 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
.NET Forum / .NET Framework / New Users / March 2006is win32 programming dead?
hello, a few years ago I started learning C#/.net. I noticed that it wasn't very fast but it was easy to learn and fast to program. But recently I saw some tests which proced .NET to be rather slow compared to native windows programming. What I'm asking is: 1) is it worth it to learn win32 programming anymore? 2) is .NET definitely the future of Windows programming? I heard that this is going to be the main programming platform in Vista Thank you > hello, > > a few years ago I started learning C#/.net. I noticed that it wasn't > very fast but it was easy to learn and fast to program. But recently I > saw some tests which proced .NET to be rather slow compared to native > windows programming. Depends on the tests and applications. > What I'm asking is: > 1) is it worth it to learn win32 programming anymore? For certain narrower-than-before applications, yes. > 2) is .NET definitely the future of Windows programming? I heard that > this is going to be the main programming platform in Vista Probably true, again, for most applications. But for device drivers, system-level stuff, etc, you're gonna need to keep your C. Rob >2) is .NET definitely the future of Windows programming? I heard that >this is going to be the main programming platform in Vista In addition to what Rob wrote, you may want to read Richard's analysis here http://www.grimes.demon.co.uk/dotnet/vistaAndDotnet.htm Mattias  SignatureMattias Sjögren [C# MVP] mattias @ mvps.org http://www.msjogren.net/dotnet/ | http://www.dotnetinterop.com Please reply only to the newsgroup. > >2) is .NET definitely the future of Windows programming? I heard that > >this is going to be the main programming platform in Vista [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.grimes.demon.co.uk/dotnet/vistaAndDotnet.htm From that you'd almost get the impression that .NET programming is dead... or will be in the near future. Are there counters or responses to his argument? -regards, dave | From that you'd almost get the impression that .NET programming is | dead... or will be in the near future. Just use common sense. Look at the amount of managed code that comes out just from MS and you will agree the answer is no. That article came to totally wrong conclusions. Heck, they even have research projects based on a totally managed OS and managed drivers. > | From that you'd almost get the impression that .NET programming is > | dead... or will be in the near future. > > Just use common sense. Look at the amount of managed code that comes out > just from MS and you will agree the answer is no. I'd agree MS is still very active with .net. But the article does raise an interesting question. The issue the article raises is that *despite* the piles of managed code coming out of microsoft, practically none of it is part of any project that generates revenue. > That article came to > totally wrong conclusions. I hope so. I think .NET is one of the best things to come out of MS in a long time. My biggest complaint is that its not cross platform - I want .net to run on OSX and Linux without having to wait for the opensource community to implement the specs and reverse engineer and rebuild, and debug, thousands of API functions. :) > Heck, they even have research projects based on > a totally managed OS and managed drivers. And yet, according to him, none of it ended up in Vista at any level. You must agree that seems very odd?! I'd have expected the new versions of mmc panels, wizards, the freebie utilities and crap, and what not to largely all be running on .net. Not to mention at least a few of the major apps like Internet Explorer, Windows Explorer, Windows Update, Windows Media Player... The fact that it doesn't is almost disquieting -- that would be like Sun's Solaris OS coming with Java but not using it. Or that Apple's OS X coing with quicktime but not using it. (In both cases the OSes make extensive use of the respective technology.) >> | From that you'd almost get the impression that .NET programming is >> | dead... or will be in the near future. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > coing with quicktime but not using it. (In both cases the OSes make > extensive use of the respective technology.) It sounds very much like a typical MS spoiler - their only real goal was to dissuade people from using java as a multi-platform language/runtime - not to actually use it themselves. I'm very dissapointed as I used to find windows such a mess that I only did Unix/linux work - C# and .NET changed that and made windows a pleasant platform to program on. It's interesting that Grimes would come to the conclusion that he did. He based his conclusion on the fact that there didn't seem to be alot of managed code in the system dll's. But to me, it would seem that's a bit like saying back in the early 90's that Microsoft was dropping support for VB because there wasn't a lot of vb code in Win95. We all know that managed code makes life for application developers better. Some might even argue that managed code and the associated tools make life better for application developers than VB and VB controls did. It would certainly surprise me if msft backs away from a strategy of delivering a great application development environment. It would be as monumentally stupid as backing away from VB back in the early 90's. It just wouldn't make sense. Signaturebrians http://www.limbertech.com > It's interesting that Grimes would come to the conclusion that he did. He > based his conclusion on the fact that there didn't seem to be alot of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > as