Microsoft .NET applications for Windows
-
I did Spy on VS and you right, many controls (but not even half) on it are .NET controls, especially on the properties screen. But still nothing confirm to me that VS is a .NET application looks like it is just a C/C++ app using several .NET controls from the .NET libraries exposed as COM objects, but the application itself devenv.exe is not .NET.
Visual studio is partly .net. But expression line of products are entirely made in wpf/.net3.0. The user interface is really different and takes time getting used to. I have use expression blend and it has a really small install size as compared to other microsoft products. So at last they have started using their technologies.
-
>> however, with C#: the language, in this sense, is sterile. I'm still laughing for that :-D >> I suspect that the serious programmers at Microsoft have done so and have - as a result of their analysis - rejected the C#/.NET combination as a "serious" development platform. The more experienced of the bunch, of course, knew this all along. But then under that classification are you meaning that C# is another VB? and then it should not be taken seriously like to be used for big companies to run mission critical processes?
By the way there is a thread on this subject on Dan Fenrandez's blog[^]
company, work and everything else @ netis
-
starcraft4ever wrote:
sometimes I feel like I’m a guinea pig
The .NET Framework will end with 3.0 as the experimentation phase ends. They will then roll out the Windows Live Ultimate Development Framework which will have learnt from .NET's mistakes. ;) I don't know why Microsoft don't use it more but I do know it is a handy framework on the Windows platform for desktop dev. It is pretty good for in-house apps, sort of like VB was but without the amateurism of VB. I enjoyed C# and .NET dev, lot more productive than the little bit of C++ and MFC I once tried.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Shog9 wrote:
And with that, Paul closed his browser, sipped his herbal tea, fixed the flower in his hair, and smiled brightly at the multitude of cute, furry animals flocking around the grassy hillside where he sat coding Ruby on his Mac...
Paul Watson wrote:
I don't know why Microsoft don't use it more but I do know it is a handy framework on the Windows platform for desktop dev.
What new apps have Microsoft written recently? Most of their product line is upgrades to legacy apps and they ain't going to rewrite all that code.
Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
-
Paul Watson wrote:
I don't know why Microsoft don't use it more but I do know it is a handy framework on the Windows platform for desktop dev.
What new apps have Microsoft written recently? Most of their product line is upgrades to legacy apps and they ain't going to rewrite all that code.
Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
Well, Windows Vista was rewritten in the lifetime of .NET ;)
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Shog9 wrote:
And with that, Paul closed his browser, sipped his herbal tea, fixed the flower in his hair, and smiled brightly at the multitude of cute, furry animals flocking around the grassy hillside where he sat coding Ruby on his Mac...
-
>> however, with C#: the language, in this sense, is sterile. I'm still laughing for that :-D >> I suspect that the serious programmers at Microsoft have done so and have - as a result of their analysis - rejected the C#/.NET combination as a "serious" development platform. The more experienced of the bunch, of course, knew this all along. But then under that classification are you meaning that C# is another VB? and then it should not be taken seriously like to be used for big companies to run mission critical processes?
starcraft4ever wrote:
But then under that classification are you meaning that C# is another VB? and then it should not be taken seriously like to be used for big companies to run mission critical processes?
There are a lot of "mission critical processes" written, at least partially, in VB; and entirely in COBOL, for that matter. One can't rewrite SQL in SQL, and yet SQL plays an important role in many important applications. The problem with C# is that it is too low-level to serve the VB/COBOL/SQL community (that prefers to work at a much higher and simpler level); yet not low enough for use on operating systems, compilers, and requisite desktop applications such as word processors, spread sheets, and database management systems. In short, some group of nerds - isolated from the rest of humanity - thought they could sell C-style syntax to normal human beings. Not gonna happen.
-
starcraft4ever wrote:
But then under that classification are you meaning that C# is another VB? and then it should not be taken seriously like to be used for big companies to run mission critical processes?
There are a lot of "mission critical processes" written, at least partially, in VB; and entirely in COBOL, for that matter. One can't rewrite SQL in SQL, and yet SQL plays an important role in many important applications. The problem with C# is that it is too low-level to serve the VB/COBOL/SQL community (that prefers to work at a much higher and simpler level); yet not low enough for use on operating systems, compilers, and requisite desktop applications such as word processors, spread sheets, and database management systems. In short, some group of nerds - isolated from the rest of humanity - thought they could sell C-style syntax to normal human beings. Not gonna happen.
The Grand Negus wrote:
In short, some group of nerds - isolated from the rest of humanity - thought they could sell C-style syntax to normal human beings. Not gonna happen.
