Vista and .NET
-
This article had me rolling on the floor. Is this guy for real? http://www.grimes.demon.co.uk/dotnet/vistaAndDotnet.htm[^] In the executive summary: Microsoft appears to have concentrated their development effort in Vista on native code development. In contrast to PDC03LH, Vista has no services implemented in .NET and Windows Explorer does not host the runtime, which means that the Vista desktop shell is not based on the .NET runtime. The only conclusion that can be made from these results is that between PDC 2003 and the release of Vista Beta 1 Microsoft has decided that it is better to use native code for the operating system, than to use the .NET framework. (I bolded the last) The "only" conclusion??? And so what? This is sort of a "duh" to me, writing an OS in native code. But I love this, near the end of a long and pointless article counting how many dll's Vista uses that are managed: My conclusion is that Microsoft has lost its confidence in .NET. They implement very little of their own code using .NET. The framework is provided as part of the operating system Lost confidence??? :rolleyes: The real reason, probably, is so the EU doesn't sue them for entangling the OS with .NET! hahaha. Anyways, what you think? Marc Pensieve Functional Entanglement vs. Code Entanglement Static Classes Make For Rigid Architectures -- modified at 15:32 Tuesday 14th March, 2006
Richard Grimes has had a chip on his shoulder about .NET for a long-time. A shame, coz his COM books taught me a lot. I'll reserve judgement on Vista and the .NET integration until I see the final release. Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
-
Richard Grimes has had a chip on his shoulder about .NET for a long-time. A shame, coz his COM books taught me a lot. I'll reserve judgement on Vista and the .NET integration until I see the final release. Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
Michael P Butler wrote:
Richard Grimes has had a chip on his shoulder about .NET for a long-time.
Huh, why is that?
Michael P Butler wrote:
his COM books taught me a lot.
Ah, I knew the name sounded familiar, but I couldn't place it and didn't look it up. Marc Pensieve Functional Entanglement vs. Code Entanglement Static Classes Make For Rigid Architectures
-
Michael P Butler wrote:
Richard Grimes has had a chip on his shoulder about .NET for a long-time.
Huh, why is that?
Michael P Butler wrote:
his COM books taught me a lot.
Ah, I knew the name sounded familiar, but I couldn't place it and didn't look it up. Marc Pensieve Functional Entanglement vs. Code Entanglement Static Classes Make For Rigid Architectures
Marc Clifton wrote:
Huh, why is that?
I can't remember the reason. I'm sure he has a posting on his site about it but can't find it right now. Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
-
This article had me rolling on the floor. Is this guy for real? http://www.grimes.demon.co.uk/dotnet/vistaAndDotnet.htm[^] In the executive summary: Microsoft appears to have concentrated their development effort in Vista on native code development. In contrast to PDC03LH, Vista has no services implemented in .NET and Windows Explorer does not host the runtime, which means that the Vista desktop shell is not based on the .NET runtime. The only conclusion that can be made from these results is that between PDC 2003 and the release of Vista Beta 1 Microsoft has decided that it is better to use native code for the operating system, than to use the .NET framework. (I bolded the last) The "only" conclusion??? And so what? This is sort of a "duh" to me, writing an OS in native code. But I love this, near the end of a long and pointless article counting how many dll's Vista uses that are managed: My conclusion is that Microsoft has lost its confidence in .NET. They implement very little of their own code using .NET. The framework is provided as part of the operating system Lost confidence??? :rolleyes: The real reason, probably, is so the EU doesn't sue them for entangling the OS with .NET! hahaha. Anyways, what you think? Marc Pensieve Functional Entanglement vs. Code Entanglement Static Classes Make For Rigid Architectures -- modified at 15:32 Tuesday 14th March, 2006
Marc Clifton wrote:
Anyways, what you think?
I think I'll wait to see if MS releases new major products written in .NET before I judge (not talking about the OS). I haven't seen one yet. :) Jeremy Falcon
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
Huh, why is that?
I can't remember the reason. I'm sure he has a posting on his site about it but can't find it right now. Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
He went a little anti-Microsoft after they discontinued VB6. He wasn't himself a VB person but Microsoft's act touched his sensitive principles. I presume that this article was written sometime around then - he also made a very angry posting about the VB6 official discontinuation. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
The Ultimate Grid - The #1 MFC grid out there! -
Marc Clifton wrote:
Anyways, what you think?
