C# is not proprietary

http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-334.htm

I guess that the mono development will let you use C#

I don't want to start a debate here but from my understandings MS won't be able to do whatever they please with that standard.

One thing I don't know about though is if MS is following the standard. I mean how long does it take to make a development language a standard. Perhaps the standard is still about version 1.0 of C#. The thing is that MS is just about to release the version 3.0 of C#. So in resume yes C# is a standard but what is defined as the C# standard is another thing.



>[snip]
>>With one or two exceptions, those "advanced" platforms are no longer around.
>>Vive le fox!
>FWIW, my oldest code is some COBOL for Bill of Materials. Original code 1972 on an IBM 360/40, migrated to Univac 90/40, then to a DEC Rainbow PC somewhere around 1985, then to Microfocus COBOL on SCO Unix a couple of years later, and around 1995 to Windows where it's still in use. I'd say about 80% of the code is original from 1972.
>
>As for FOX, every day I work with an app based primarily on FPW 2.6 code written around 1994. It's being converted to VFP 9.0, getting rid of the SAYs and GETs, and it looks like the bulk of the business logic will still be with us. Believe me, I don't like throwing away something that works -- toooo expensive.
>
>Needless to say I'm very unhappy about MS discontinuing VFP. This will be the first time since I rewrote a bunch of IBM 1401 Autocoder to COBOL I am faced with a large scale rewrite and you can bet I won't use another proprietary language like C# or VB. Like it or not it'll probably be Java, a widely used language driven primarily by the user community. Maybe I'll get lucky and a third party like eTecnologia.net will breathe new life into old code.
>
>My 2 bits,
>Scott