That is funny!!! :laugh:
company, work and everything else @ netis
-
So you're saying that Java is also rejected as a serious development platform?
company, work and everything else @ netis
Zoltan Balazs wrote:
So you're saying that Java is also rejected as a serious development platform?
Java is sterile in the same sense that C# is. My objection to Java is the same as I stated elsewhere in this thread regarding C# - the concepts and syntax are too low-level for a high-level language. It's not friendly enough to win over a COBOL or VB programmer, and yet not powerful enough for a C or C++ person.
-
Paul Watson wrote:
I don't know why Microsoft don't use it more but I do know it is a handy framework on the Windows platform for desktop dev.
What new apps have Microsoft written recently? Most of their product line is upgrades to legacy apps and they ain't going to rewrite all that code.
Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
And another thing is all the marketing Microsoft put out about other companies that rewrote their applications with the .NET Framework to reap the benefits etc. They have case studies, cost and performance improvement charts etc. etc. They even sponsored rewrites of popular systems in .NET. Yet they won't do the same. One bit of .NET they do seem to use though is ASP.NET. The bit I like least.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Shog9 wrote:
And with that, Paul closed his browser, sipped his herbal tea, fixed the flower in his hair, and smiled brightly at the multitude of cute, furry animals flocking around the grassy hillside where he sat coding Ruby on his Mac...
-
Zoltan Balazs wrote:
So you're saying that Java is also rejected as a serious development platform?
Java is sterile in the same sense that C# is. My objection to Java is the same as I stated elsewhere in this thread regarding C# - the concepts and syntax are too low-level for a high-level language. It's not friendly enough to win over a COBOL or VB programmer, and yet not powerful enough for a C or C++ person.
Yeah, poor Java, hardly any enterprise uses it... oh, wait.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Shog9 wrote:
And with that, Paul closed his browser, sipped his herbal tea, fixed the flower in his hair, and smiled brightly at the multitude of cute, furry animals flocking around the grassy hillside where he sat coding Ruby on his Mac...
-
By the way there is a thread on this subject on Dan Fenrandez's blog[^]
company, work and everything else @ netis
The link expresses exactly my point. There are been .NET dlls created and exposed to the rest of the applications and usually make use of a huge amount of P/Invokes but not native applications. The blog is from 2004 and still there are no a real response from MS. For all those link I could see just two applications (clients) written in .NET Small Business Server 2003 and MS-CRM. May be MS is waiting for computers processor power to be enough then applications made in .NET can’t be differentiated from application in made in C++, I can’t imagine a Office product made in .NET running with the same performance (speed/resources) than the current version.
-
Yeah, poor Java, hardly any enterprise uses it... oh, wait.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Shog9 wrote:
And with that, Paul closed his browser, sipped his herbal tea, fixed the flower in his hair, and smiled brightly at the multitude of cute, furry animals flocking around the grassy hillside where he sat coding Ruby on his Mac...
-
It could make perfect sense but from where did you get that information. If I open devenv.exe with Reflector.exe it shows that it can't be opened because it doesn't contains a valid CLI header. If I open devenv.exe with Depends.exe it shows me that it doesn't contain any call to MSCOREE.dll as all .NET programs will shows. Of course I’m referring to managed application. Every test I'm doing show me that it is not a .NET application, If it is .NET then why reflector.exe and depends.exe shows that?
It's not 100% .NET, but large parts of it, are.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
-
Paul Watson wrote:
Yeah, poor Java, hardly any enterprise uses it... oh, wait.
We live in farm country. The guy next door has a mule. He uses it for all sorts of things. But it's still sterile. End of the line.
So what do you propose when that mule dies, that all those farmers are going to go back to what they had before? Unlikely. The mule will either find a way to replicate or the farmers will use The Next Big Thing. I'm not saying it is right. I'm just saying that that is the trend.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Shog9 wrote:
And with that, Paul closed his browser, sipped his herbal tea, fixed the flower in his hair, and smiled brightly at the multitude of cute, furry animals flocking around the grassy hillside where he sat coding Ruby on his Mac...
-
Five years have passed with the famous .NET framework and still I didn't see a single application (Client) from Microsoft made in .NET. Is there some application like Calc or Paint or something that MS did in .NET for Windows 2000, XP or Windows Vista? I really would like to see it. I love C#, but sometimes I feel like I’m a guinea pig, how come they advertise like the best platform to develop when them self don't use it? I guess they had the time, money and resources to train people in C#/.NET :)... Why it didn't happen. Also did you see any MS application on Vista using WPF? Sometimes I really wonder myself what's the reason MS it is not using .NET aggressively, and personal I think five years is more enough to come up with some working application, at least I'd like to see a Calc.exe or a Minesweeper distributed from them to make me feel more secure about it before keep going with C# and stop more and more using C++ just for very special things that you can't or are too difficult to do with C#. What do you think about it?
