How egregious is my crime to consider unmanaged code?
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
Fine with me. The other interesting thing about KLV is that if you partition the KL from the V, you can get decent compression on the KL part.
the other advantage is it is future friendly. If you don't understand the K, you use the L to skip the V. with XML you find a key you don't understand, you just keep reading until you find the next piece you know... KLV is a big hit in quite a few markets.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
El Corazon wrote:
If you don't understand the K, you use the L to skip the V.
Great point. Marc
-
I don't play a lot of games or even thing about gaming software usually, you're right, but surely we are not far off from reaching a point where gaming software has evolved to the point that the only way for more performance is with more powerful hardware? When some software *isn't* hardware scaleable does't that mean the software hasn't evolved fully?
When everyone is a hero no one is a hero.
John C wrote:
you're right, but surely we are not far off from reaching a point where gaming software has evolved to the point that the only way for more performance is with more powerful hardware?
From the outside looking in it may appear that way. But, a majority of the game engines and pipeline tools still don't take full advantage of current hardware. There are a few like gamebyro and unreal that have pushed a bit at the envelope but in general I'd say there is room for improvement.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
-
John C wrote:
I thought we were talking about off the shelf kind of software.
well, you know john... you must be right ... I have to special order my copy of games... because walmart just won't stock games for cycle hungry users.... They ripped out the game section and replaced it with extra aisle of bath soap... go check yours and see if it is the same.... :rolleyes:
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Non-gaming off the shelf software sorry if I was unclear. As I pointed out in another post here just now I don't really think about gaming software as I don't play them very often, I'm thinking about productivity software of one kind or another usually and I keep saying that's my perspective, we know yours, perhaps it would be useful if we had some kind of way of indicating who works in what field in our icons or something so that there would be more understanding of points of view. A lot of time debates flair up for no more good reason than that the two people work in different fields and have their perspectives from that experience.
When everyone is a hero no one is a hero.
-
I don't play a lot of games or even thing about gaming software usually, you're right, but surely we are not far off from reaching a point where gaming software has evolved to the point that the only way for more performance is with more powerful hardware? When some software *isn't* hardware scaleable does't that mean the software hasn't evolved fully?
When everyone is a hero no one is a hero.
John C wrote:
but surely we are not far off from reaching a point where gaming software has evolved to the point that the only way for more performance is with more powerful hardware?
no, and we will never reach that level. Scientific computation overlaps with games to a larger amount than you realize. Physics engines grow more real. From suspension systems on cars, to accurate flight models in flight sims you are talking about mathematical problems that were supercomputer only a decade ago. As the computer evolves, the games evolve, better graphics, more realistic physics, higher AI, learning systems, adaptive logic and adaptic terrain (have you ever stopped to think about the physics involved in digging a hole in the ground?). There is a list a mile long for things that would like to be added to games. The list will only grow, even as hardware is capable of adding more from it, it will never, ever complete it. Not tomorrow, not 100 years from now. If we had holographic true 3D content, it would still not be enough. If we had projection of 3D graphics into the brain itself, it would still not be enough. It will never, ever be enough.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
John C wrote:
it's damned hard to write any software that makes a person wait, you have to have a hugely inept design.
You haven't used VS.net lately then have you. Otherwise I agree with most of your statements. But, we are worlds apart on how we feel about performance and relying on quality hardware.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
Chris Austin wrote:
You haven't used VS.net lately then have you.
Every day, it's pretty much unnoticeablly slow at any point since I upgraded my hardware to a quad core, 4gb ram, Vista and super fast RAID 0 SATA array. But I expect to need that hardware because there is a lot of file access going on that just can't be avoided and my main solution consists of 22 separate projects that comprise a .net app with a winform UI, two different asp.net ui's and several accounting integration and other utility add-on's.
Chris Austin wrote:
But, we are worlds apart on how we feel about performance and relying on quality hardware
Why would that be? Surely you know there's a point beyond which you can't or it's unreasonable to optimize the software any more and the only thing left if more performance is required is more powerful hardware. In my world it's about scalability, our software is designed to scale from a single user on a basic pentium to a web farm with multiple sql servers and thousands of concurrent users, the same software exactly no different versions. I know a thing or two about performance, you have to in this scenario, but scalability is a good thing, it gives users options, it's not about relying on hardware to cover up sloppy programming. If an enterprise customer want's to run our software they just apply the appropriate hardware, the software is designed for that. Thats how I see it and why we have a different point of view perhaps on the situation.