backing away from VB back in the early 90's. It just wouldn't make > sense. It's not really the same - they made claims about basing a lot of core functionality on .NET - those claims were never made for VB | The issue the article raises is that *despite* the piles of managed code | coming out of microsoft, practically none of it is part of any project | that generates revenue. VS 2005, SQL 2005, Exchange 12, BizTalk, etc. probably make some coin. | I hope so. I think .NET is one of the best things to come out of MS in a | long time. Agreed. | My biggest complaint is that its not cross platform - I want | .net to run on OSX and Linux without having to wait for the opensource | community to implement the specs and reverse engineer and rebuild, and | debug, thousands of API functions. :) Porting to every OS would be hard to say the least for any company. You point out one issue with opensource however. No single control point to drive products/ports like this. You get a lot of start and stop as people and interest moves around - so ya kinda get what you pay for unfortunately. | And yet, according to him, none of it ended up in Vista at any level. | You must agree that seems very odd?! It is until you think about it. Taking dependencies on a version of .Net would be hard for an OS. Not because they could not do it, but .Net changes and will change (i.e. 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, etc.). And people are free to remove 1.1 if they want which would break any OS stuff that depended on it. For example, you don't want NotePad to stop working because the user decided to remove fx 1.1. They could ~maybe force some hidden system version and use that, but you start to see some of the issues involved. Not sure what a solution would be. Any ideas? SignatureWilliam Stacey [MVP] But as far as I remember, WinXP has .NET v1.0 installed and Win2003 has v1.1. Why not let the system use these versions? As far as I remember, dos 6.0's xcopy won't work in Win95, so it's sensible to have OS utilities stick with things come with the OS? And porting the whole system's utilities is good QC exercise to make new version of .NET framework even better. "William Stacey [MVP]" <william.stacey@gmail.com> ¼¶¼g©ó¶l¥ó·s»D:uXrWliyRGHA.4960@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... >| The issue the article raises is that *despite* the piles of managed code > | coming out of microsoft, practically none of it is part of any project [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > a > solution would be. Any ideas? | But as far as I remember, WinXP has .NET v1.0 installed and Win2003 has | v1.1. Why not let the system use these versions? You sure? I don't recall seeing v1.0 in my XP install, but maybe I missed it. | As far as I remember, dos 6.0's xcopy won't work in Win95, so it's sensible | to have OS utilities stick with things come with the OS? | | And porting the whole system's utilities is good QC exercise to make new | version of .NET framework even better. How do you handle the dependency issue? Should they lock down 1.1 (for example) so you can't Add/Remove Programs on it? Maybe. BTW - I like the idea of more managed code for OS UI stuff. Just wonder how to do it. >| But as far as I remember, WinXP has .NET v1.0 installed and Win2003 has > | v1.1. Why not let the system use these versions? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > how > to do it. You need to design it in from the start to minimize OS dependencies as in Java Swing and gtk While I've never run any .NET v1.0 application(I started using from v1.1 only), I see a v1.0.3705 in my Microsoft.NET/Framework folder, so I persume that it's been installed by default, unless there was an automatic update installed it without my notice... "William Stacey [MVP]" <william.stacey@gmail.com> ¼¶¼g©ó¶l¥ó·s»D:OUjmDmzRGHA.256@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... >| But as far as I remember, WinXP has .NET v1.0 installed and Win2003 has > | v1.1. Why not let the system use these versions? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > how > to do it. >| The issue the article raises is that *despite* the piles of managed code > | coming out of microsoft, practically none of it is part of any project > | that generates revenue. > > VS 2005, SQL 2005, Exchange 12, BizTalk, etc. probably make some coin. I think you will find that they only host it - they're not written in it. > | I hope so. I think .NET is one of the best things to come out of MS in a > | long time. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > and interest moves around - so ya kinda get what you pay for > unfortunately. Java manages. That is why I frequently find web pages downloading java applets but not .NET ones. > | And yet, according to him, none of it ended up in Vista at any level. > | You must agree that seems very odd?! [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > a > solution would be. Any ideas? Firstly uninstalling a version of the framework would be no worse than removing some system dlls - the only difference is that it is easier to do but that could be fixed. Secondly one of the main plus points of .NET is the support for side by side versioning. Thirdly all the MS apps would almost certainly be converted to binaries to improve startup speed which would or could eliminate any dependency problem with installed frameworks. | > VS 2005, SQL 2005, Exchange 12, BizTalk, etc. probably make some coin. | | I think you will find that they only host it - they're not written in it. SQL UI is .Net, Exchange UI is .Net and MSH which is c#, BizTalk is c#, ASP 2.0 is c#. IIRC, WPF, WCF, and WWF are all .Net. | That