The pros and cons of .NET

[Cor Ligthert]

Your memory is short, considering that you can check this thread for

references to your statements.

This is the quote that started most of this thread:

"The fact of the "Ägainst a large runtime needed", is really for
laughing, there is no runtimer needed with dotNet programs. It shows that
you are not know what you are writing."

I showed with this and I do it in C# language than maybe you understand it
NetFramework != Runtime

When the NetFramework is loaded there is no need to load an extra runtime,
as I have written in previous messages in this thread.

You later added this bit of nonsense.

I understand that you have gotten the right to judge, altough beneath you
prove it with mostly your statements telling what I am thinking however not
what I am writting.

"However that is not an installable runtimer. It is a part of the OS
layer which has the name Net framework. "

You contradicted this last statement in a later posting.

Show where. I expect from you an apologize when you cannot find it.

"I am glad you understood that part of the text I wrote in this thread,
it is a layer uppon the OS"

At no point did anyone suggest that the .NET framework consists ONLY of a
runtime or that the runtime was the ONLY requirement to make .NET apps
run.
However, your first statement does not state that. You first statement
suggests that there is NO runtime needed with .NET programs, which is
absurd. You stated yourself, in a later message, that the CLR is part of
the .NET framework, and that the framework had to be installed in order
for
.NET apps to run...

Everybody except you (because you had no contribution execpt again a flame
about me) has written it in the way, and I show you in C# code maybe you
understand that..

Runtimer == NetFramework.

I have everywhere told that the framework has as a part a runtimer.
I expect from you an apologize when you cannot proof this.

To say that the CLR is not an installable runtime is also absurd. It is
part of a package that is installable, and it is a runtime. You cannot
"independently" install it, but you can install it. In fact, many apps
now
bootstrap the installation to install the framework from the MS site when
the app is being installed.

Did I bring this in discussion I only tell
Runtime != NetFramework

I expect from you an apologize when you cannot proof this.

(In this case it is not needed to download a very large runtime by the way)

To say that the .NET framework is part of "the OS layer" is also absurd.
The use of the article "the" implies, correctly, that you are discussing
the
OS as a single layer, onto which applications are installed. Your
statement
does not differentiate between layers within the OS. You stated,
incorrectly, that the framework was part of THE OS LAYER.

Where did you read that I wrote that text?
Even the first OS's exist at least from a bios. an IO layer and 2 more which
had in most OS's different names.

Telling that I implies that an OS has a single layer shows again something
about you.

It is not.

When you tell that , than proove it. Or are you from above this world.

Perhaps the real problem here is simply language.

In addition, the following statement is similarly flawed:
"In my opinion and all times I had to do with a runtime was a runtime one
dll which translated the intermidiate code (in the same way you showed the
layers, however than only one) to machine code(or API's)."

You are describing a JIT compiler. That is part of a Runtime, but is not
all of it. A JIT compiler is executed BEFORE the app is run. It is not
normally running WHILE an app is running. The runtime, on the other hand,
is running while the app is running, and includes features like garbage
collection, thread pools, and other useful assistance to the running
program. Also, JIT compilers are occasionally delivered as a single DLL,
but not always. To the best of my knowledge, in the .NET framework, the
JIT
compiler is delivered in one assembly.

Maybe your use of language, however I do not understand you anymore, are you
now saying
NetFramework==Runtime

What is it important what I am describing in your eyes, I am not describing
a runtime as it is in .Net, I am telling about what was always a runtime,
while I have seen the very first ones and many after that in a general way
and which could really not be compared with the complete Net Framework

Once again, it is probably a language thing.

Or maybe the fact that you and some others in this threads cannot keep them
to the facts, however try to lay words in my mouth and when they see that
they have misstated things are telling this kind of messages, although proof
before that they have exactly understood my text.

It says a lot of people who do this.

Cor

 

[JD]

Cor,

I'm pulling myself out of this thread because:

A. Its clear from your responses that you are not understanding what I'm
trying to say, for whatever reason.

B. Its clear from your responses that probably I'm not understanding what
you are trying to say, for whatever reason.

C. You are starting to frighten me with your insane behavior of forming low
opinions of myself, based not on reality but on further misinterpretations
of my messages. Let me state this clearly, you are reading too much into my
messages. I suggest you take some time off and get some rest.