When everyone is a hero no one is a hero.
-
John C wrote:
It was a huge consideration a decade or more ago it simply isn't as much of a factor any more.
only in your market. There is not a computer built today, or next year that will not be pushed to its limit. If we had 16 cores consumer right now, it would not be enough. It will never be enough because the market expands to fill the computer capability. There is ALWAYS more to do, it will NEVER end. Nothing will ever be fast enough. If you believe otherwise... see if you can run your stuff on a commodore Pet, it was advertised as the last computer you would ever need. :-D
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
El Corazon wrote:
only in your market.
Perhaps but "my" market is a pretty big one. Your market is an exception, an edge condition of sorts. Both of us make assumptions about things based on what we are involved in, the difference is my assumptions are a bit more widely applicable. ;)
When everyone is a hero no one is a hero.
-
Non-gaming off the shelf software sorry if I was unclear. As I pointed out in another post here just now I don't really think about gaming software as I don't play them very often, I'm thinking about productivity software of one kind or another usually and I keep saying that's my perspective, we know yours, perhaps it would be useful if we had some kind of way of indicating who works in what field in our icons or something so that there would be more understanding of points of view. A lot of time debates flair up for no more good reason than that the two people work in different fields and have their perspectives from that experience.
When everyone is a hero no one is a hero.
John C wrote:
Non-gaming off the shelf software sorry if I was unclear
oh.. my pardon... I thought we were talking about serious uses of hardware... but if you want to make the exclusions... okay... you are right... if you exclude all games, all military, all scientific, all photographic analysis, image processing, augmented reality, video production, and all users of software other than web and sql servers.... you are now correct. sorry for the confusion.... :rolleyes:
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
El Corazon wrote:
only in your market.
Perhaps but "my" market is a pretty big one. Your market is an exception, an edge condition of sorts. Both of us make assumptions about things based on what we are involved in, the difference is my assumptions are a bit more widely applicable. ;)
When everyone is a hero no one is a hero.
John C wrote:
Perhaps but "my" market is a pretty big one. Your market is an exception, an edge condition of sorts.
no my market takes the edge off games... sure we are a small market. but we know games drive hardware, we take advantage of, and sometimes lead games. My market is only an exception if you remove it from the core technologies we utilize. Video production, Video analysis, image analysis, scientific computation, games, all of it is in the games you can buy now on the store at wallmart.... it is between the automotive and the soap here.... Your DVD player runs on compression technologies we use, if you exclude them too... well, that is up to you. Your car uses analysis of the engine, it was built by a combination of robots and people using computers for control and quality control, we use those technologies too. Everything you look at today, we utilize as much as possible, because when budgets are thin we manage no matter what. You can call my market specialized... it is not. We use reality, everything that is available today, including the games you ignore. Because we realize there is more there than our little world. Now who is the exception?
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Chris Austin wrote:
You haven't used VS.net lately then have you.
Every day, it's pretty much unnoticeablly slow at any point since I upgraded my hardware to a quad core, 4gb ram, Vista and super fast RAID 0 SATA array. But I expect to need that hardware because there is a lot of file access going on that just can't be avoided and my main solution consists of 22 separate projects that comprise a .net app with a winform UI, two different asp.net ui's and several accounting integration and other utility add-on's.
Chris Austin wrote:
But, we are worlds apart on how we feel about performance and relying on quality hardware
Why would that be? Surely you know there's a point beyond which you can't or it's unreasonable to optimize the software any more and the only thing left if more performance is required is more powerful hardware. In my world it's about scalability, our software is designed to scale from a single user on a basic pentium to a web farm with multiple sql servers and thousands of concurrent users, the same software exactly no different versions. I know a thing or two about performance, you have to in this scenario, but scalability is a good thing, it gives users options, it's not about relying on hardware to cover up sloppy programming. If an enterprise customer want's to run our software they just apply the appropriate hardware, the software is designed for that. Thats how I see it and why we have a different point of view perhaps on the situation.
When everyone is a hero no one is a hero.
John C wrote:
In my world it's about scalability,
Not mine. My company works on server side and client side game development. In either case I have to get as much out of the hardware as my or my crews skills can.
