tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778948.post1044538727902461451..comments2020-05-27T09:13:49.796+01:00Comments on Enhyper: Graeme Burnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09245381846175594181noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778948.post-76388557052686619432008-05-10T15:48:00.000+01:002008-05-10T15:48:00.000+01:00There is an open source .NET: www.mono-project.com...There is an open source .NET: www.mono-project.com. Solves the licensing issues of vendor-lock in as well, and if you want support, I believe Novell will sell you some, but usually the community will do well enough. It is mature now, but will be more so in a year or so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778948.post-56762260045139148402008-05-09T05:32:00.000+01:002008-05-09T05:32:00.000+01:00That hardened my heart against third party librari...<I>That hardened my heart against third party libraries developed by private companies</I><BR/><BR/>Private companies are capable developing open source libraries. (For example, Qt from Trolltech.) The problem here is closed source software, not commercial software.James Justin Harrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08884339175035418974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778948.post-65820377470304100892008-05-08T21:05:00.000+01:002008-05-08T21:05:00.000+01:00I can confirm your suspicion. There are indeed occ...I can confirm your suspicion. There are indeed occasional 'eeek' bugs in .Net. I remember tracking down an ASP.Net library function call that was just a variation on Collection.Add("myContent"). In testing, "myContent" seemed to just disappear. After carefully going over "myContent" with a fine toothed comb, I finally checked Microsoft's Knowledge base website. Sure enough, there was an open bug: the .Net library function call had no code in it at all. Eeek.<BR/><BR/>Don't mistake this anecdote as evidence that I dislike .Net. Like a luxury 18 wheeler, .Net rides more smoothly than a casual onlooker would guess.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com