 1608</p><p>NYC, last 60 days:<br>dotNET: 553<br>Java: 591</p><p>In other words, your conclusion is disingenuous. Job postings asking for ".NET experience" typically mean C# even though they don't explicitly say that. They very rarely mean VB.NET or any of the other languages supported by the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET VM. Same goes for ASP.NET (which, as I said above, is just a library).</p><p>While it does appear that Java is currently slightly higher in demand in NYC than<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, that doesn't jive with the rest of the US overall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A few things : First , ASP.NET is n't a programming language , it 's a library .
A lot of people write websites in C # using ASP.NET libraries.Secondly , you have to add the numbers up.So , using your values , we get : US-Wide search results : dotNET : 8266Java : 5000Last 7 days : dotNET : 2590Java : 1608NYC , last 60 days : dotNET : 553Java : 591In other words , your conclusion is disingenuous .
Job postings asking for " .NET experience " typically mean C # even though they do n't explicitly say that .
They very rarely mean VB.NET or any of the other languages supported by the .NET VM .
Same goes for ASP.NET ( which , as I said above , is just a library ) .While it does appear that Java is currently slightly higher in demand in NYC than .NET , that does n't jive with the rest of the US overall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few things:First, ASP.NET isn't a programming language, it's a library.
A lot of people write websites in C# using ASP.NET libraries.Secondly, you have to add the numbers up.So, using your values, we get:US-Wide search results:dotNET: 8266Java: 5000Last 7 days:dotNET: 2590Java: 1608NYC, last 60 days:dotNET: 553Java: 591In other words, your conclusion is disingenuous.
Job postings asking for ".NET experience" typically mean C# even though they don't explicitly say that.
They very rarely mean VB.NET or any of the other languages supported by the .NET VM.
Same goes for ASP.NET (which, as I said above, is just a library).While it does appear that Java is currently slightly higher in demand in NYC than .NET, that doesn't jive with the rest of the US overall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486908</id>
	<title>Re:Point &amp; Click programming</title>
	<author>jmyers</author>
	<datestamp>1261150200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? Can you do any useful programming "point and click"? We do a fair amount of development in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET. Mostly web based. We found very quickly that using the GUI to create any code is completely useless.</p><p>We program in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET because our upper management mandated it back in 2004 for marketing purposes. They wanted to be able to say that we develop in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET. Prior to that all of our web application were classic ASP, which was also mandated by management when we started developing web apps.</p><p>I thought it would be great to get away from<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.asp hell and have separation of code and design. NOT! I was horrified when I fist saw<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.aspx is horrible. Why in the hell did they invent a whole new rendering language rather than just use HTML. Now you have C# plus some jack leg thing that is aspx. So much for having a non-programmer web designer do the HTML coding. At least when we were using asp we could get a graphic artist to create the HTML and then the programmers ad the interactive parts. We had our own simple framework that worked well for authentication session tracking. Now our apps look like crap because programmers cant design and no one will let a designer touch the code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Can you do any useful programming " point and click " ?
We do a fair amount of development in .NET .
Mostly web based .
We found very quickly that using the GUI to create any code is completely useless.We program in .NET because our upper management mandated it back in 2004 for marketing purposes .
They wanted to be able to say that we develop in .NET .
Prior to that all of our web application were classic ASP , which was also mandated by management when we started developing web apps.I thought it would be great to get away from .asp hell and have separation of code and design .
NOT ! I was horrified when I fist saw .NET .
.aspx is horrible .
Why in the hell did they invent a whole new rendering language rather than just use HTML .
Now you have C # plus some jack leg thing that is aspx .
So much for having a non-programmer web designer do the HTML coding .
At least when we were using asp we could get a graphic artist to create the HTML and then the programmers ad the interactive parts .
We had our own simple framework that worked well for authentication session tracking .
Now our apps look like crap because programmers cant design and no one will let a designer touch the code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Can you do any useful programming "point and click"?
We do a fair amount of development in .NET.
Mostly web based.