JD

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Let me state this clearly, you are reading too much into my

messages. I suggest you take some time off and get some rest.

One advise, print all what you wrote, go to a mirror and read your messages.
Then you find as last this text above. And than you look in the mirror.

However probably that is for you again a message you don't understand.

Cor

 

[Nick Malik]

Cor,

You asked many times in your message for an apology.
You asked me to apologize for misquoting you, even though I was copying your
words verbatim.

First off, I do apologize. I am sorry.
When I flamed you a few days ago, I suggested that you are ignorant of the
system and that you had not taken the time to learn it.
My statements were over the line. That is not what this newsgroup is for.

On the other hand, in the most recent message, the quotes that I copied were
your quotes. I did not misquote you. I took the time to individually
respond to each of your statements. I responded professionally and treated
you as a student who was making statements that were close to true but not
all the way there. Your defensiveness, perhaps, was due to my prior message.
On the other hand, from the way you have responded to JD, it is apparent
that you are having a hard time hearing the message we are trying to send.

Go back and read each of the statements of Jon and JD, and even mine. No
one but you suggested that the framework was a runtime. We have been
consistent with Microsoft's statements on every point. You said something
that was not true, and then spent the rest of the time defending it by
imagining that we were also saying things that were untrue. None of us did.

I wish you well, Cor. You have been posting to newsgroups for a few years
now. (Google returns quite a few hits for your name). I hope that you have
helped the people you are responding to, and if so, that you keep on
responding. Know that I, too, have been responding on newsgroups for quite
some time. I've made my share of mistakes and I am willing to own up to
them.

I made one mistake a few days ago when I flamed you. I tried to make up for
it by responding to your messages with a cool head, but apparently, that
didn't help.

It is your turn to own your mistakes, Cor. Read your statements. Try to
see what we are seeing.

Perhaps we will both grow a little today,
--- Nick

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Nick,

It would be a good message when you not where telling that I have told the
framework is a runtime.

That it is not, because that is all I wanted to tell in these messages so
would be strange if I wrote that.

As well Jon did not write that, Jon was telling that I told the framework
did not "need" a runtime. What was in words true. However a text alone
cannot be seen without the context of the complete message in my opinion and
that is mostly the basic of the discussion between me and Jon, because he
denies that.

In the message from JD you will very much see that he is telling and trying
to proof that the Framework is nothing more than a runtime, and that is what
I did deny consequently.

I write this not to blame you or whatever, however to make it not unclear
why I made this messages for.

"A Net program does not need extra a runtime when the Net software is
installed, it is alreaydy in it".

I can write more, however makes it again something for discussion.

Cor

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

I wrote "there is no runtimer needed with Net",

No, you wrote:

"there is no runtimer needed with dotNet programs"

There's a *huge* difference between those statements.

If I compile a small bit of C#, I can end up with a .NET program -
which requires a runtime (part of the framework).

While you're demanding apologies from Nick and asking him to prove what
people have said, you'd do well to quote exactly where *anyone* has
said that .NET is a runtime and nothing else. No-one has stated that as
far as I've seen, however many times you've claimed they have.

While that is placed related
to the text from Tim's page "Against: Large runtime needed"

When the Net is installed there is no need to download a runtimer.

Any the point, of course, is that most people don't have .NET installed
- so they have to download the runtime (as part of the framwork).

There's no point in demanding that people find you a link saying that
..NET is nothing but a runtime, as no-one's claimed that in the first
place.

You, however, *did* claim that no runtime is needed with .NET programs
- a false statement. If you'd said that no runtime was needed in
addition to the framework itself, no-one would have disagreed with you.
It may well be that that's what you *meant* to say, but it's not what
you *did* say.

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Again the Jon Skeet style, who quotes constructivly text of others where in
he delete main parts to bring that text in a complete different context..

No, you wrote:

"there is no runtimer needed with dotNet programs"

There's a *huge* difference between those statements.

If I compile a small bit of C#, I can end up with a .NET program -
which requires a runtime (part of the framework).

I do not see the slightest difference Jon, what is the huge difference, I
hope that you understand that when I write Net, that I mean with that the
framework.

While you're demanding apologies from Nick and asking him to prove what
people have said, you'd do well to quote exactly where *anyone* has
said that .NET is a runtime and nothing else. No-one has stated that as
far as I've seen, however many times you've claimed they have.


