Why .NET?
-
I posted this in the General discussion forum, but it didn't quite stir up the flame war I expected. After seeing Vista and .NET and Microsoft's Response to Vista and .NET I figured this is the place to go. So ... I use MFC (though I don't particularly like it) and VC++ 6.0 (which I like very very much). I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out why Microsoft (and a whole lot of people affiliated or not affiliated with them) think that everyone should switch from native Win32 C++ development to .NET Framework-based development ... and I just can't figure out why. Things I know: Yes - the .NET framework has a load of nifty classes that I would have access to. Yes - it's quite possible to write native code mixed with .NET code in various ways. Yes - .NET code is/will be portable to other platforms. Yes - I understand fully that .NET is the way to go for a large range of applications (if I hear "web" or "business" bells start ringing). Things I don't know: But - why must Microsoft push it as the future for ALL applications? But - why should everyone be writing VM (Virtual Machine) code? It's quite possible to write a very good framework (platform independent even) that doesn't use a VM. Why doesn't Microsoft do that? And: And - I'm aware of the benefits of VMs. It's just that I'm also aware of the benefits of non-VM code - and to be honest I must admit that I really prefer non-VM code. /Simon This is not a signature.
-
I posted this in the General discussion forum, but it didn't quite stir up the flame war I expected. After seeing Vista and .NET and Microsoft's Response to Vista and .NET I figured this is the place to go. So ... I use MFC (though I don't particularly like it) and VC++ 6.0 (which I like very very much). I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out why Microsoft (and a whole lot of people affiliated or not affiliated with them) think that everyone should switch from native Win32 C++ development to .NET Framework-based development ... and I just can't figure out why. Things I know: Yes - the .NET framework has a load of nifty classes that I would have access to. Yes - it's quite possible to write native code mixed with .NET code in various ways. Yes - .NET code is/will be portable to other platforms. Yes - I understand fully that .NET is the way to go for a large range of applications (if I hear "web" or "business" bells start ringing). Things I don't know: But - why must Microsoft push it as the future for ALL applications? But - why should everyone be writing VM (Virtual Machine) code? It's quite possible to write a very good framework (platform independent even) that doesn't use a VM. Why doesn't Microsoft do that? And: And - I'm aware of the benefits of VMs. It's just that I'm also aware of the benefits of non-VM code - and to be honest I must admit that I really prefer non-VM code. /Simon This is not a signature.
Simon Hofverberg wrote:
I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out why Microsoft (and a whole lot of people affiliated or not affiliated with them) think that everyone should switch from native Win32 C++ development to .NET Framework-based development
I may be wrong, but I don't remember reading anything that says that. Almost all of MS's applications are not managed code. They are pushing .NET hard, but they're not stupid. They know that there are classes of applications that will see no (or little) benefit from moving to a .NET platform.
Simon Hofverberg wrote:
Why doesn't Microsoft do that?
What language would you do it for? Whichever one they chose, they would have developers in the other languages screaming for blood. The way they have done it, they make the framework available to everyone.
Ryan
"Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
-
I posted this in the General discussion forum, but it didn't quite stir up the flame war I expected. After seeing Vista and .NET and Microsoft's Response to Vista and .NET I figured this is the place to go. So ... I use MFC (though I don't particularly like it) and VC++ 6.0 (which I like very very much). I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out why Microsoft (and a whole lot of people affiliated or not affiliated with them) think that everyone should switch from native Win32 C++ development to .NET Framework-based development ... and I just can't figure out why. Things I know: Yes - the .NET framework has a load of nifty classes that I would have access to. Yes - it's quite possible to write native code mixed with .NET code in various ways. Yes - .NET code is/will be portable to other platforms. Yes - I understand fully that .NET is the way to go for a large range of applications (if I hear "web" or "business" bells start ringing). Things I don't know: But - why must Microsoft push it as the future for ALL applications? But - why should everyone be writing VM (Virtual Machine) code? It's quite possible to write a very good framework (platform independent even) that doesn't use a VM. Why doesn't Microsoft do that? And: And - I'm aware of the benefits of VMs. It's just that I'm also aware of the benefits of non-VM code - and to be honest I must admit that I really prefer non-VM code. /Simon This is not a signature.