We found very quickly that using the GUI to create any code is completely useless.We program in .NET because our upper management mandated it back in 2004 for marketing purposes.
They wanted to be able to say that we develop in .NET.
Prior to that all of our web application were classic ASP, which was also mandated by management when we started developing web apps.I thought it would be great to get away from .asp hell and have separation of code and design.
NOT! I was horrified when I fist saw .NET.
.aspx is horrible.
Why in the hell did they invent a whole new rendering language rather than just use HTML.
Now you have C# plus some jack leg thing that is aspx.
So much for having a non-programmer web designer do the HTML coding.
At least when we were using asp we could get a graphic artist to create the HTML and then the programmers ad the interactive parts.
We had our own simple framework that worked well for authentication session tracking.
Now our apps look like crap because programmers cant design and no one will let a designer touch the code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30497454</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1261218600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The article says that demand for c# is around 32\%, but it should also add in the demand for vb.net, which is less but should be added to the total, as it is in use.  In my view, the language features, excellent development environment and comprehensive libraries make<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET a win for most LOB applications - which is the vast majority of all PC applications in use at the moment.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article says that demand for c # is around 32 \ % , but it should also add in the demand for vb.net , which is less but should be added to the total , as it is in use .
In my view , the language features , excellent development environment and comprehensive libraries make .NET a win for most LOB applications - which is the vast majority of all PC applications in use at the moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article says that demand for c# is around 32\%, but it should also add in the demand for vb.net, which is less but should be added to the total, as it is in use.
In my view, the language features, excellent development environment and comprehensive libraries make .NET a win for most LOB applications - which is the vast majority of all PC applications in use at the moment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30498686</id>
	<title>Re:MS really does care about making devs happy</title>
	<author>Douglas Goodall</author>
	<datestamp>1261240740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have been waiting years to hear this story. I may be courting flames, but I hated visual basic from the beginning. An advertising point was that you could program without being a programmer. To me, Visual Basic seemed a lot like Ada. I made jokes that there wasn't really an Ada language but rather a run-time that could recognize a few example ada programs and benchmarks. The concept that programs can be written by non-programmers is troubling. I am NOT saying that non-programmer's should not program. What I am saying is the serious software people check return codes, do risk analysis, care about robustness, spend time considering  repercussions of coding decisions... I think it is great is someone can cobble up some code to do something small, but I prefer code that must be correct to be written by serious developers that care about the difference between programming and software engineering. I think too much process is bad, but maintainability and reliability and efficiency are some of the goals of serious developers and people that spend a few weeks with Visual Basic and think they can program haven't a clue why these things are important.
<p>
Getting back to the point though... Writing important code in a single sourced proprietary language is risky the same way designing hardware with single sourced components. Hardware developers learn the hard way when Intel decides to drop a part that was needed in a design unexpectedly. Serious hardware engineers think twice about using single sourced components because availability and pricing are not in control. Multi-vendor competition is good in hardware as pricing stays competitive and there are alternative vendors for critical components.
</p><p>
I clearly say the danger of in the success of Visual Basic, and watched with horror as Microsoft told us VB was the great language we had been waiting for. Actually I believe c++ was that language, but Microsoft polluted the c++ language with their foundation classes. That was the beginning of the end as developers had to decide whether to utilize Microsoft's framework. The decision to do that cost you the ability to transport to other platforms, unless you were willing to hand port MFC which had licensing issues.
</p><p>
Microsoft wasn't satisfied to lock people in with MFC and came up with something grander to lock people in. The arrival of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET happened around the time that Intel and Microsoft decided that the common man shouldn't be allowed to write in native code, but rather should write managed code. Personally, I don't want to be managed by Microsoft.
</p><p>
The last point that I wanted to make is the the trusted platform and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET did Microsoft and the rest of us almost no benefit when it came to protecting against viruses, and it is clear from the CERT notifications that Windows continues to be riddled with vulnerabilities that allow infection by netbots. I guess I am saying, "I told you so". I failed to convince people of my concerns about where Microsoft was taking the software community, and have watched in horror as the industry has raced to the bottom hiring foreign<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET coders instead of real software engineers with decades of experience writing maintainable, efficient, reliable code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been waiting years to hear this story .
