Future of .NET
-
screw them. i've managed to skip the OLE, COM, COM+ and DCOM "revolutions". i think i'll skip the managed code one, too. unless the next version of Windows refuses to run native code written in C++/MFC, i'll still be writing it. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
John Montgomery, Microsoft, in an interview about the future of .NET: There will be a Longhorn client and server edition. Blackcomb is our vision of a Windows after Longhorn, still very far away at the horizon. Blackcomb is not on our agenda yet. Before it, there will be Whidbey and Longhorn. Today Lonhorn is only an example for developers. We want to show the developers that they should use managed code. Before the release of Longhorn they should have a look at Whidbey. Programmers who don't change to managed code now will hardly be able to follow the progress of technology. I found that quote on http://www.heise.de/ix/artikel/2004/05/086/[^] and tried to translate it to English as good as possible. Can it be true? Microsoft plans to force developers to use managed code, MFC and the Win32 API are going to die. But how about... - time critical applications? - device drivers? - any programs that do not perfectly fit into Microsoft's ideas about what they should do? "We want to show the developers that they should use managed code" says more than just "managed code is cool, so use it". In near future Windows won't be only an operation system running programs, it is going to control what the programs do and what data they process. Writing unmanaged applications won't be supported anymore. Or did I get anything wrong...? Please tell me what I didn't understand...
I traded emails with Eric Gunnerson (Visual C# Program Manager, http://weblogs.asp.net/ericgu/archive/2003/06/20/52326.aspx) a few months ago about this same topic. I work in a lot of time-critical applications and was concerned about moving to C#. I did some initial development and decided that C# could not handle most of our real-time concerns and started emailing Eric for details on future plans. He basically told me the usual stuff, C# was very close to C++ in most instances (I/O seems to be a big slow point), P/Invoke would allow you to continue using C++ and older stuff from .NET, etc. However, he did say basically that WIN32 wasn't going away, it would still be there (though not encouraged) in Longhorn. That means that no matter what we've got till 2006 + 3 years of supported WIN32 and MFC (probably more). The new WINFX API will be entirely managed but it will run alongside the backwards compatible WIN32 API as follows (Visual Studio Magazine, February 2004, http://www.fawcette.com/vsm/2004\_02/magazine/features/rjennings/): The Win32 API, reigning king of the desktop for a decade, is dead; long live WinFX, Win32's successor. WinFX is a new .NET-based API that provides managed access to the three Longhorn pillars—Avalon, WinFS, and Indigo—and all other new Longhorn functionality. Secure managed code is in; native code and buffer overruns are out. The move from Win32 to WinFX is undoubtedly the largest software refactoring project ever attempted. Win32 will remain, of course, for backward compatibility, but WinFX is where the action will be. If you aren't using managed code for all new Web and Windows apps, it's time to refactor your development strategy. Win32 will go into maintenance mode in the Longhorn timeframe. Anyway, so long story short. I have spoken with a good number of people that work in time-critical areas, and the consensus for now is to keep time-critical apps in C++/MFC/etc. while any other new development can be done in .NET. Hope this helps. Brian "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas Adams
-
16-bit to 32-bit was a definite improvement. native code to managed code? not so much improvement. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
Chris Losinger wrote: native code to managed code? not so much improvement No? :confused: Would you mind explaining why you are so unimpressed with .NET while hundreds of thousands of developer are busy learning or actively developing applications with it? Or is it just an uninformed anti-microsoft rant? :confused:
If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete themselves upon execution - Robert Sewell
-
Chris Losinger wrote: native code to managed code? not so much improvement No? :confused: Would you mind explaining why you are so unimpressed with .NET while hundreds of thousands of developer are busy learning or actively developing applications with it? Or is it just an uninformed anti-microsoft rant? :confused:
If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete themselves upon execution - Robert Sewell
Eddie Velasquez wrote: while hundreds of thousands of developer are busy learning or actively developing applications with it? what exactly does popularity have to do with quality ? i'm a developer, not a teenage girl looking for a new kind of sneaker. Eddie Velasquez wrote: Would you mind explaining why you are so unimpressed with .NET i don't need it. it solves none of the problems i face. it's completely irrelevant to what my applications need. i don't need more layers of stuff between my code and the processor. i don't need something to clean up after me. i don't need yet another application framework or class library. i don't need to write apps using multiple languages. i don't need another language that only approaches what C/C++ can do. i don't need another run-time version to worry about. i don't need another dependency for my customers. maybe it's great for web apps (and compared to traditional ASP/VBScript, i bet it is). but we're not talking about web apps here. shorter version: .Net is totally irrelevant to what i do on the desktop. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
my my... the MS faithful are certainly out in force today. the mere mention of Linux got you voted down to gray. well, you got my 5 - for bravery. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