John C wrote:
Thats how I see it and why we have a different point of view perhaps on the situation.
We certainly do. :) Allow me to try and explain. For example, nothing kills the the immersion of an online game then the client crawling to a standstill because of poorly implemented terrain rendering system. These have traditionally been implemented as QuadTrees or a hybrid of Quad & OctTrees. Sure, we can scale trees across multiple servers to help, but if the algorithm implementation sucks you still have issues when your game begins growing in popularity. And then, you have a pissed off customer base that got you there to begin with.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
-
Chris Austin wrote:
You haven't used VS.net lately then have you.
Every day, it's pretty much unnoticeablly slow at any point since I upgraded my hardware to a quad core, 4gb ram, Vista and super fast RAID 0 SATA array. But I expect to need that hardware because there is a lot of file access going on that just can't be avoided and my main solution consists of 22 separate projects that comprise a .net app with a winform UI, two different asp.net ui's and several accounting integration and other utility add-on's.
Chris Austin wrote:
But, we are worlds apart on how we feel about performance and relying on quality hardware
Why would that be? Surely you know there's a point beyond which you can't or it's unreasonable to optimize the software any more and the only thing left if more performance is required is more powerful hardware. In my world it's about scalability, our software is designed to scale from a single user on a basic pentium to a web farm with multiple sql servers and thousands of concurrent users, the same software exactly no different versions. I know a thing or two about performance, you have to in this scenario, but scalability is a good thing, it gives users options, it's not about relying on hardware to cover up sloppy programming. If an enterprise customer want's to run our software they just apply the appropriate hardware, the software is designed for that. Thats how I see it and why we have a different point of view perhaps on the situation.
When everyone is a hero no one is a hero.
John C wrote:
Why would that be? Surely you know there's a point beyond which you can't or it's unreasonable to optimize the software any more and the only thing left if more performance is required is more powerful hardware.
I think I finally figured out the confusion. You believe every algorithm has already been put on a computer and optimized to infinity, therefore we are done. I actually believed the same thing when I was in school. I was so bitter about taking Calculus. I am going into computers, everyone has already done all this on computer and I am just going to use it to develop the next great thing, and everything just builds upwards at this huge pace of capability.... Then I got into the market, into reality... know what I discovered? I was the one putting those calculus problems on the computer. For all my grumbling and growling in college. The list of problems are too great to ever be done. And technologies change requiring adaption. Did PCs change algorithms? you betcha. did GP-GPU? absotively. did Cell? you got it, yup! We haven't even scratched the surface. And as we learn more the algorithms shift and change. The software is never done, because we don't know everything about the world. period. If we knew everything, then yes, we would be done. But I don't know everything, and unless you are claiming to know everything there ever is to know, then I think we finally find agreement. We're not done because not everything has ever been done that can be done. And that is not likely to change soon.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
John C wrote:
In my world it's about scalability,
Not mine. My company works on server side and client side game development. In either case I have to get as much out of the hardware as my or my crews skills can.
John C wrote:
Thats how I see it and why we have a different point of view perhaps on the situation.
We certainly do. :) Allow me to try and explain. For example, nothing kills the the immersion of an online game then the client crawling to a standstill because of poorly implemented terrain rendering system. These have traditionally been implemented as QuadTrees or a hybrid of Quad & OctTrees. Sure, we can scale trees across multiple servers to help, but if the algorithm implementation sucks you still have issues when your game begins growing in popularity. And then, you have a pissed off customer base that got you there to begin with.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
Chris Austin wrote:
These have traditionally been implemented as QuadTrees or a hybrid of Quad & OctTrees.
enter compressed geoclipmaps! whoohoo!!
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Chris Austin wrote:
These have traditionally been implemented as QuadTrees or a hybrid of Quad & OctTrees.
enter compressed geoclipmaps! whoohoo!!
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
:laugh: I was trying to avoid the topic. I had many heated debates with customers and employees over the whole Geoclipmaps vs Geomipmaps drama. Personally I didn't care, I just wanted to test the technical merits.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
-
dan neely wrote:
While PCs don't most PC gamers are already running the fastest hardware they can justify buying.
and many of them are overclocking that hardware to push it right to the breaking point. With 3.4 lb (1.5kg) and 3x140mm fans for air cooled to phase change to Thermo electric cooling, folks are pushing the 5Ghz boundary in the gaming market already even though no commercial place is gutsy enough to sell it, gamers are pushing the hardware over the line and past the commercial level, WELL beyond the commercial level... and they are a huge consumer market!!