.Net is is one of the biggest marketing coups this century. All it is is repackaged Java (AKA J++). MS got told to stop using JAva cos they were messing with the standard, so they come out with .Net and convince the world to buy it. Throw in some J2EE functionality and there you go, .Net. What a con, and, why the hell are so many C++/MFC coders buying into it when they didnt buy into Java? Is it because it comes from Microsoft, so people automatically feel it is the future and must get into it to protect their earning potential? Nunc est bibendum
-
.Net is is one of the biggest marketing coups this century. All it is is repackaged Java (AKA J++). MS got told to stop using JAva cos they were messing with the standard, so they come out with .Net and convince the world to buy it. Throw in some J2EE functionality and there you go, .Net. What a con, and, why the hell are so many C++/MFC coders buying into it when they didnt buy into Java? Is it because it comes from Microsoft, so people automatically feel it is the future and must get into it to protect their earning potential? Nunc est bibendum
Job protection - yes. Simple as that. I still remember having to write your own code in FORTRAN rather than be a cut and paste merchant being pampered by colour coded Intellisense - ahh proper programming - those were the days :)
-
I posted this in the General discussion forum, but it didn't quite stir up the flame war I expected. After seeing Vista and .NET and Microsoft's Response to Vista and .NET I figured this is the place to go. So ... I use MFC (though I don't particularly like it) and VC++ 6.0 (which I like very very much). I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out why Microsoft (and a whole lot of people affiliated or not affiliated with them) think that everyone should switch from native Win32 C++ development to .NET Framework-based development ... and I just can't figure out why. Things I know: Yes - the .NET framework has a load of nifty classes that I would have access to. Yes - it's quite possible to write native code mixed with .NET code in various ways. Yes - .NET code is/will be portable to other platforms. Yes - I understand fully that .NET is the way to go for a large range of applications (if I hear "web" or "business" bells start ringing). Things I don't know: But - why must Microsoft push it as the future for ALL applications? But - why should everyone be writing VM (Virtual Machine) code? It's quite possible to write a very good framework (platform independent even) that doesn't use a VM. Why doesn't Microsoft do that? And: And - I'm aware of the benefits of VMs. It's just that I'm also aware of the benefits of non-VM code - and to be honest I must admit that I really prefer non-VM code. /Simon This is not a signature.
Simon Hofverberg wrote:
It's quite possible to write a very good framework (platform independent even) that doesn't use a VM. Why doesn't Microsoft do that?
Why do you think that is the case ? Most of MS products (unless they are business oriented) will continue to be in native code. The real adoption of .NET / Java is in the business software area. Why on earth would you want to write a insurance claims system in native code ?
-
I posted this in the General discussion forum, but it didn't quite stir up the flame war I expected. After seeing Vista and .NET and Microsoft's Response to Vista and .NET I figured this is the place to go. So ... I use MFC (though I don't particularly like it) and VC++ 6.0 (which I like very very much). I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out why Microsoft (and a whole lot of people affiliated or not affiliated with them) think that everyone should switch from native Win32 C++ development to .NET Framework-based development ... and I just can't figure out why. Things I know: Yes - the .NET framework has a load of nifty classes that I would have access to. Yes - it's quite possible to write native code mixed with .NET code in various ways. Yes - .NET code is/will be portable to other platforms. Yes - I understand fully that .NET is the way to go for a large range of applications (if I hear "web" or "business" bells start ringing). Things I don't know: But - why must Microsoft push it as the future for ALL applications? But - why should everyone be writing VM (Virtual Machine) code? It's quite possible to write a very good framework (platform independent even) that doesn't use a VM. Why doesn't Microsoft do that? And: And - I'm aware of the benefits of VMs. It's just that I'm also aware of the benefits of non-VM code - and to be honest I must admit that I really prefer non-VM code. /Simon This is not a signature.
Simon Hofverberg wrote:
I must admit that I really prefer non-VM code.
You and me too, but I also enjoy eating as do others - which means most of us we'll have to use .NET whether we like it or not. Jeremy Falcon
-
.Net is is one of the biggest marketing coups this century. All it is is repackaged Java (AKA J++). MS got told to stop using JAva cos they were messing with the standard, so they come out with .Net and convince the world to buy it. Throw in some J2EE functionality and there you go, .Net. What a con, and, why the hell are so many C++/MFC coders buying into it when they didnt buy into Java? Is it because it comes from Microsoft, so people automatically feel it is the future and must get into it to protect their earning potential? Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
buying into it when they didnt buy into Java?
At this point, MS could repackage a turd and people will buy into it. Jeremy Falcon
-
Simon Hofverberg wrote:
It's quite possible to write a very good framework (platform independent even) that doesn't use a VM. Why doesn't Microsoft do that?
Why do you think that is the case ? Most of MS products (unless they are business oriented) will continue to be in native code. The real adoption of .NET / Java is in the business software area. Why on earth would you want to write a insurance claims system in native code ?
-
fat_boy wrote:
buying into it when they didnt buy into Java?
At this point, MS could repackage a turd and people will buy into it. Jeremy Falcon
Can anyone say, "Windows ME"?
A Plain English signature. Code-frog System Architects, Inc.