my my... the MS faithful are certainly out in force today. the mere mention of Linux got you voted down to gray. well, you got my 5 - for bravery. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
:beer: Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
Eddie Velasquez wrote: while hundreds of thousands of developer are busy learning or actively developing applications with it? what exactly does popularity have to do with quality ? i'm a developer, not a teenage girl looking for a new kind of sneaker. Eddie Velasquez wrote: Would you mind explaining why you are so unimpressed with .NET i don't need it. it solves none of the problems i face. it's completely irrelevant to what my applications need. i don't need more layers of stuff between my code and the processor. i don't need something to clean up after me. i don't need yet another application framework or class library. i don't need to write apps using multiple languages. i don't need another language that only approaches what C/C++ can do. i don't need another run-time version to worry about. i don't need another dependency for my customers. maybe it's great for web apps (and compared to traditional ASP/VBScript, i bet it is). but we're not talking about web apps here. shorter version: .Net is totally irrelevant to what i do on the desktop. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
Chris Losinger wrote: what exactly does popularity have to do with quality ? i'm a developer, not a teenage girl looking for a new kind of sneaker. So you're saying that those hundreds of thousands developers are clueless and just following a fad? Sorry, but I disagree. I think .NET is popular because it's good. And even Microsoft's staunchiest competitors are worried about it. Why do you think that Sun is busy adding C# and .NET features to Java? Chris Losinger wrote: i don't need it. it solves none of the problems i face. it's completely irrelevant to what my applications need. There's a big difference between saying that you don't (currently) need what .NET provides and saying that's unimpressive. A lot of Cobol developers also thought that C++ was a fad and it would never be used in the financial markets. Big mistake. We are they now? (Should we ask VH1?) :-) Chris Losinger wrote: i don't need something to clean up after me. i don't need yet another application framework or class library You probably are a very experienced and accomplished developer but you are a vast minority. Most developers aren't as good as you and still thousands of companies have software to write. I bet you don't have time to help every one out. Do you? ;) So .NET is there for the vast majority. Chris Losinger wrote: i don't need to write apps using multiple languages With .NET you don't HAVE to write apps using multiple languages but if you WANT you can, in a way that is as painless as it has ever been. Chris Losinger wrote: i don't need another language that only approaches what C/C++ can do I've been developing apps using C++ since 1989 and I think I'm rather good at it. I too thought that C++ was the end all... you know what, I realized that it is not. C++ has it's uses where no current language can compete but you don't need a Nascar race car as you commuting vehicle nor you go with a commuter car to race, do you? Chris Losinger wrote: i don't need another run-time version to worry about. i don't need another dependency for my customers. That is the main point... .NET unifies in a coherently designed framework all the mish-mash that the Win32 API is. The .NET runtime soon will be in every Windows desktop, so why not take advantage when and where you can?
If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete
-
Chris Losinger wrote: what exactly does popularity have to do with quality ? i'm a developer, not a teenage girl looking for a new kind of sneaker. So you're saying that those hundreds of thousands developers are clueless and just following a fad? Sorry, but I disagree. I think .NET is popular because it's good. And even Microsoft's staunchiest competitors are worried about it. Why do you think that Sun is busy adding C# and .NET features to Java? Chris Losinger wrote: i don't need it. it solves none of the problems i face. it's completely irrelevant to what my applications need. There's a big difference between saying that you don't (currently) need what .NET provides and saying that's unimpressive. A lot of Cobol developers also thought that C++ was a fad and it would never be used in the financial markets. Big mistake. We are they now? (Should we ask VH1?) :-) Chris Losinger wrote: i don't need something to clean up after me. i don't need yet another application framework or class library You probably are a very experienced and accomplished developer but you are a vast minority. Most developers aren't as good as you and still thousands of companies have software to write. I bet you don't have time to help every one out. Do you? ;) So .NET is there for the vast majority. Chris Losinger wrote: i don't need to write apps using multiple languages With .NET you don't HAVE to write apps using multiple languages but if you WANT you can, in a way that is as painless as it has ever been. Chris Losinger wrote: i don't need another language that only approaches what C/C++ can do I've been developing apps using C++ since 1989 and I think I'm rather good at it. I too thought that C++ was the end all... you know what, I realized that it is not. C++ has it's uses where no current language can compete but you don't need a Nascar race car as you commuting vehicle nor you go with a commuter car to race, do you? Chris Losinger wrote: i don't need another run-time version to worry about. i don't need another dependency for my customers. That is the main point... .NET unifies in a coherently designed framework all the mish-mash that the Win32 API is. The .NET runtime soon will be in every Windows desktop, so why not take advantage when and where you can?