Any the point, of course, is that most people don't have .NET installed
- so they have to download the runtime (as part of the framwork).

Can you proof that, do you have figures and than in the US, in the EC and
worldwide and of course in relation too the installed computers where it is
possible to install the framework. (I understand in this thread that your
parents are your measurement unit that you use now)

There's no point in demanding that people find you a link saying that
.NET is nothing but a runtime, as no-one's claimed that in the first
place.

Just read this two parts of messages in this thread bellow, reading it in
this thread is to difficult it seems for you.

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=T_05d.110056$D%.103044@attbi_s51

You, however, *did* claim that no runtime is needed with .NET programs
- a false statement. If you'd said that no runtime was needed in
addition to the framework itself, no-one would have disagreed with you.
It may well be that that's what you *meant* to say, but it's not what
you *did* say.

Read this what is written me much earlier that Nick came in

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]

And where you started after that the tone of your messages, however you
forgot that probably again..

In addition I surely did not write it completly clear the first time,
however this was a message to Tim and written in that context, however again
directly answered by Jon Skeet while I have not seen him answering much
other questions the last months than about multithreading.

For me, you obvious did not look at the page from Tim and only took the one
line from me and started again to shout that I am stupid.

As I said much times before, you cannot give me a lesson about this.
Moreover, assuming that I and many others do not know what is JIT or what is
the CLR is really an affront.

So I am now really curious for your answer, however do as many times not
expect it or a message completly beside this with some new by you made facts
as I have often seen by you.

Although that I find it really a waste of time, I could maybe helped better
some people in that time. However I cannot let those every time again thrown
accusings by you open.

Cor

 

[JD]

In the message from JD you will very much see that he is telling and
trying

to proof that the Framework is nothing more than a runtime, and that is what
I did deny consequently.

Cor,

I never said the Framework is nothing more than the runtime! I never meant
my message to mean the Framework is nothing more than the runtime! I do not
know where you got this idea!

This is why its senseless to argue with you.You are misinterpreting my
message and even after I replied with "I do not think .NET is only a runtime
and I never stated that", you keep thinking that I'm trying to prove that
the Framework is nothing more than the runtime. You are the one putting
words in my mouth which are totally untrue.

JD

 

[Cor Ligthert]

JD,

I never said the Framework is nothing more than the runtime! I never meant
my message to mean the Framework is nothing more than the runtime! I do not
know where you got this idea!

I got that idea from these two messages from you, when I misinterpretted
those, than you are right and I misunderstood you.

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=T_05d.110056$D%.103044@attbi_s51

Cor

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Again the Jon Skeet style, who quotes constructivly text of others where in
he delete main parts to bring that text in a complete different context..

Let's look at the whole post then, shall we - including your totally
inappropriate insults to the OP:

<quote>
Tim,

The fact of the "Ägainst a large runtime needed", is really for
laughing,
there is no runtimer needed with dotNet programs.

It shows that you are not know what you are writing.

Cor

"Tim Anderson"
</quote>

I don't think it makes you look any better. Could you point out which
bit of context makes it okay? Note that it was you who actually missed
out more when quoting yourself, to try to make it look better: "I
wrote "there is no runtimer needed with Net". If you'd just written
that, it might have been almost plausible (after further
clarification).

I do not see the slightest difference Jon, what is the huge difference, I
hope that you understand that when I write Net, that I mean with that the
framework.

That's not obvious in the slightest though. When I send someone "a .NET
program" I just send them the executable which requires that they have
the .NET framework installed. I think most people would understand your
post in the same way. Note that you also used "a Net program" in that
way later in the thread.

Can you proof that, do you have figures and than in the US, in the EC and
worldwide and of course in relation too the installed computers where it is
possible to install the framework. (I understand in this thread that your
parents are your measurement unit that you use now)

LOL - my parents were an *example*. They certainly weren't meant to be
representative.

Are you seriously disputing the idea that most users don't have the
framework installed at the moment? I certainly have no proof, but I'd
be surprised if you really disagreed.

Just read this two parts of messages in this thread bellow, reading it in
this thread is to difficult it seems for you.