I may be courting flames , but I hated visual basic from the beginning .
An advertising point was that you could program without being a programmer .
To me , Visual Basic seemed a lot like Ada .
I made jokes that there was n't really an Ada language but rather a run-time that could recognize a few example ada programs and benchmarks .
The concept that programs can be written by non-programmers is troubling .
I am NOT saying that non-programmer 's should not program .
What I am saying is the serious software people check return codes , do risk analysis , care about robustness , spend time considering repercussions of coding decisions... I think it is great is someone can cobble up some code to do something small , but I prefer code that must be correct to be written by serious developers that care about the difference between programming and software engineering .
I think too much process is bad , but maintainability and reliability and efficiency are some of the goals of serious developers and people that spend a few weeks with Visual Basic and think they can program have n't a clue why these things are important .
Getting back to the point though... Writing important code in a single sourced proprietary language is risky the same way designing hardware with single sourced components .
Hardware developers learn the hard way when Intel decides to drop a part that was needed in a design unexpectedly .
Serious hardware engineers think twice about using single sourced components because availability and pricing are not in control .
Multi-vendor competition is good in hardware as pricing stays competitive and there are alternative vendors for critical components .
I clearly say the danger of in the success of Visual Basic , and watched with horror as Microsoft told us VB was the great language we had been waiting for .
Actually I believe c + + was that language , but Microsoft polluted the c + + language with their foundation classes .
That was the beginning of the end as developers had to decide whether to utilize Microsoft 's framework .
The decision to do that cost you the ability to transport to other platforms , unless you were willing to hand port MFC which had licensing issues .
Microsoft was n't satisfied to lock people in with MFC and came up with something grander to lock people in .
The arrival of .NET happened around the time that Intel and Microsoft decided that the common man should n't be allowed to write in native code , but rather should write managed code .
Personally , I do n't want to be managed by Microsoft .
The last point that I wanted to make is the the trusted platform and .NET did Microsoft and the rest of us almost no benefit when it came to protecting against viruses , and it is clear from the CERT notifications that Windows continues to be riddled with vulnerabilities that allow infection by netbots .
I guess I am saying , " I told you so " .
I failed to convince people of my concerns about where Microsoft was taking the software community , and have watched in horror as the industry has raced to the bottom hiring foreign .NET coders instead of real software engineers with decades of experience writing maintainable , efficient , reliable code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been waiting years to hear this story.
I may be courting flames, but I hated visual basic from the beginning.
An advertising point was that you could program without being a programmer.
To me, Visual Basic seemed a lot like Ada.
I made jokes that there wasn't really an Ada language but rather a run-time that could recognize a few example ada programs and benchmarks.
The concept that programs can be written by non-programmers is troubling.
I am NOT saying that non-programmer's should not program.
What I am saying is the serious software people check return codes, do risk analysis, care about robustness, spend time considering  repercussions of coding decisions... I think it is great is someone can cobble up some code to do something small, but I prefer code that must be correct to be written by serious developers that care about the difference between programming and software engineering.
I think too much process is bad, but maintainability and reliability and efficiency are some of the goals of serious developers and people that spend a few weeks with Visual Basic and think they can program haven't a clue why these things are important.
Getting back to the point though... Writing important code in a single sourced proprietary language is risky the same way designing hardware with single sourced components.
Hardware developers learn the hard way when Intel decides to drop a part that was needed in a design unexpectedly.
Serious hardware engineers think twice about using single sourced components because availability and pricing are not in control.
Multi-vendor competition is good in hardware as pricing stays competitive and there are alternative vendors for critical components.
I clearly say the danger of in the success of Visual Basic, and watched with horror as Microsoft told us VB was the great language we had been waiting for.
Actually I believe c++ was that language, but Microsoft polluted the c++ language with their foundation classes.