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
*pats his water cooling setup fondly* Just need to put something better underneath it. Currently running an a64x2 @ 2.8. I really want a c2quad, but the 45nm ones are still obscenely expensive, and my a64 is s939 (DDR1) so even after the cheaper ones come out I'll be looking at a $500-700 upgrade. Also my 8yo generic CRT is starting to flake out, and a good IPS lcd to replace it is going to cost about the same and will probably bump the C2Q. By the time I can afford the second purchase nehalem will probably be right around the corner.
Otherwise [Microsoft is] toast in the long term no matter how much money they've got. They would be already if the Linux community didn't have it's head so firmly up it's own command line buffer that it looks like taking 15 years to find the desktop. -- Matthew Faithfull
-
John C wrote:
Why would that be? Surely you know there's a point beyond which you can't or it's unreasonable to optimize the software any more and the only thing left if more performance is required is more powerful hardware.
I think I finally figured out the confusion. You believe every algorithm has already been put on a computer and optimized to infinity, therefore we are done. I actually believed the same thing when I was in school. I was so bitter about taking Calculus. I am going into computers, everyone has already done all this on computer and I am just going to use it to develop the next great thing, and everything just builds upwards at this huge pace of capability.... Then I got into the market, into reality... know what I discovered? I was the one putting those calculus problems on the computer. For all my grumbling and growling in college. The list of problems are too great to ever be done. And technologies change requiring adaption. Did PCs change algorithms? you betcha. did GP-GPU? absotively. did Cell? you got it, yup! We haven't even scratched the surface. And as we learn more the algorithms shift and change. The software is never done, because we don't know everything about the world. period. If we knew everything, then yes, we would be done. But I don't know everything, and unless you are claiming to know everything there ever is to know, then I think we finally find agreement. We're not done because not everything has ever been done that can be done. And that is not likely to change soon.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
El Corazon wrote:
You believe every algorithm has already been put on a computer and optimized to infinity, therefore we are done
Again and with respect, hopefully for the last time today, this is a matter of perspective and fields of operation. You operate in a field where a certain set of things are true, I operate in a field where a wildly divergent set of things are true. Here again you are taking your field of endeavor and attempting to template it over my field of endeavour and typing a lot of text for no reason. :)
When everyone is a hero no one is a hero.
-
*pats his water cooling setup fondly* Just need to put something better underneath it. Currently running an a64x2 @ 2.8. I really want a c2quad, but the 45nm ones are still obscenely expensive, and my a64 is s939 (DDR1) so even after the cheaper ones come out I'll be looking at a $500-700 upgrade. Also my 8yo generic CRT is starting to flake out, and a good IPS lcd to replace it is going to cost about the same and will probably bump the C2Q. By the time I can afford the second purchase nehalem will probably be right around the corner.
Otherwise [Microsoft is] toast in the long term no matter how much money they've got. They would be already if the Linux community didn't have it's head so firmly up it's own command line buffer that it looks like taking 15 years to find the desktop. -- Matthew Faithfull
dan neely wrote:
Currently running an a64x2 @ 2.8.
you and me both.... my wife has the core 2, we're saving to upgrade mine. She was teasing me a while back about my computer being overloaded because it runs slower than hers and she knew I limited hers to below mine. I smiled and shook my head, no, regardless of mine, I helped get her the computer I wanted at the time, which was better than mine. I made sure she had something better than mine so it would last.
dan neely wrote:
and a good IPS lcd to replace it is going to cost about the same and will probably bump the C2Q
yeah. I just upgraded my monitor... 28" hey, cheap plastic goodness, but the video is crisp and clear. :) I am happy!
