<p>That's a shame. It is a very well designed language on a relatively pleasant to work in common runtime. As I have said many times in the past, C# is proof that Microsoft should have stayed in the field of programming languages. They are capable of creating good things... just not operating systems or application software.</p>
<p>In any event, implementing in C# is something that is an option if your requirements only go so far as requiring a free software stack. If you have requirements that go beyond that... well, all I can say is that I should hope in the interest of professionalism that the decision isn't political. Saying "I won't use C# because it was designed by a consortium of companies that included Microsoft" hasn't the ability to hold water when all the facts are considered.</p>
<p>As an aside, I seem to recall that Microsoft has had a hand in designing some of the protocols and systems that we use today. Are you going to avoid the use of btrfs because Oracle is a sponsor of it as well? Looking through just RFCs alone, there is an awful lot of tech that both companies have their hands in, both outright and through acquisitions and so forth... will you avoid those, too, because of a name?</p>
<p>If there were any proof whatsoever to back the numerous assertions that have been made about the "closed" nature of the CLR and C# then I would be inclined to understand such a position. But being a fan of logical argument, I cannot say that I understand what amounts to an ad hominem, even if the target of the ad hominem is as (un)likable as our federal government.</p>
<p>--<br>
Sent from my G2 running CyanogenMod!<br>
That is, a phone. :)</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Nov 9, 2010 8:36 AM, "Geoffrey Myers" <<a href="mailto:lists@serioustechnology.com">lists@serioustechnology.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"></div>