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=T_05d.110056$D%.103044@attbi_s51

The runtime is part of the redistributable which is the whole
framework. I don't think those posts were particularly problematic. (I
note that you didn't quote any of my posts there. Are you retracting
your claim that I suggested you could run .NET programs without
anything other than the CLR?)

Read this what is written me much earlier that Nick came in

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]

Yup, and I still disagree. You said that no runtime is needed, but a
runtime *is* needed. It's installed as part of the framework. Would you
also say that the class library isn't required?

And where you started after that the tone of your messages, however you
forgot that probably again..

No idea what you mean by that.

In addition I surely did not write it completly clear the first time,
however this was a message to Tim and written in that context, however again
directly answered by Jon Skeet while I have not seen him answering much
other questions the last months than about multithreading.

groups.google.com reckons I've posted messages in 229 threads since
August 1st. Many of those are about threading, but certainly far from
all.

For me, you obvious did not look at the page from Tim and only took the one
line from me and started again to shout that I am stupid.

Really? Please explain then how there's a comment from me on his web
page (11:38) before your post was made (11:57). I'm surprised you
didn't even check this - it wouldn't have taken long...

As I said much times before, you cannot give me a lesson about this.
Moreover, assuming that I and many others do not know what is JIT or whatis
the CLR is really an affront.

Well, you claimed that a runtime wasn't required to run .NET programs.
It is. Whether you understand that really and just expressed yourself
badly (repeatedly) or whether you don't understand it, the statement is
just as untrue.

The fact that you've said that in your opinion a runtime is one DLL
which translates intermediate code to native code suggests that you
have more to learn about runtimes, but for what it's worth I think you
did basically understand that the runtime is part of the framework -
you just expressed that so badly that no-one else could see what you
were trying to say. It didn't help that in the same message you
attacked Tim pointlessly. It's not a good idea to make big mistakes in
the same post as you say that someone else doesn't know what they're
writing about, and that you're laughing at them for it.

So I am now really curious for your answer, however do as many times not
expect it or a message completly beside this with some new by you made facts
as I have often seen by you.

Although that I find it really a waste of time, I could maybe helped better
some people in that time. However I cannot let those every time again thrown
accusings by you open.

I think you should read messages more carefully before claiming that
people have said things that they haven't (for example, claiming that I
said that .NET programs could be run with just the CLR) and read over
what you've written before posting, so that you don't make mistakes
like claiming that a runtime isn't required to run .NET programs.

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

<snip>

I suggest that those involved in the "runtime" part of the thread (JD,
myself, Cor, Nick) agree or disagree with the following points, rather
than bickering in a "who said what" way:

1) The Common Language Runtime is part, but not the whole of, the .NET
framework.

2) A runtime (not necessarily the one in the .NET framework - other
runtimes are available) is required to run any .NET program.

3) A runtime is not the *only* thing required to run a .NET program - a
class library is required as well, for example.

4) Sometimes, (whether or not in this thread - we'll continue to
disagree about that, probably), the framework itself is referred to as
"the .NET runtime". That is inaccurate in a "strictly speaking" sense,
but usually doesn't form the basis of miscommunication. In particular,
this is the sense I understood Tim to mean on his web page.


For the record, I agree with all of the above. If everyone else does as
well, we probably don't have much else worth discussing in this thread.

 

[JD]

Yes you misunderstood those posts, and maybe my intentions were not clearly
stated.

JD

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Let's look at the whole post then, shall we - including your totally

inappropriate insults to the OP:

I have directly answered Tim on the question about this, I am in normal and
in good speaking terms with Tim in the newsgroup.languages.vb. I am quiet
sure that Tim is keen enough to answer me himself when he does disagree, he
real does not need advocasy from Jon Skeet.

Again you contstructivily misquoted me, in the same way you did before, I
now deleted that text, where I am telling from in every message to you that
I have already corrected it in one of the first threads telling that the
meaning was when you saw it in the context "extra" runtime.

That's not obvious in the slightest though. When I send someone "a .NET
program" I just send them the executable which requires that they have
the .NET framework installed. I think most people would understand your
post in the same way. Note that you also used "a Net program" in that
way later in the thread.

What do you mean with that, why do you always telling that other people are
understand in my text where in is not one word in I wrote , and than I get
some Jon Skeet friends who are (as it seems invited) to give a reaction to
help you and are flaming me because what you told that I wrote?

