Vista and .NET
-
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
-
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...
Yes, there is. That limitation is the primary reason our add-ins are written in 100% native code...otherwise we'd have been forced to develop in VS2002 if we wanted to support it. :~ Anna :rose: Currently working mostly on: Visual Lint :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work.
-
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
I agree. For our codebase, about 97% is written in managed code. That's pretty good, an a testament to the wide-coverage of the framework.
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
Bah! It's a dead issue. There are a *lot* of applications out there written in fully managed code. We have a large commercial app used in over 34 countries at last count that is written in fully managed code. If I was writing an OS I would use native code as well. You don't pick up a screwdriver to hammer in a nail unless your an idiot. His argument is dogs bollocks.
-
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
Hey Judah That link says Visual Studio 2005 has parts written in managed code. And I am pretty sure it's a very low percentage. I don't remember where or when I asked that, but I did ask someone and the reply was that VS 2005 is a native app, that uses a little managed code. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
The Ultimate Grid - The #1 MFC grid out there! -
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
Interestingly that link also says BizTalk 2004 has parts written in managed code. So I guess Stone got his facts wrong when he said it was written in managed code. The 1.5 million lines he said must be the total LOC out of which a % might be in managed code. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
The Ultimate Grid - The #1 MFC grid out there! -
Bah! It's a dead issue. There are a *lot* of applications out there written in fully managed code. We have a large commercial app used in over 34 countries at last count that is written in fully managed code. If I was writing an OS I would use native code as well. You don't pick up a screwdriver to hammer in a nail unless your an idiot. His argument is dogs bollocks.
John Cardinal wrote:
You don't pick up a screwdriver to hammer in a nail
You do if you're Chuck Norris. :) 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!Of course, Microsoft's most significant integration product forconnected systems is BizTalk Server. At 1.5 million lines of C# code,BizTalk Server 2004 is one of the largest Microsoft .NET productswritten to date (although SQL Server 2005 will exceed this at around 3million lines). BizTalk Server allows the mesh of point-to-point webservice (and other) connections to be replaced with a BizTalk Server "hub".
I've been closely involved with BizTalk Server 2004 during thedevelopment phase, and this time they really got it right. BizTalkServer 2004 is a complete rewrite. If you used prior versions of theproduct, the core concepts are the same, but everything else haschanged. Think of BizTalk Server 2004 as a core engine with lots ofsurfaces - for lots of different intended audiences. There's somethingfor everyone, from business analysts to developers and operationspeople.
BizTalk Server 2004 represents a tremendous investment byMicrosoft. At its peak, the product team consisted of 300 people. Thecode base, at 1.5 million lines of C# code, represents the largest .NETFramework application shipped by Microsoft, and may in fact be thelargest C# code base in the world.
I think the original place I heard it was in a Webcast on BizTalk given by Scott Woodgate, who was, at the time, PM for BizTalk Server. While I'm not sure if it's 100% managed code, I find the words "complete re-write" and "1.5 million lines of C# code" to be pretty convincing. ;P
They dress you up in white satin, And give you your very own pair of wings In August and Everything After
I'm after everything
-
<troll> Yeah, but isn't BizTalk just Microsoft's take on [SAP|PeopleSoft]? Those sorts of apps have to be slow and dodgy, else no-one would take them seriously... </troll> :rolleyes:
Now taking suggestions for the next release of CPhog...
Haha. I find it funny how many people have never used BizTalk. It's an incredible server product. Takes a while to get used to...but holy crap does it give you a lot of functionality.
They dress you up in white satin, And give you your very own pair of wings In August and Everything After
I'm after everything
-
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...
Which is why shell extensions should never be written in .NET unless you absolutely know that your target environment will only have one version of the runtime or that all your shell extensions will only require that particular version.
They dress you up in white satin, And give you your very own pair of wings In August and Everything After
I'm after everything
-
Haha. I find it funny how many people have never used BizTalk. It's an incredible server product. Takes a while to get used to...but holy crap does it give you a lot of functionality.
They dress you up in white satin, And give you your very own pair of wings In August and Everything After
I'm after everything
David Stone wrote:
I find it funny how many people have never used BizTalk.
Probably due to the price tag.:rolleyes:
A Plain English signature. Code-frog System Architects, Inc.