That was the beginning of the end as developers had to decide whether to utilize Microsoft's framework.
The decision to do that cost you the ability to transport to other platforms, unless you were willing to hand port MFC which had licensing issues.
Microsoft wasn't satisfied to lock people in with MFC and came up with something grander to lock people in.
The arrival of .NET happened around the time that Intel and Microsoft decided that the common man shouldn't be allowed to write in native code, but rather should write managed code.
Personally, I don't want to be managed by Microsoft.
The last point that I wanted to make is the the trusted platform and .NET did Microsoft and the rest of us almost no benefit when it came to protecting against viruses, and it is clear from the CERT notifications that Windows continues to be riddled with vulnerabilities that allow infection by netbots.
I guess I am saying, "I told you so".
I failed to convince people of my concerns about where Microsoft was taking the software community, and have watched in horror as the industry has raced to the bottom hiring foreign .NET coders instead of real software engineers with decades of experience writing maintainable, efficient, reliable code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487082</id>
	<title>Re:.Not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261151340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I'm on the verge of abandoning Java for my projects. Currently, there's just almost no business reason to use it.</p><p>Yes. Nevermind the target server platforms. Those don't matter at all...</p><p>Like I said:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is a Windows centric solution meant to keep the Windows users fixated on Windows and not distracted by anyone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I 'm on the verge of abandoning Java for my projects .
Currently , there 's just almost no business reason to use it.Yes .
Nevermind the target server platforms .
Those do n't matter at all...Like I said : .NET is a Windows centric solution meant to keep the Windows users fixated on Windows and not distracted by anyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I'm on the verge of abandoning Java for my projects.
Currently, there's just almost no business reason to use it.Yes.
Nevermind the target server platforms.
Those don't matter at all...Like I said: .NET is a Windows centric solution meant to keep the Windows users fixated on Windows and not distracted by anyone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489222</id>
	<title>They do not compare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261159860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.NET is for all practical purposes a singe platform technology. Is it going to be dominant on that platform? Of course. Java is a thing at entirely different level. It's something that runs on every OS and every type of device out there. So, as soon as there's a chance that you need to support or interact with anything other than Windows<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET is out.</p><p>Why not compare the popularity of Visual Basic vs Java?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.NET is for all practical purposes a singe platform technology .
Is it going to be dominant on that platform ?
Of course .
Java is a thing at entirely different level .
It 's something that runs on every OS and every type of device out there .
So , as soon as there 's a chance that you need to support or interact with anything other than Windows .NET is out.Why not compare the popularity of Visual Basic vs Java ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.NET is for all practical purposes a singe platform technology.
Is it going to be dominant on that platform?
Of course.
Java is a thing at entirely different level.
It's something that runs on every OS and every type of device out there.
So, as soon as there's a chance that you need to support or interact with anything other than Windows .NET is out.Why not compare the popularity of Visual Basic vs Java?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488982</id>
	<title>Re:MS really does care about making devs happy</title>
	<author>bit9</author>
	<datestamp>1261158960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I agree. I spent several years writing almost exclusively in Visual C++. We did mostly straight C with some C++ sprinkled in where it made sense, and we hand-rolled all our UIs in the Visual C++ resource editor.
</p><p>
Then I started learning VB, and realized I could save countless hours of tedious UI coding by slapping the UI together and VB, and compiling all the "hard core" C/C++ stuff as a DLL, which the VB UI would then call. That increased our productivity by an order of magnitude. No more having to write hundreds of lines of Petzold-style C code for every \%@$*ing UI element. It was great.
</p><p>
Those who blindly made fun of VB as being wimpy and soft, just aren't using it right. Nobody ever said you were supposed to use VB for <i>everything</i>, including all your heavy, CPU-intensive algorithms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
I spent several years writing almost exclusively in Visual C + + .
We did mostly straight C with some C + + sprinkled in where it made sense , and we hand-rolled all our UIs in the Visual C + + resource editor .