Are you seriously disputing the idea that most users don't have the
framework installed at the moment? I certainly have no proof, but I'd
be surprised if you really disagreed.

Yes, read for that the messages from Cablito to you, in what I of course do
not agree his tickling part about Brittain, however in its context agree.
(And read "Context")

Just read this two parts of messages in this thread bellow, reading it in
this thread is to difficult it seems for you.


I note that you didn't quote any of my posts there. Are you retracting
your claim that I suggested you could run .NET programs without
anything other than the CLR?)

If "any" in your part of England means the same as I have learned, my first
answer to you

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=#[email protected]

In what I by the way write what you denies in all your following messages.

What do you think the "R" bit of CLR stands for?

--the answer in that link
is -------------------------------------------------
I am glad I can help you with your question. It stands for Runtime in the
word Common Language Runtime.

However that is not an installable runtimer. It is a part of the OS layer
which has the name Net framework. And which is not distributed as a
Servicepack however with that name.

I hope that this clears your question?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would I quote you with all other answer from you where you tried to
proof what I wrote above to me.

I am not your teacher checking your homework.

The only part I did disagree consequently in your text is that you told
"that I told that there runtimer is not a part of the framework".

It was a question from you to me, I knew it, and gave you an answer. Maybe
was that my misunderstanding. You never asked me if I could explain to you
what was a runtime, I thought you knew that. However please ask that in
another thread, than I give you some links where you can learn that.

Read this what is written me much earlier that Nick came in

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]

Yup, and I still disagree. You said that no runtime is needed, but a
runtime *is* needed. It's installed as part of the framework. Would you
also say that the class library isn't required?

So because that "Extra" is in my message above you are now "for the first
time" telling that there is beside the framework an "Extra" runtime and you
maybe even "Extra" class library is needed. Maybe that is my fault I thought
that you knew that that was not needed. I showed a page to JD (I thought
yesterday in these threads where that is very short explained), maybe you
can have a look at that.

groups.google.com reckons I've posted messages in 229 threads since
August 1st. Many of those are about threading, but certainly far from
all.

Did I say something else, I did not say only, and you are free to do it as
you want, however that I have so check every word in this newsgroup that I
write because otherwise I get a message from Jon Skeet.

Do you know what a..................... is? And than a very simple queston,
that in my opinion every almost beginner in dotNet should know. Is really
anoying.

For me, you obvious did not look at the page from Tim and only took the
one
line from me and started again to shout that I am stupid.

Really? Please explain then how there's a comment from me on his web
page (11:38) before your post was made (11:57). I'm surprised you
didn't even check this - it wouldn't have taken long...

Nice explained. I comment never on a page and do not even look for that when
the message is in the newsgroup. When you thought it was for the community
than in my opinion you should have placed that message as well here, however
you are free to do that of course.

As I said much times before, you cannot give me a lesson about this.
Moreover, assuming that I and many others do not know what is JIT or what
is
the CLR is really an affront.

Well, you claimed that a runtime wasn't required to run .NET programs.
It is. Whether you understand that really and just expressed yourself
badly (repeatedly) or whether you don't understand it, the statement is
just as untrue.

Can you really not tell anything else than that, I have said you have placed
text out of its context hundreds times in this thread, and you did not even
give one answer on that.

And as I asked before please give no conclussions of my knowledge anymore in
this newsgroup, they give me only an idea about your referentionbase.

Cor

 

[Cor Ligthert]

JD,

Lets keep it with that, I am glad that I have the idea that we respect each
other.

Cor

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

I have directly answered Tim on the question about this, I am in normal and
in good speaking terms with Tim in the newsgroup.languages.vb. I am quiet
sure that Tim is keen enough to answer me himself when he does disagree, he
real does not need advocasy from Jon Skeet.

Again you contstructivily misquoted me, in the same way you did before, I
now deleted that text, where I am telling from in every message to you that
I have already corrected it in one of the first threads telling that the
meaning was when you saw it in the context "extra" runtime.

I don't see how quoting an entire message can count as misquoting it,
and I'm afraid I don't understand the rest of your message. Please try
repeating it - preferrably in shorter sentences. (It tends to be when
you use very long sentences that they become hard to understand, by the
way.)

