On Jan 12, 2012, at 12:25 AM, Ross Walker <rswwalker at gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 11, 2012, at 9:45 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Ross Walker <rswwalker at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> But you'd be wrong on all counts. I'd argue the opposite - that you >>>> should only be allowed to use languages that work across CPU types and >>>> OS's so as to never be locked into a monopolistic single vendor. >>> >>> You mean like Oracle? >> >> No, I meant like Intel or an OS that only runs on one or a few CPU >> types, or a language that only runs on one OS. Aside from the >> constraints/control the associated vendor might impose you lock >> yourself out of an easy move to any new alternatives that might come >> along or consolidation of apps on the platform of your choice. > > I hear what your saying but corporate greed will always trump r Oops, dropped phone... Corporate greed will always trump idealistic pursuits. As soon as a product has enough momentum there will be patent fights, copyright fights, licensing and revocation of openness. Soon platforms that contribute the most $$ will get preference and features over others and there goes the cross-platform dream. Throw your weight behind nothing, use the best technology at the time for the solution. The only true cross-platform language is C. -Ross