-
.Net is is one of the biggest marketing coups this century. All it is is repackaged Java (AKA J++). MS got told to stop using JAva cos they were messing with the standard, so they come out with .Net and convince the world to buy it. Throw in some J2EE functionality and there you go, .Net. What a con, and, why the hell are so many C++/MFC coders buying into it when they didnt buy into Java? Is it because it comes from Microsoft, so people automatically feel it is the future and must get into it to protect their earning potential? Nunc est bibendum
Saying things like that can get you beaten up where I work.
-
Can anyone say, "Windows ME"?
A Plain English signature. Code-frog System Architects, Inc.
ME! Ok, bad joke. Jeremy Falcon
-
Saying things like that can get you beaten up where I work.
Yeah, those protractors are really frightening. :-> Jeremy Falcon
-
Simon Hofverberg wrote:
It's quite possible to write a very good framework (platform independent even) that doesn't use a VM. Why doesn't Microsoft do that?
Why do you think that is the case ? Most of MS products (unless they are business oriented) will continue to be in native code. The real adoption of .NET / Java is in the business software area. Why on earth would you want to write a insurance claims system in native code ?
-
Simon Hofverberg wrote:
I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out why Microsoft (and a whole lot of people affiliated or not affiliated with them) think that everyone should switch from native Win32 C++ development to .NET Framework-based development
I may be wrong, but I don't remember reading anything that says that. Almost all of MS's applications are not managed code. They are pushing .NET hard, but they're not stupid. They know that there are classes of applications that will see no (or little) benefit from moving to a .NET platform.
Simon Hofverberg wrote:
Why doesn't Microsoft do that?
What language would you do it for? Whichever one they chose, they would have developers in the other languages screaming for blood. The way they have done it, they make the framework available to everyone.
Ryan
"Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
I wrote:
Why doesn't Microsoft do that? [Why don't they create a really good framework in native code?]
Ryan Binns wrote:
What language would you do it for? Whichever one they chose, they would have developers in the other languages screaming for blood. The way they have done it, they make the framework available to everyone.
Well:
Ryan Binns wrote:
They know that there are classes of applications that will see no (or little) benefit from moving to a .NET platform.
What languages are those classes of applications written in? My guess is 98% C++ (and 80% of those use MFC). Ergo: the language would be C++. Why not give us something like MFC but 1000% better. I'd say all other languages are much easier to replace with the .NET framework. But being a C++ developer I don't know for sure (oh I'm so humble :rolleyes:). /Simon This is not a signature.
-
Exactly, horses for courses. If you need fast mission critical code, C++ is the man. If you writing an Stock Inventory System .net/C# is the man. Blogless
norm.net wrote:
If you writing an Stock Inventory System .net/C# is the man.
And yet nobody said that about Java or classic VB. Both of which were capable of delivering products faster. Jeremy Falcon
-
Simon Hofverberg wrote:
It's quite possible to write a very good framework (platform independent even) that doesn't use a VM. Why doesn't Microsoft do that?
Why do you think that is the case ? Most of MS products (unless they are business oriented) will continue to be in native code. The real adoption of .NET / Java is in the business software area. Why on earth would you want to write a insurance claims system in native code ?
-
But why don't they give native developers a solid framework like they have for .NET developers? /Simon This is not a signature.
Because MS puts market share above all else. Jeremy Falcon
-
Saying things like that can get you beaten up where I work.
As a consultant for a harware manufacturer, I spend my life in the Windows Kernel writing device drivers in C; I can say what I like about C# and .Net. It is a language for crap engineers who forget to deallocate the heap and cant handle pointers. Honestly, you should see what we have to deal with, you wouldnt believe the complexity, once you have written kernel device drivers, C# and .Net (more like .SafetyNet) look like a kids toy. Nunc est bibendum
-
As a consultant for a harware manufacturer, I spend my life in the Windows Kernel writing device drivers in C; I can say what I like about C# and .Net. It is a language for crap engineers who forget to deallocate the heap and cant handle pointers. Honestly, you should see what we have to deal with, you wouldnt believe the complexity, once you have written kernel device drivers, C# and .Net (more like .SafetyNet) look like a kids toy. Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
Honestly, you should see what we have to deal with, you wouldnt believe the complexity, once you have written kernel device drivers, C# and .Net (more like .SafetyNet) look like a kids toy.
Which is sad because some of the developers I've worked with in the past get an ego over writing something as simple a data entry form in an app. Or some think they are 1337 because they managed to write an ActiveX DLL in VB. :doh: Jeremy Falcon
-
norm.net wrote:
If you writing an Stock Inventory System .net/C# is the man.
And yet nobody said that about Java or classic VB. Both of which were capable of delivering products faster. Jeremy Falcon
VB was a good tool for business software, it developed a bad reputation due to its use by non programmers and the fact that many coders had used basic as a child and gone on to C/++. Java sucked for GUI development until recently. AWT was awful, I personaly liked the very strict MVC of Swing's design, but it was way too slow. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette