.NET for Microsoft Apps
-
One thing I have always wondered as I have learned C# and the .NET Framework is...Does Microsoft use .NET and managed code in their own industrial-strength apps? Even Microsoft Office, for example? Is that written in managed code? If not, why? Is managed code supposed to be for the lesser of us who don't need to write real apps like SQL Server or Microsoft Office?
-
SQL Server 2005 now supports .NET SPs, etc. Their website is in .NET. The reality is that .NET is primarily a web application development language. It's definitely great in that respect. The windows forms part was an afterthought. IMHO, it's useless.
ednrgc wrote:
The windows forms part was an afterthought. IMHO, it's useless.
:wtf: What do you find useless about it? Whilst I still don't like having my UI defined by imperative code, WinForms is one of the best ways of developing desktop apps I've seen since I started writing code.
Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
-
ednrgc wrote:
The windows forms part was an afterthought. IMHO, it's useless.
:wtf: What do you find useless about it? Whilst I still don't like having my UI defined by imperative code, WinForms is one of the best ways of developing desktop apps I've seen since I started writing code.
Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
It is definitely cumbersome at best. If you program in ASP.NET and try to move to Winforms, you will see how well ASP.NET's architecture is, and notice all the pitfalls of the Winforms architecture. It wasn't the initial requirement, and was an afterthought. I've come from the world of Borland Delphi. You created an EXE, and it worked anywhere. The need for an entire framework to be installed for a program to run on windows seems ridiculous. ASP.NET is leaps and bounds ahead of classic ASP, thus the framework is justified and welcomed. Since the framework is not backward compatible, you will need multiple instances of the framework.
-
It is definitely cumbersome at best. If you program in ASP.NET and try to move to Winforms, you will see how well ASP.NET's architecture is, and notice all the pitfalls of the Winforms architecture. It wasn't the initial requirement, and was an afterthought. I've come from the world of Borland Delphi. You created an EXE, and it worked anywhere. The need for an entire framework to be installed for a program to run on windows seems ridiculous. ASP.NET is leaps and bounds ahead of classic ASP, thus the framework is justified and welcomed. Since the framework is not backward compatible, you will need multiple instances of the framework.
ednrgc wrote:
It is definitely cumbersome at best. If you program in ASP.NET and try to move to Winforms, you will see how well ASP.NET's architecture is, and notice all the pitfalls of the Winforms architecture. It wasn't the initial requirement, and was an afterthought.
I was anti-WinForms (coming from MFC) for a long time, but eventually moved towards it as a business decision. Software tends to go wherever Microsoft encourages it to go, since they develop the platform. They are clearly making it increasingly difficult to write native code (I think to cover their a** from a security perspective) and Vista/managed code are integrated, so it's not really a separate framework. I actually find WinForms flexible and very good to work with. At least with .Net 2.0, I think it was very well thought out. I've dabbled in asp.net and actually think there's excessive overhead and that they've tried too hard to marry desktop/web dev concepts (with event handling, etc...). I like it a lot, but I think there are some drawbacks.
-
One thing I have always wondered as I have learned C# and the .NET Framework is...Does Microsoft use .NET and managed code in their own industrial-strength apps? Even Microsoft Office, for example? Is that written in managed code? If not, why? Is managed code supposed to be for the lesser of us who don't need to write real apps like SQL Server or Microsoft Office?
Part of the issue with applications like Microsoft Office is that they are meant to be incrementally upgraded, and not completely rewritten from the ground up. For instance, the screen handling in Word was written in assembly language to get the maximum performance out of it. Rewriting this would be prohibitive and would completely go against the whole incremental upgrade route. However, newer applications are being written using .NET and managed code. Microsoft CMS, for example, is now a complete .NET application.
the last thing I want to see is some pasty-faced geek with skin so pale that it's almost translucent trying to bump parts with a partner - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before. -
One thing I have always wondered as I have learned C# and the .NET Framework is...Does Microsoft use .NET and managed code in their own industrial-strength apps? Even Microsoft Office, for example? Is that written in managed code? If not, why? Is managed code supposed to be for the lesser of us who don't need to write real apps like SQL Server or Microsoft Office?
People used to ask about MFC and Office. The fact is, an app that old is not going to be completley rewritten, why would you ?
Christian Graus - C++ MVP 'Why don't we jump on a fad that hasn't already been widely discredited ?' - Dilbert
-
One thing I have always wondered as I have learned C# and the .NET Framework is...Does Microsoft use .NET and managed code in their own industrial-strength apps? Even Microsoft Office, for example? Is that written in managed code? If not, why? Is managed code supposed to be for the lesser of us who don't need to write real apps like SQL Server or Microsoft Office?
MarkMokris wrote:
One thing I have always wondered as I have learned C# and the .NET Framework is...Does Microsoft use .NET and managed code in their own industrial-strength apps? Even Microsoft Office, for example? Is that written in managed code? If not, why? Is managed code supposed to be for the lesser of us who don't need to write real apps like SQL Server or Microsoft Office?
Managed code is hardly used at all in industrial-strength applications. Microsoft makes more use of it in that regard than almost anyone else, for obvious reasons, but their code is still overwhelmingly native. As others have pointed out, that is partly because of the cost of re-writing a large code base. It is also for performance reasons. My understanding is that Vista is largely native code and that plans for a more extensive use of managed were changed when the performance was not considered good enough. Over time the proportion of managed code will certainly grow, but native isn't going away any time soon. <edit> See the second post on this page from Bill Dunlap. Forum post[^] </edit>
John Carson
-
It is definitely cumbersome at best. If you program in ASP.NET and try to move to Winforms, you will see how well ASP.NET's architecture is, and notice all the pitfalls of the Winforms architecture. It wasn't the initial requirement, and was an afterthought. I've come from the world of Borland Delphi. You created an EXE, and it worked anywhere. The need for an entire framework to be installed for a program to run on windows seems ridiculous. ASP.NET is leaps and bounds ahead of classic ASP, thus the framework is justified and welcomed. Since the framework is not backward compatible, you will need multiple instances of the framework.
-
One of the most popular UI enhancements in VS 2005 is the property grid which is a Windows Forms control. And I believe the latest version of Biztalk is written in 100% managed code.
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. (*Sample chapter available online*)I've always thought that the property grid is one of the least well implemented controls in the Visual Studio IDE. X|
Anna :rose: Linting the day away :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "If mushy peas are the food of the devil, the stotty cake is the frisbee of God"
-
ednrgc wrote:
you will see how well ASP.NET's architecture is
:laugh::laugh:
Brad Australian - Christian Graus on "Best books for VBscript" A big thick one, so you can whack yourself on the head with it.