"Legacy" WinForm .NET Applications
-
Some latest stuff about Longhorn and etc... For those who is planning to write client site WinForm apps/controls -- check it out, yopu maybe waisting time: http://www.3leaf.com/default/articles/ea/Whidbey%20Yukon%20Longhorn%20Pre%20PDC.ppt "...Ability to type is not enough to become a Programmer. Unless you type in VB. But then again you have to type really fast..." Me
Could not open your link, but read the other messages, so I think I have the jest of the article. Well, if they make current applications no longer functional on their new OS, then it will be simple, they will have no market. If there is no software, there is no OS. BEOS is a perfect example, object oriented OS with tons of speed and dead except for handhelds. Now, let's say that they do, I would imagine there will be translaters or whatever to make all those .NET applications functional. Since they deal strictly with the .NET library (unless you have been misbehaving) then it is not dependent on the OS but the .NET library. So, you fix the library and all the applications work. Or am I missing the point here somewhere? If I am, then in 2-3 years we can all switch to Linux and run our .NET apps from there ;) Rocky Moore <><
-
Well, do remember that these changes will not take effect for another 2 or 3 years. Somehow, I feel that during those 2 or 3 years MSFT will come with something else, that will render obsolete everything that you've managed to develop during that period. May not be even surprised by something like .COM++.:eek: "...Ability to type is not enough to become a Programmer. Unless you type in VB. But then again you have to type really fast..." Me
igor1960 wrote: Somehow, I feel that during those 2 or 3 years MSFT will come with something else, that will render obsolete everything that you've managed to develop during that period. The only thing that would render what we are doing obsolete would be a complete new control library that's at least as good as ours, if not better. I highly doubt they'd do it even in Longhorn, but they certainly will not do it in the interim period before Longhorn is released.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." - Jesus
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi -
Could not open your link, but read the other messages, so I think I have the jest of the article. Well, if they make current applications no longer functional on their new OS, then it will be simple, they will have no market. If there is no software, there is no OS. BEOS is a perfect example, object oriented OS with tons of speed and dead except for handhelds. Now, let's say that they do, I would imagine there will be translaters or whatever to make all those .NET applications functional. Since they deal strictly with the .NET library (unless you have been misbehaving) then it is not dependent on the OS but the .NET library. So, you fix the library and all the applications work. Or am I missing the point here somewhere? If I am, then in 2-3 years we can all switch to Linux and run our .NET apps from there ;) Rocky Moore <><
Not having backwards compatibility would be the equivalent of shooting themselves in the foot, or maybe even the head. And they know it. What we're talking about now is the issue of how WinForms will not be the latest technology anymore when Longhorn comes out. And what I was saying was that in order for my library to become obsolete, they would have to create a control library on a par with mine, or better. Rocky Moore wrote: Or am I missing the point here somewhere? If I am, then in 2-3 years we can all switch to Linux and run our .NET apps from there :laugh:
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." - Jesus
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi -
igor1960 wrote: Somehow, I feel that during those 2 or 3 years MSFT will come with something else, that will render obsolete everything that you've managed to develop during that period. The only thing that would render what we are doing obsolete would be a complete new control library that's at least as good as ours, if not better. I highly doubt they'd do it even in Longhorn, but they certainly will not do it in the interim period before Longhorn is released.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." - Jesus
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma GandhiThe only thing that would render what we are doing obsolete would be a complete new control library that's at least as good as ours, if not better. jdunlap, with all due respect: you are probably very young and therefore extremely optimistic guy. This is very good: I've used to be like that. Now I'm more realistic and maybe that's why much more pessimistic. So, what exactly your new control library is? And why you think it's good? It already exist? Or it's just your "optimistic" design? If your library is so good: shouldn't it be sold then instead of giving it away? That what MSFT does: so you think your free controls can replace possible MSFTs(or others) revenue source? Get real, man... Regards "...Ability to type is not enough to become a Programmer. Unless you type in VB. But then again you have to type really fast..." Me
-
The only thing that would render what we are doing obsolete would be a complete new control library that's at least as good as ours, if not better. jdunlap, with all due respect: you are probably very young and therefore extremely optimistic guy. This is very good: I've used to be like that. Now I'm more realistic and maybe that's why much more pessimistic. So, what exactly your new control library is? And why you think it's good? It already exist? Or it's just your "optimistic" design? If your library is so good: shouldn't it be sold then instead of giving it away? That what MSFT does: so you think your free controls can replace possible MSFTs(or others) revenue source? Get real, man... Regards "...Ability to type is not enough to become a Programmer. Unless you type in VB. But then again you have to type really fast..." Me
igor1960 wrote: you are probably very young and therefore extremely optimistic guy. This is very good: I've used to be like that. Now I'm more realistic and maybe that's why much more pessimistic. hmph... igor1960 wrote: So, what exactly your new control library is? And why you think it's good? It already exist? Or it's just your "optimistic" design? That'd be a bit of a long story... Wait 'till you see what comes out of it. :) igor1960 wrote: If your library is so good: shouldn't it be sold then instead of giving it away? That what MSFT does: so you think your free controls can replace possible MSFTs(or others) revenue source? Well, I didn't start out as the leader of this project (even though I was involved in it from the start, and the design is mostly mine), and when it was started, we decided it would be an open-source project. It could make big money, and really I should do it that way, but that wouldn't be fair to the others. I am getting something good out of it, and that is an excellent control library with which I can develop my own applications.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." - Jesus
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi -
Not having backwards compatibility would be the equivalent of shooting themselves in the foot, or maybe even the head. And they know it. What we're talking about now is the issue of how WinForms will not be the latest technology anymore when Longhorn comes out. And what I was saying was that in order for my library to become obsolete, they would have to create a control library on a par with mine, or better. Rocky Moore wrote: Or am I missing the point here somewhere? If I am, then in 2-3 years we can all switch to Linux and run our .NET apps from there :laugh:
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." - Jesus
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Mahatma GandhiOh... That is what I get for guessing at the content of an article that won't come up :) Rocky Moore <><