Vista and .NET
-
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
-
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!It's that 1% which makes it 99% slower? :rolleyes:
-
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!I don't think that's true Nish...are you sure? I was recently talking to a Microsoft dev who was telling me that Visual Studio is "lots and lots of C#, with a little C++ interop". I wish I could find the link for that.
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
-
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:
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.
Isn't there something fundamental to the design of the runtimes that prevents multiple versions from being combined in a single process? Seems like a good enough reason to keep them out of widely-used OS components to me... :rolleyes:
Now taking suggestions for the next release of CPhog...
-
I don't think that's true Nish...are you sure? I was recently talking to a Microsoft dev who was telling me that Visual Studio is "lots and lots of C#, with a little C++ interop". I wish I could find the link for that.
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
I do know the IDE code was based on classic VB's IDE. I don't know if they ported it over to .NET or not though. Jeremy Falcon
-
It's not completely managed. Jeremy Falcon
Yep it's a mixed app, both native and managed, but what large application uses 100% managed code, honestly? There are some things not possible with high level frameworks where you have to call some Win32 API, some native component, etc...our large rich client, while mostly managed, uses some native calls because there is no other option. It's not a slam on .NET, it simply that some things are actually operating-system specific or application-specific and have no reason to expose a managed equivalent (given that the OS or app is not managed code). When I think of a "managed application", I think of an app that uses the Common Language Runtime in some way.
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 that 1% which makes it 99% slower? :rolleyes:
-
-
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
Some Microsoft apps that use the .NET framework and the Common Language Runtime[^]
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
-
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.
...or these guys[^] :)
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
-
Yep it's a mixed app, both native and managed, but what large application uses 100% managed code, honestly? There are some things not possible with high level frameworks where you have to call some Win32 API, some native component, etc...our large rich client, while mostly managed, uses some native calls because there is no other option. It's not a slam on .NET, it simply that some things are actually operating-system specific or application-specific and have no reason to expose a managed equivalent (given that the OS or app is not managed code). When I think of a "managed application", I think of an app that uses the Common Language Runtime in some way.
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:
There are some things not possible with high level frameworks where you have to call some Win32 API
The .NET runtime exposes most of the API. I don't see why you'd need to mix managed and unmanged for most cases. Jeremy Falcon