If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete
Eddie Velasquez wrote: Why do you think that Sun is busy adding C# and .NET features to Java? i actually don't care. but it's amusing to see you claim that Sun is copying MS in this area. Eddie Velasquez wrote: You probably are a very experienced and accomplished developer but you are a vast minority. i really don't think so. a quick glance at Monster for my area shows 25 C# postings vs 75 C++ postings. Eddie Velasquez wrote: .NET runtime soon will be in every Windows desktop, so why not take advantage when and where you can? because, as i said before, nothing about it solves any problem i currently face. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
Eddie Velasquez wrote: Why do you think that Sun is busy adding C# and .NET features to Java? i actually don't care. but it's amusing to see you claim that Sun is copying MS in this area. Eddie Velasquez wrote: You probably are a very experienced and accomplished developer but you are a vast minority. i really don't think so. a quick glance at Monster for my area shows 25 C# postings vs 75 C++ postings. Eddie Velasquez wrote: .NET runtime soon will be in every Windows desktop, so why not take advantage when and where you can? because, as i said before, nothing about it solves any problem i currently face. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
Chris Losinger wrote: but it's amusing to see you claim that Sun is copying MS in this area Amuse yourself checking the specs for Java 1.5... Chris Losinger wrote: a quick glance at Monster for my area shows 25 C# postings vs 75 C++ postings. And you somehow consider that a significant statistic? :confused: Chris Losinger wrote: because, as i said before, nothing about it solves any problem i currently face The keyword here is "currently". Just don't let technology catch you with you pants down...
If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete themselves upon execution - Robert Sewell
-
Chris Losinger wrote: but it's amusing to see you claim that Sun is copying MS in this area Amuse yourself checking the specs for Java 1.5... Chris Losinger wrote: a quick glance at Monster for my area shows 25 C# postings vs 75 C++ postings. And you somehow consider that a significant statistic? :confused: Chris Losinger wrote: because, as i said before, nothing about it solves any problem i currently face The keyword here is "currently". Just don't let technology catch you with you pants down...
If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete themselves upon execution - Robert Sewell
Eddie Velasquez wrote: And you somehow consider that a significant statistic? ok, where is the statistic that proves i'm in the "vast minority" ? if it's not jobs, what is it? Code Project articles ? show me the numbers that proves i'm in the "vast minority" of developers. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
Eddie Velasquez wrote: And you somehow consider that a significant statistic? ok, where is the statistic that proves i'm in the "vast minority" ? if it's not jobs, what is it? Code Project articles ? show me the numbers that proves i'm in the "vast minority" of developers. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
Chris Losinger wrote: ok, where is the statistic that proves i'm in the "vast minority" ? if it's not jobs, what is it? Code Project articles ? Ok, obviously I didn't make myself clear. When I said your're in the "vast minority" what I was refering to was as an highly experienced developer. The the "majority" of developers aren't experienced or motivated as you are. And for those developers, and the companies that hire them, .NET is a great help.
If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete themselves upon execution - Robert Sewell
-
John Montgomery, Microsoft, in an interview about the future of .NET: There will be a Longhorn client and server edition. Blackcomb is our vision of a Windows after Longhorn, still very far away at the horizon. Blackcomb is not on our agenda yet. Before it, there will be Whidbey and Longhorn. Today Lonhorn is only an example for developers. We want to show the developers that they should use managed code. Before the release of Longhorn they should have a look at Whidbey. Programmers who don't change to managed code now will hardly be able to follow the progress of technology. I found that quote on http://www.heise.de/ix/artikel/2004/05/086/[^] and tried to translate it to English as good as possible. Can it be true? Microsoft plans to force developers to use managed code, MFC and the Win32 API are going to die. But how about... - time critical applications? - device drivers? - any programs that do not perfectly fit into Microsoft's ideas about what they should do? "We want to show the developers that they should use managed code" says more than just "managed code is cool, so use it". In near future Windows won't be only an operation system running programs, it is going to control what the programs do and what data they process. Writing unmanaged applications won't be supported anymore. Or did I get anything wrong...? Please tell me what I didn't understand...