What do you mean with that, why do you always telling that other people are
understand in my text where in is not one word in I wrote

Except that virtually whenever you ask me where you wrote something, I
can quote it or something equivalent, as I did in this thread. The
reverse is rarely true - just like this time. You're unable to quote
anywhere that I claimed or implied that you can run .NET programs with
just the CLR installed, because I never said anything of the kind.

and than I get
some Jon Skeet friends who are (as it seems invited) to give a reaction to
help you and are flaming me because what you told that I wrote?

If you're insinuating that I asked other people to join the thread,
you're entirely incorrect.

Yes, read for that the messages from Cablito to you, in what I of course do
not agree his tickling part about Brittain, however in its context agree.
(And read "Context")

Cabilito didn't suggest (as far as I saw) that most people already have
the framework. He suggested that customers of commercial products
probably wouldn't mind downloading it. Those are two very different
things.

If "any" in your part of England means the same as I have learned, my first
answer to you

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=#[email protected]

In what I by the way write what you denies in all your following messages.

Not entirely sure what you meant in that sentence, but I think there's
a huge leap from asking you what you think the "R" stands for in CLR to
assuming I believe that you can run .NET programs with *just* the CLR
installed. Could you explain how you made that leap?

--the answer in that link
is -------------------------------------------------
I am glad I can help you with your question. It stands for Runtime in the
word Common Language Runtime.

However that is not an installable runtimer. It is a part of the OS layer
which has the name Net framework. And which is not distributed as a
Servicepack however with that name.

I hope that this clears your question?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would I quote you with all other answer from you where you tried to
proof what I wrote above to me.

I am not your teacher checking your homework.

But you *are* someone who is claiming that I said that you can run .NET
programs with only the CLR installed. If you're going to start telling
people to apologise for misquoting you, you ought to look to yourself
first.

The only part I did disagree consequently in your text is that you told
"that I told that there runtimer is not a part of the framework".

I don't think I actually said that, did I? However, you said (back in
your first post) that no runtime is needed to run .NET programs. That's
what I've been disagreeing with from the start, and I think you now
accept that you were wrong, although it's hard to be sure.

It was a question from you to me, I knew it, and gave you an answer. Maybe
was that my misunderstanding. You never asked me if I could explain to you
what was a runtime, I thought you knew that. However please ask that in
another thread, than I give you some links where you can learn that.

I already know perfectly well what a runtime is.

So because that "Extra" is in my message above you are now "for the first
time" telling that there is beside the framework an "Extra" runtime and you
maybe even "Extra" class library is needed. Maybe that is my fault I thought
that you knew that that was not needed. I showed a page to JD (I thought
yesterday in these threads where that is very short explained), maybe you
can have a look at that.

The point is that you only added in the word "extra" later on. If you
stand by your original post, we still disagree. If you don't, we're in
agreement.

Did I say something else, I did not say only

You said that you hadn't seen me answering "much other questions"
except those to do with multithreading. I was just saying that I've
been answering lots of questions aside from multithreading ones. If you
happen to only *read* the multithreading ones, that's your prerogative,
but I don't see what it has to do with this thread.

and you are free to do it as
you want, however that I have so check every word in this newsgroup that I
write because otherwise I get a message from Jon Skeet.

You should check every word you write so that it won't mislead people!
The same is true for everyone, of course, not just you.

Do you know what a..................... is? And than a very simple queston,
that in my opinion every almost beginner in dotNet should know. Is really
anoying.

If you get annoyed with questions from newcomers, I suggest that
newsgroups aren't the best things for you to read then. They'll always
have newbie questions on - and that's fine by me.

Nice explained.

So are you retracting your assertion that I didn't look at the page?
Note that I didn't say that you were stupid - you've been the one
insulting people in this thread, for the most part, right from your
very first post.

I comment never on a page and do not even look for that when the
message is in the newsgroup. When you thought it was for the
community than in my opinion you should have placed that message as
well here, however you are free to do that of course.

The web page invites comments - I saw no reason to duplicate those
comments here. Should every comment on every .NET blog be replicated on
the newsgroups as well?

Can you really not tell anything else than that, I have said you have placed
text out of its context hundreds times in this thread, and you did not even
give one answer on that.