I think I'll wait to see if MS releases new major products written in .NET before I judge (not talking about the OS). I haven't seen one yet. :) Jeremy Falcon
-
This article had me rolling on the floor. Is this guy for real? http://www.grimes.demon.co.uk/dotnet/vistaAndDotnet.htm[^] In the executive summary: Microsoft appears to have concentrated their development effort in Vista on native code development. In contrast to PDC03LH, Vista has no services implemented in .NET and Windows Explorer does not host the runtime, which means that the Vista desktop shell is not based on the .NET runtime. The only conclusion that can be made from these results is that between PDC 2003 and the release of Vista Beta 1 Microsoft has decided that it is better to use native code for the operating system, than to use the .NET framework. (I bolded the last) The "only" conclusion??? And so what? This is sort of a "duh" to me, writing an OS in native code. But I love this, near the end of a long and pointless article counting how many dll's Vista uses that are managed: My conclusion is that Microsoft has lost its confidence in .NET. They implement very little of their own code using .NET. The framework is provided as part of the operating system Lost confidence??? :rolleyes: The real reason, probably, is so the EU doesn't sue them for entangling the OS with .NET! hahaha. Anyways, what you think? Marc Pensieve Functional Entanglement vs. Code Entanglement Static Classes Make For Rigid Architectures -- modified at 15:32 Tuesday 14th March, 2006
-
Well, I'll be. Thanks for the link. Jeremy Falcon
-
David Stone wrote:
BizTalk[^]. Both 2004 and 2006 are completely written in C#. That's 1.5 million LOC in 2004...and probably a lot more in 2006.
Are you sure 2004 was 100% managed code, David? Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
The Ultimate Grid - The #1 MFC grid out there! -
David Stone wrote:
BizTalk[^]. Both 2004 and 2006 are completely written in C#. That's 1.5 million LOC in 2004...and probably a lot more in 2006.
Are you sure 2004 was 100% managed code, David? Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
The Ultimate Grid - The #1 MFC grid out there!Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
Are you sure 2004 was 100% managed code, David?
I checked the link and googled a bit with no luck of finding out. So, I don't know. Glad I could help. :) Jeremy Falcon
-
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
Are you sure 2004 was 100% managed code, David?
I checked the link and googled a bit with no luck of finding out. So, I don't know. Glad I could help. :) Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I checked the link and googled a bit with no luck of finding out. So, I don't know. Glad I could help.
Yeah, and David also mentioned a figure for lines of code - 1.5 million. Maybe he got that from PDC last year! Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
The Ultimate Grid - The #1 MFC grid out there! -
Marc Clifton wrote:
Anyways, what you think?
I think I'll wait to see if MS releases new major products written in .NET before I judge (not talking about the OS). I haven't seen one yet. :) Jeremy Falcon
Visual Studio 2002, 2003, and 2005 are managed applications.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Moral Muscle The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
Richard Grimes has had a chip on his shoulder about .NET for a long-time. A shame, coz his COM books taught me a lot. I'll reserve judgement on Vista and the .NET integration until I see the final release. Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
-
Visual Studio 2002, 2003, and 2005 are managed applications.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Moral Muscle The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
Judah Himango wrote:
Visual Studio 2002, 2003, and 2005 are managed applications.
Less than 1% though. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
The Ultimate Grid - The #1 MFC grid out there! -
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
What has happened to him? He was a great author and everyone admired him.
He's still respected as a guru. He just didn't manage his public persona well enough. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
The Ultimate Grid - The #1 MFC grid out there! -
Visual Studio 2002, 2003, and 2005 are managed applications.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Moral Muscle The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
It's not completely managed. Jeremy Falcon
-
Visual Studio 2002, 2003, and 2005 are managed applications.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Moral Muscle The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
No, they are native applications that host the .NET runtime. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Well, I'll be. Thanks for the link. Jeremy Falcon
And Windows Defender Beta 2 is written in Managed C++ apparently. Kevin
-
This article had me rolling on the floor. Is this guy for real? http://www.grimes.demon.co.uk/dotnet/vistaAndDotnet.htm[^] In the executive summary: Microsoft appears to have concentrated their development effort in Vista on native code development. In contrast to PDC03LH, Vista has no services implemented in .NET and Windows Explorer does not host the runtime, which means that the Vista desktop shell is not based on the .NET runtime. The only conclusion that can be made from these results is that between PDC 2003 and the release of Vista Beta 1 Microsoft has decided that it is better to use native code for the operating system, than to use the .NET framework. (I bolded the last) The "only" conclusion??? And so what? This is sort of a "duh" to me, writing an OS in native code. But I love this, near the end of a long and pointless article counting how many dll's Vista uses that are managed: My conclusion is that Microsoft has lost its confidence in .NET. They implement very little of their own code using .NET. The framework is provided as part of the operating system Lost confidence??? :rolleyes: The real reason, probably, is so the EU doesn't sue them for entangling the OS with .NET! hahaha. Anyways, what you think? Marc Pensieve Functional Entanglement vs. Code Entanglement Static Classes Make For Rigid Architectures -- modified at 15:32 Tuesday 14th March, 2006
Marc Clifton wrote:
Anyways, what you think?
Only a moron would implement the core components of an OS in managed code. Or someone with a very very fast computer.
-
David Stone wrote:
BizTalk[^]. Both 2004 and 2006 are completely written in C#. That's 1.5 million LOC in 2004...and probably a lot more in 2006.
Are you sure 2004 was 100% managed code, David? Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
The Ultimate Grid - The #1 MFC grid out there!Don't know about 2004 but 2006 apparently is. A colleague of mine did a week's BizTalk 2006 training in Seattle a few months ago and when I asked him about this he said yes. Of course, you never know, it could just be MS spin! But in any case I expect it's at least a substantial majority in C#. Kevin