Corinna John wrote: Can it be true? Microsoft plans to force developers to use managed code, MFC and the Win32 API are going to die. But how about any programs that do not perfectly fit into Microsoft's ideas about what they should do? Just give it time - within months all of the hip developers who care baout nothing more than being able to recite all of the newest three-letter-acronyms will be telling everyone else why Microsoft's way is the right way. The ugly truth is that *ANY* application can be written in C++. The reason there are new languages is because MS marketing needs to sell new products. That makes total sense. What baffles me is the thousands of developers who are willing to buy into that BS and actually seem to believe that new languages must be better and if they don't adopt it then they will be behind the power-curve.
Glano perictu com sahni delorin!
-
Corrina - Woman of Steganography That's a pretty cool superhero nickname! Does a cape come with that? Astride her mighty stegosaurus BMP, Corinna yelled, "Unhand those bits, scoundrel!" Corinna, your articles are all great. Regards, Jeff Varszegi EEEP!
Thanks, Jeff The EEEP Expert... but don't say that too often. Otherwise I might feel bigger than I am ;) Regards, invisible coco
-
John Montgomery, Microsoft, in an interview about the future of .NET: There will be a Longhorn client and server edition. Blackcomb is our vision of a Windows after Longhorn, still very far away at the horizon. Blackcomb is not on our agenda yet. Before it, there will be Whidbey and Longhorn. Today Lonhorn is only an example for developers. We want to show the developers that they should use managed code. Before the release of Longhorn they should have a look at Whidbey. Programmers who don't change to managed code now will hardly be able to follow the progress of technology. I found that quote on http://www.heise.de/ix/artikel/2004/05/086/[^] and tried to translate it to English as good as possible. Can it be true? Microsoft plans to force developers to use managed code, MFC and the Win32 API are going to die. But how about... - time critical applications? - device drivers? - any programs that do not perfectly fit into Microsoft's ideas about what they should do? "We want to show the developers that they should use managed code" says more than just "managed code is cool, so use it". In near future Windows won't be only an operation system running programs, it is going to control what the programs do and what data they process. Writing unmanaged applications won't be supported anymore. Or did I get anything wrong...? Please tell me what I didn't understand...
:zzz:
Glano perictu com sahni delorin!
-
I traded emails with Eric Gunnerson (Visual C# Program Manager, http://weblogs.asp.net/ericgu/archive/2003/06/20/52326.aspx) a few months ago about this same topic. I work in a lot of time-critical applications and was concerned about moving to C#. I did some initial development and decided that C# could not handle most of our real-time concerns and started emailing Eric for details on future plans. He basically told me the usual stuff, C# was very close to C++ in most instances (I/O seems to be a big slow point), P/Invoke would allow you to continue using C++ and older stuff from .NET, etc. However, he did say basically that WIN32 wasn't going away, it would still be there (though not encouraged) in Longhorn. That means that no matter what we've got till 2006 + 3 years of supported WIN32 and MFC (probably more). The new WINFX API will be entirely managed but it will run alongside the backwards compatible WIN32 API as follows (Visual Studio Magazine, February 2004, http://www.fawcette.com/vsm/2004\_02/magazine/features/rjennings/): The Win32 API, reigning king of the desktop for a decade, is dead; long live WinFX, Win32's successor. WinFX is a new .NET-based API that provides managed access to the three Longhorn pillars—Avalon, WinFS, and Indigo—and all other new Longhorn functionality. Secure managed code is in; native code and buffer overruns are out. The move from Win32 to WinFX is undoubtedly the largest software refactoring project ever attempted. Win32 will remain, of course, for backward compatibility, but WinFX is where the action will be. If you aren't using managed code for all new Web and Windows apps, it's time to refactor your development strategy. Win32 will go into maintenance mode in the Longhorn timeframe. Anyway, so long story short. I have spoken with a good number of people that work in time-critical areas, and the consensus for now is to keep time-critical apps in C++/MFC/etc. while any other new development can be done in .NET. Hope this helps. Brian "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas Adams
:rose:
It's not a bug, it's an undocumented feature.
suhredayan@omniquad.commessenger :suhredayan@hotmail.com