To what, precisely? When you first claimed that a runtime wasn't
required to run .NET programs, the entire context of the thread was
your post and Tim's original one. I posted your message's content in
its entirety. How can that be out of context?

If you don't want to feel annoyed by people thinking you don't know
what a runtime is, I suggest you don't make posts like your first one.

And as I asked before please give no conclussions of my knowledge anymore in
this newsgroup, they give me only an idea about your referentionbase.

I've no idea what you mean by "referentionbase" but I will continue to
disagree with you when I think you're making incorrect posts such as
your first one.

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Jon,

The text "run Any Net program" can be explained wrong. However when I place
it in the context as meant, it is right. (I am talking about C++)

And I understood as well that Tim, was meaning what you wrote, otherwise I
would not have answered that in this way.

I only wrote it the way as I did, to show that it could give a lot of
misunderstandings and was hoping he would make a nicer more right text,
because it is not a newsgroup message, however a page where he want to be
proud of.

This (in other words) you can read as well in the direct answer to Tim on
the bottom of the messagethread from my answer one and an half hour after
that I made my first message

(I used to often the word express, please skip that before I can start
again).

Cor

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

The text "run Any Net program" can be explained wrong. However when I place
it in the context as meant, it is right. (I am talking about C++)

Where does C++ enter into this?

And I understood as well that Tim, was meaning what you wrote, otherwise I
would not have answered that in this way.

I only wrote it the way as I did, to show that it could give a lot of
misunderstandings and was hoping he would make a nicer more right text,
because it is not a newsgroup message, however a page where he want to be
proud of.

But your answer was more misleading than Tim's web page, in my view. It
was clear to me what Tim meant - it wasn't clear to me what you meant
(in that what it seemed you meant was entirely incorrect).

This (in other words) you can read as well in the direct answer to Tim on
the bottom of the messagethread from my answer one and an half hour after
that I made my first message

(I used to often the word express, please skip that before I can start
again).

Yes, I saw you sort of apologise - although you said you got the
reactions you wanted, too. I think it's a very bad way of getting
someone to clarify a web page. Rather than insulting them, be specific
in what you disagree with. There wouldn't have been a problem if you'd
just written something like:

<hypothetical post>
I disagree with your wording in the topic "Against: Large runtime
needed". Although "runtime" is often a word used for the whole
framework, it isn't the framework in itself. I suggest you change the
page to talk about downloading the framework instead. Although I
understand what you meant, other people might not.
</hypothetical>

Anyway, did you agree with the four points I listed?

 

[JD]

Clearly stated and I agree.

JD

 

[Nick Malik]

ah, Cor,

You may want to be a bit more careful about statements like this:

What do you mean with that, why do you always telling that other people are
understand in my text where in is not one word in I wrote , and than I get
some Jon Skeet friends who are (as it seems invited) to give a reaction to
help you and are flaming me because what you told that I wrote?

You appear to be implying that Jon sent out messages to people that he knew
to flame you. As I have been one of the responders to this thread, it
appears that you are including my posts in this behavior. I am insulted
that you would imply that.

To be clear: While I have never had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Jon Skeet,
he has earned my respect. My respect has been earned by his many thoughtful
and careful answers on this and a few other newsgroups where we have crossed
paths. He has never personally sent me email on this or any other topic.
Neither Jon nor I would have any reason to invite others to argue for us.
To suggest that he would send such an invitation, and that I would respond,
demeans us all.

I will not flame you this time. I'm just asking you to refrain from
statements like this in future threads.

--- Nick

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Jon,

With your previous message was something strange for me, when I answered it,
the quoting lines where gone, so I had to add all > again and changed the
text even more times than normally, I saw afterwards as well some unreadable
text.

I don't see how quoting an entire message can count as misquoting it,
and I'm afraid I don't understand the rest of your message. Please try
repeating it - preferrably in shorter sentences. (It tends to be when
you use very long sentences that they become hard to understand, by the
way.)

In a short line, I have not any discussion with Tim, so there is no need for
you to do his advocasy.

If you're insinuating that I asked other people to join the thread,
you're entirely incorrect.

You did, I can show you that, however not in this thread. But I am glad to
hear that it is not your intention and I do not start showing this again, it
is enough now.

When people start helping me against other regular (by instance you) and it
is with flaming messages and I know those people from other newsgroup, I
tell them that I can do it alone and that it is not a personal fight.

