[HnNoPassMailer]

The article is laughable. Microsoft itself is an important reason to develop Dart to begin with. MS has EEE'd html/js/css with IE 5.5 and up, and developed .NET to offer a competitive (proprietary) platform. We can't use C# although it's open, because MS is acting as a patent troll.

[Delmania]

Do you live in the 90s? If Microsoft attempted to EEE HTML, Javascript, and CSS with IE5+, it's failed miserably, since the usage of both Chrome and Firefox continues to rise while IE stagnates or declines. You only have to follow the development of IE10 to realize the company knows it needs to play nicely with these technologies, whether it wants to or not. Also, .NET was a response to Java, and while Silverlight and WPF were attempts to develop competing technologies to Flash and HTML/Javascript/CSS that also seems to have failed, since HTML and JS are key elements of the Metro UI for Windows 8. In addition, Microsoft's actions against Android, while despicable, are hardly different than what most other tech companies are doing, so it's best to focus on the broken patent system. Finally, C# (and CLI) is a standard owned by the ECMA, so Microsoft can't sue you if you write a compiler and library from scratch.

[HnNoPassMailer]

That previous attempts failed does not mean they quit trying. IE9/10 does show some goodwill, but also shows the are still in the EEE game. Take for example the hardware accelerated canvas: Several (non-MS) websites had "optimized for IE" marketing campaigns. Such optimization is nonsense when using standards. Also, MS publicly stated WebGL has security problems because of direct access to the shaders. However, they forget to mention Silverlight has the exact same problem.

> In addition, Microsoft's actions against Android, while despicable, are hardly different than what most other tech companies are doing,

Eh, no. It's true more patent trolls exist, but not many companies in the industry try to enforce software patents.

About C#: Microsoft has stated several times that open is not the same as patent-free. They did so in context of Linux/Android, but also in the context of .net. Also, anaylis exist where C# tech is tied to patents.

[Delmania]

> That previous attempts failed does not mean they quit trying. IE9/10 does show some goodwill, but also shows the are still in the EEE game. Take for example the hardware accelerated canvas: Several (non-MS) websites had "optimized for IE" marketing campaigns. Such optimization is nonsense when using standards. Also, MS publicly stated WebGL has security problems because of direct access to the shaders. However, they forget to mention Silverlight has the exact same problem.

Cool story, bro. Most people these days either use the browser that comes with the OS, or install the one they want.

> Eh, no. It's true more patent trolls exist, but not many companies in the industry try to enforce software patents.

Really? Did you forget that Oracle started a lawsuit against Google for the usage of Java within Android? Or how about Apple's lawsuit against Samsung for the look and feel of the Galaxy Tablet? How about i4i's lawsuit against Microsoft?

> Eh, no. It's true more patent trolls exist, but not many companies in the industry try to enforce software patents.

[Citation needed]

From Wikipedia: The C# language definition and the CLI are standardized under ISO and Ecma standards that provide reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing protection from patent claims.

You seem to have a hard time differentiating the language, C# from the library, .NET. It's similar to C++ and the STL.

[HnNoPassMailer]

> Cool story, bro. Most people these days either use the browser that comes with the OS, or install the one they want.

This does not refute in an way that MS quit the EEE game. Merely, you seem to troll me ("Cool story, bro.").

> Really? Did you forget that Oracle started a lawsuit against Google for the usage of Java within Android? Or how about Apple's lawsuit against Samsung for the look and feel of the Galaxy Tablet? How about i4i's lawsuit against Microsoft?

Exactly, a few big fish and some smaller pure trolls. I am not aware of industrywide patent enforcement. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands of IT companies, who don't pursue software patents let alone enforce if they have.

> [Citation needed]

I am not aware of industrywide patentfights regarding software patents. Telecom companies do battle each other ferociously over patents, which are not necessarily for software (from what I read, not relatively many software patents are involved).

> From Wikipedia: The C# language definition and the CLI are standardized under ISO and Ecma standards that provide reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing protection from patent claims.

If MS decides to sue they decide to sue.

[Delmania]

> This does not refute in an way that MS quit the EEE game. Merely, you seem to troll me ("Cool story, bro.").

I'm trolling you because the claim that MS is trying to EEE HTML/JS/CSS by implementing hardware support for rendnering in IE is inane. Both Chrome and Firefox have the same capabilities, and I've seen more that one site (I actually use IE9 for specific reasons) that usually point me towards the usual bunch.

>Exactly, a few big fish and some smaller pure trolls. I am not aware of industrywide patent enforcement. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands of IT companies, who don't pursue software patents let alone enforce if they have.

So what in your mind makes Apple and Oracle different from Microsoft? If not, just concede the point: hating the players is pointless, the game is broken.

> If MS decides to sue they decide to sue. Your point here is? Sure, if I implemented C# according to the standard and my own set of libraries, the company could try to sue me. I am positive they wouldn't get very far. But continue on with your Stallman like conspiracy theories.