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
:laugh: I was trying to avoid the topic. I had many heated debates with customers and employees over the whole Geoclipmaps vs Geomipmaps drama. Personally I didn't care, I just wanted to test the technical merits.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
Chris Austin wrote:
I was trying to avoid the topic. I had many heated debates with customers and employees over the whole Geoclipmaps vs Geomipmaps drama. Personally I didn't care, I just wanted to test the technical merits.
hehe, actually there are some cool new ones... :-D :-D technology never stands still. look for nVidia and new shadows if you haven't got the announcement. mmmmmm faster and more realistic shadows, yet again. :-D
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
El Corazon wrote:
You believe every algorithm has already been put on a computer and optimized to infinity, therefore we are done
Again and with respect, hopefully for the last time today, this is a matter of perspective and fields of operation. You operate in a field where a certain set of things are true, I operate in a field where a wildly divergent set of things are true. Here again you are taking your field of endeavor and attempting to template it over my field of endeavour and typing a lot of text for no reason. :)
When everyone is a hero no one is a hero.
John C wrote:
Here again you are taking your field of endeavor and attempting to template it over my field of endeavour and typing a lot of text for no reason.
"Surely you know there's a point beyond which you can't or it's unreasonable to optimize the software any more " those are YOUR words John, not mine. True, if everything has already been written, then obviously, you can only optimize it so far and then you are correct. but not everything has been written, nor will it ever be written, because the algorithms shift and change with computation ability. 10 years ago physics engines were minor compared today. Those engines have no resemblance to the physics engines of today, nor should they, nor will they in 10 years look anything like today. The reason we cannot reach the level where there no room left to optimize is there is always something new to optimize. It never ends. For YOU it has ended, I can accept that. But what you refuse to admit is that anti-virus, video production, disk recovery and analysis, forensics, air control, space launches, even the traffic control for the cities run on algorithms you can't even imagine. and those that are not, are changing. The FAA is upgrading the air traffic control capabilities, the military is upgrading, the space industry is going commercial, computers are designing computers, we have robotics, commercial and consumer level, we have lots and lots of uses of computers and the demand to push them is growing faster every year, not including games. But we will still NEVER have everything on the computer such that there is nothing left to optimize. and gamers want it all. they want everything. and they are willing to pay for it, again, and again. They don't care that you "finished" your physics engine, if can't calculate the proper reflection of a rock skipping across a pond and game competition B can, tough luck, you are old news. Thus everything is always rewritten, nothing is ever done. No one, not one single game company is ever finished. As soon as one game is finished with one technology, newer technology is prepared for the next game, and the next, and the next. I am not in the gaming industry, but even I can see the benefit of using that huge drive for technology to my advantage.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
We have a ton of existing C++ code I can reuse to build an n-tier enterprise managment solution. Does the lounge consider it a crime to consider using unmanaged C++ for a new project?
Do we weigh less at high tide?
You must be taken out and shot. I insist that you provide your own bullet so that I don't have to waste one of mine. Only kidding - if you've got code that you can reuse, then it will speed up your development - which was the whole point of .NET anyway, so go with it.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
chris ruff wrote:
Does the lounge consider it a crime to consider using unmanaged C++ for a new project?
Nope. These newfangled languages are poorly architected, the supporting frameworks are kludgy and buggy, and the designers appear to be syntactical sugared and eye candied, to say the least. I'm dead serious. C# is cool and thoroughly enjoy the n-tier architecture that I build with it, but I'm depressed by what they're doing to the language and the framework. I continually encounter areas of the framework that don't come up to snuff performance-wise when working in an n-tier environment or that are so dumbed down as to be unusable, either case requiring a replacement of what .NET provides. I'm disappointed with the language enhancements, feeling that there is no roadmap other than "screw everybody else's ideas, but don't admit they even have ideas because we're going to hijack them anyways." The changes to C++ that someone posted about a week or so ago, that the Intel compiler supports, that's stuff that gets me wishing I'd developed Interacx in C++. Seriously. Marc
I'll second Marc's remarks about performance problems and dissappointing language features. .NET is heavily targeted at what I'll call "directed development" where applications are planned, developed and constructed so that code is the glue that developers create to tie application specific data components to generic UI components. Allot of the development work that I have done over the years (and I suspect this is true of Marc also) has been more generic development of systems that are used to build other systems where both the data components and UI components were largely generic. The glue has been configuration and meta-data. This leads to a different way of thinking about type safety, object creation, etc, that is not always condusive to the way .NET works. I have experienced some serious performance problems with .NET that have prevented me from switching some core applications from C++ to C#/managed code. Even ASP.NET applications can underperform classic ASP under certain circumstances, which is distrurbing at best. Overall, though, .NET is the way to go with most things and most development projects. There are other options, such as C++, that are still valid in the right situations and should not be ignored.