Cabilito didn't suggest (as far as I saw) that most people already have
the framework. He suggested that customers of commercial products
probably wouldn't mind downloading it. Those are two very different
things.

That is why I told "the Context", the customers for dotNet programs will
have/know that.

(And as addition from me, those who want to have programs for free would
have to download the framework, but those are mostly very well known on
Internet and have fast connections)

Do you think that in the case of your parents is no solution?

Not entirely sure what you meant in that sentence, but I think there's
a huge leap from asking you what you think the "R" stands for in CLR to
assuming I believe that you can run .NET programs with *just* the CLR
installed. Could you explain how you made that leap?

But you *are* someone who is claiming that I said that you can run .NET
programs with only the CLR installed. If you're going to start telling
people to apologise for misquoting you, you ought to look to yourself
first.

I did not, when you had done that I had used more definitive words, you
started showing me that it was a part of the Framework, which I am all the
time telling in this thread and therefore not quoted, because there was
nothing to disagree for me.

I don't think I actually said that, did I? However, you said (back in
your first post) that no runtime is needed to run .NET programs. That's
what I've been disagreeing with from the start, and I think you now
accept that you were wrong, although it's hard to be sure.

And I have all the time after that message said "extra" or pointed to that
message from me. I have nowhere disagreed the statement that a runtime is
needed, I disagreed all the time that the framework== a runtime. I have all
the time disagreed that an "extra" runtime was needed.

I already know perfectly well what a runtime is.

I knew that maybe you can think nextime that most people involved in this
newsgroups do that as well.

The point is that you only added in the word "extra" later on. If you
stand by your original post, we still disagree. If you don't, we're in
agreement.

That was in a very quick situation from all those messages. Extra only
because the context I wrote it had more text than your quoting behind the
comma of the text. You can disagree with me if that was completly clear and
than I most probably had agreed with you, therefore in a very early moment
that text "Extra".

In my way of argumenting is only the last statement valid and I stated it
directly when you told the first time that that text I used could be
confusing, what was very quick.

If you get annoyed with questions from newcomers, I suggest that
newsgroups aren't the best things for you to read then. They'll always
have newbie questions on - and that's fine by me.

That was a text that by correcting went completly out of structure a new
one.

I have frequently told you that you threath me in your messages as a newbie
and try to catch me on words, that is anoying for me. I try to threath
everybody on the knowledge they show too me (where in I make sometimes
mistakes by the way).

So are you retracting your assertion that I didn't look at the page?
Note that I didn't say that you were stupid - you've been the one
insulting people in this thread, for the most part, right from your
very first post.

Yes, I make mistakes and have no problem to admit that, however you make
sometimes statements that are often so wrong, that it is almost embarassing
to answer those and you are not able to admit that.

You write "you've been the one insulting people in this thread, for the most
part, right from your very first post". I probably make a lot of writting
errors in your eyes, however i can read English as well as Dutch. This
intents that all my messages where insulting. In my opinion it was only the
first one that could be threathed as that, although it was not directly
meant as that. And some where I threathed you with the same style of
messages as you were sending to me.

What do you think what that message of you above is, a non insulting one?
And the thread is full of those from you.

To what, precisely? When you first claimed that a runtime wasn't
required to run .NET programs, the entire context of the thread was
your post and Tim's original one. I posted your message's content in
its entirety. How can that be out of context?

I never claimed a runtime wasn't needed, I consequently only claimed that
the Net was not only a runtime. As you should know now from previous arguing
between us I never take side steps in discussions.

However now you stated that other message, I can say tht it is possible to
get a kind of runtime to run dotNet programs, but that is not what I suspect
that Tim means. Nick stated that in his message, I somewhere have the link
to that, however I assume you have that link as well.

I've no idea what you mean by "referentionbase" but I will continue to
disagree with you when I think you're making incorrect posts such as
your first one.

You can do that, however than not directly in a way, which looks if you try
to show that I do not know those simple things, it can be that I wrote it
not that well maybe, or that it was against a Newbie, where it is sometimes
better to use other words. (This is not the first time I write this too
you).

And am I than free to do it too you, without getting a complete C# gang on
my neck?

(No Gerry, Bill, Miha, Nick, Nick and others I do not mean you with the last
statement)

Cor