Then I started learning VB , and realized I could save countless hours of tedious UI coding by slapping the UI together and VB , and compiling all the " hard core " C/C + + stuff as a DLL , which the VB UI would then call .
That increased our productivity by an order of magnitude .
No more having to write hundreds of lines of Petzold-style C code for every \ % @ $ * ing UI element .
It was great .
Those who blindly made fun of VB as being wimpy and soft , just are n't using it right .
Nobody ever said you were supposed to use VB for everything , including all your heavy , CPU-intensive algorithms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I agree.
I spent several years writing almost exclusively in Visual C++.
We did mostly straight C with some C++ sprinkled in where it made sense, and we hand-rolled all our UIs in the Visual C++ resource editor.
Then I started learning VB, and realized I could save countless hours of tedious UI coding by slapping the UI together and VB, and compiling all the "hard core" C/C++ stuff as a DLL, which the VB UI would then call.
That increased our productivity by an order of magnitude.
No more having to write hundreds of lines of Petzold-style C code for every \%@$*ing UI element.
It was great.
Those who blindly made fun of VB as being wimpy and soft, just aren't using it right.
Nobody ever said you were supposed to use VB for everything, including all your heavy, CPU-intensive algorithms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486470</id>
	<title>C# first choice?  Ummm, no.</title>
	<author>CritterNYC</author>
	<datestamp>1261148160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C# is probably the first choice for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET development.  But I doubt C# is the first choice for all Windows development.  Especially considering that no major commercially-available software is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET-based,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET isn't even used for Microsoft Office or Microsoft's other software packages, and using<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET requires you to install the rather large<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework on a PC before you can even install your app unless you're using Windows 7 (because XP, the world's most popular OS has no<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework pre-installed).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C # is probably the first choice for .NET development .
But I doubt C # is the first choice for all Windows development .
Especially considering that no major commercially-available software is .NET-based , .NET is n't even used for Microsoft Office or Microsoft 's other software packages , and using .NET requires you to install the rather large .NET framework on a PC before you can even install your app unless you 're using Windows 7 ( because XP , the world 's most popular OS has no .NET framework pre-installed ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C# is probably the first choice for .NET development.
But I doubt C# is the first choice for all Windows development.
Especially considering that no major commercially-available software is .NET-based, .NET isn't even used for Microsoft Office or Microsoft's other software packages, and using .NET requires you to install the rather large .NET framework on a PC before you can even install your app unless you're using Windows 7 (because XP, the world's most popular OS has no .NET framework pre-installed).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30492062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30506694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30496892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30494682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30497992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30492964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30485994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30491576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30492276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30502528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30496612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30492320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30495208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30485994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30496662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30495830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30500676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30498876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30485994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30492756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30491000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30485994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30485994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30492808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30497054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30493424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30497770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30485994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30492952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30485994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30496698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30507776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30491138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30498686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30485994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_18_0457257_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0457257.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486076
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0457257.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0457257.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0457257.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30507776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490296
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0457257.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30492276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0457257.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486596
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0457257.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0457257.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0457257.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30485938
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0457257.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0457257.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486160
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486298
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486820
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488250
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488978
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488946
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490712
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30506694
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489780
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489508
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30498686
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30496612
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488982
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487984
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486796
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486656
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30496698
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489062
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486644
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486910
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486952
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30494682
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30491138
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487742
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30500676
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30492062
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489466
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488404
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488560
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30497992
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30492964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487008
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30497054
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30496892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486352
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489392
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488644
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487714
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30491000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0457257.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30485994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30492756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30496662
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30492952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30492808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30491576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0457257.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486272
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488342
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489878
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487082
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30502528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486106
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487204
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30495208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486208
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487858
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0457257.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486150
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0457257.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0457257.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0457257.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0457257.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30493424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487144
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489234
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30488702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0457257.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486174
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0457257.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30498876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30497770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487414
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30495830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0457257.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0457257.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30487830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0457257.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30489320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0457257.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_18_0457257.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30486176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30490462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_18_0457257.30492320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