This comes up from time to time. I get the impression from elsewhere in the thread that you're looking for desktop apps. that are 100% .NET? But if many are, e.g., only 90% .NET why is this a failure, given the other advantages of .NET?
-
This comes up from time to time. I get the impression from elsewhere in the thread that you're looking for desktop apps. that are 100% .NET? But if many are, e.g., only 90% .NET why is this a failure, given the other advantages of .NET?
Not 100% .NET, unless you want to do a calculator use of p/invokes is almost inevitable. I’m not saying it is a failure, I love .NET, and I’m very productive with it, in my job I use C# all the time and because of it I use half of the time and the rest a use it to drink coffee and take more “5 minutes breaks”. :) Basically I'd like to know if MS released some commercial application made in .NET where the executable itself is .NET, if it calls to many others dlls still is ok.
-
Visual Studio Development Env. itself is a .net application..
L.W.C. Nirosh. Colombo, Sri Lanka.
"If anyone tells you that Visual Studio .NET is a managed application, you instantly know that they know nothing about .NET. Simply typing dumpbin devenv.exe /headers (assuming you have devenv.exe in your path) will prove this: the location in the COM Descriptor Directory is zero." From Welcome to the 4% Operating System[^]
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand -
Not 100% .NET, unless you want to do a calculator use of p/invokes is almost inevitable. I’m not saying it is a failure, I love .NET, and I’m very productive with it, in my job I use C# all the time and because of it I use half of the time and the rest a use it to drink coffee and take more “5 minutes breaks”. :) Basically I'd like to know if MS released some commercial application made in .NET where the executable itself is .NET, if it calls to many others dlls still is ok.
I'm told that BizTalk 2004/2006 are 100% or near-100% C#. But I expect you'll probably find that it isn't. There probably are quite a few small apps. and utilities that are 100% .NET. E.g., XML Notepad 2007 XML Notepad[^] XML Notepad Design[^]
-
I'm told that BizTalk 2004/2006 are 100% or near-100% C#. But I expect you'll probably find that it isn't. There probably are quite a few small apps. and utilities that are 100% .NET. E.g., XML Notepad 2007 XML Notepad[^] XML Notepad Design[^]
Sorry was not an imperative sentence :). When I said: Not 100% .NET, unless you want …bla bla bla I meant: Doesn't need to be 100% .NET, unless you want … bla bla bla As long the EXE is a native .NET and MS give support for it will demonstrate that is a valid develop platform for them.
-
So what do you propose when that mule dies, that all those farmers are going to go back to what they had before? Unlikely. The mule will either find a way to replicate or the farmers will use The Next Big Thing. I'm not saying it is right. I'm just saying that that is the trend.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Shog9 wrote:
And with that, Paul closed his browser, sipped his herbal tea, fixed the flower in his hair, and smiled brightly at the multitude of cute, furry animals flocking around the grassy hillside where he sat coding Ruby on his Mac...
Paul Watson wrote:
So what do you propose when that mule dies, that all those farmers are going to go back to what they had before? Unlikely. The mule will either find a way to replicate or the farmers will use The Next Big Thing.
Actually, mules are bred intentionally (male donkey + female horse) for their unique characteristics. But they're not likely to "find a way to replicate". And they certainly won't be giving birth to the Next Big Thing. And so what of Java? Well... Java, like a mule, was intentionally bred (C-style syntax + a BASIC/FORTH stack-based interpreter) for its unique characteristics. And, like a mule, Java is not likely to "find a way to replicate", nor will it be giving birth to the Next Big Thing. But, _un_like a real mule, the "unique characteristics" in this case are not all that desirable. As I said before, Java is too low-level for most, not low enough for others. Incidently - or not so incidently - this is why we were so careful in the development of our Plain English system to make sure that the thing was not a mule, but as fertile as a rabbit. We bred it for its unique characteristics, yes, but also for its ability to reproduce and for its potential to give birth to the Next Big Thing - "apparently intelligent"(tm) machines.
-
I'm told that BizTalk 2004/2006 are 100% or near-100% C#. But I expect you'll probably find that it isn't. There probably are quite a few small apps. and utilities that are 100% .NET. E.g., XML Notepad 2007 XML Notepad[^] XML Notepad Design[^]
Finally a native .NET application from MS :). I checked XML Notepad and it is a .NET application that can be downloaded as any other application from the web site. The only thing is that, it is free product which looks like it was made as an internal tool that later was released never as a product to be sold or serious project, but at least it shows that some developers in MS are using .NET.