is why I frequently find web pages downloading java applets but not | .NET ones. Applications! These are not OS's. There is a big difference I think. One is a non-moving platform you need to run the whole system, the other is an application framework ontop of the OS. However, I would like to see it also. -- wjs >| > VS 2005, SQL 2005, Exchange 12, BizTalk, etc. probably make some coin. > | [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ASP > 2.0 is c#. IIRC, WPF, WCF, and WWF are all .Net. The UIs are a minor part of SQL and Exchange. ASP.NET and the associated web stuff is the one big area but that is just the exception that proves the rule: MS had to do ASP.NET et al because otherwise JSP would rule the web virtually unchallenged. | The UIs are a minor part of SQL and Exchange. Minor?? ok. >| The UIs are a minor part of SQL and Exchange. > > Minor?? ok. You think anyone would compare SQL Server against say Oracle and buy or not based on the UI? > >| The UIs are a minor part of SQL and Exchange. > > > > Minor?? ok. > > You think anyone would compare SQL Server against say Oracle and buy or not > based on the UI? Quite possibly, actually. The UI of Oracle makes it very, very hard to use IMO. For a small company which could well be easily served by either database, ease of maintenance (which certainly includes the UI to my mind) could make a big difference. It could make the difference between having to hire someone who knows Oracle already, and using someone who can pick up SQL Server. SignatureJon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet If replying to the group, please do not mail me too Well you can't say it minor however. If it sucked, no one would buy either and go with something else. But the OT was MS apps that used .Net IIRC. I think you have some examples. SignatureWilliam Stacey [MVP] | >| The UIs are a minor part of SQL and Exchange. | > | > Minor?? ok. | | You think anyone would compare SQL Server against say Oracle and buy or not | based on the UI? Don't forget WSUS. It's written in .NET 1.1. Mike Ober. > | > VS 2005, SQL 2005, Exchange 12, BizTalk, etc. probably make some coin. > | [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > -- > wjs | Don't forget WSUS. It's written in .NET 1.1. :) Guess you could add Sparkle too. > | The issue the article raises is that *despite* the piles of managed code > | coming out of microsoft, practically none of it is part of any project > | that generates revenue. > > VS 2005 I'm not sure you can count the .net developement tool. (And I was under the impression MS runs its tools division at a loss; justified by increasing the number of happy developers will drive server sales -- but I could be mistaken. SQL 2005 Only for Reporting Services. I'd have sort of like to see some of the management tools in .net too; but obviously the db engine itself should be native. Still, I think this counts. http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/enterprise/sysreqs.mspx Exchange 12 Does't mention .net: http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/evaluation/sysreqs/2003.mspx BizTalk Is it actually in .NET itself or is this just like saying IIS requires the .NET framework to host asp.net applications. But even if it did; its sort of like Visual Studio. in that its whole "raison d'etre" is to support -other- .net applications; it doesn't really have a purpose without .net. ---- > | I hope so. I think .NET is one of the best things to come out of MS in a > | long time. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > drive products/ports like this. You get a lot of start and stop as people > and interest moves around - so ya kinda get what you pay for unfortunately. Microsoft could do a lot more to help though, at no real cost to them. Although I understand why they don't. They want .net to sell microsoft servers, not mac/linux ones. That's the problem with vertical integration, I suppose. > | And yet, according to him, none of it ended up in Vista at any level. > | You must agree that seems very odd?! [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > use that, but you start to see some of the issues involved. Not sure what a > solution would be. Any ideas? Bundle it as part of Vista. Don't make a separate install/uninstall. Its really no different than other OS dependancies, actually its *better* than most other OS dependancies thanks to side by side versioning. If the user wants to update to framework 3.0 version 1.1 and OS components that depend on that will chug along unaffected. See reply to Nicks post. SignatureWilliam Stacey [MVP]. > See reply to Nicks post. I did, and it doesn't match what Microsoft's sites claim. .net is not listed as a requirement for exchange 12, and is only listed as a requirement for sqls report tool. If it was required for the UI/management tools -- you'd think it would mention it. Not saying you are wrong -- but there seems to be a disconnect there? As for Visual Studio and Biztalk theydon't really count in my opinion as their whole reason for existing is to manipulate -other- .net applications. | .net is not listed as a requirement for exchange 12, and is only listed | as a requirement for sqls report tool. If it was required for the It is (unless they changed it) | UI/management tools -- you'd think it would mention it. Not saying you | are wrong -- but there seems to be a disconnect there? Exchange 12 UI will actually call MSH cmdlets which are .Net. That way console apps, scripts, and UI can all call the same objects. | As for Visual Studio and Biztalk theydon't really count in my opinion as | their whole reason for existing is to manipulate -other- .net I could agree with VS, not Biztalk. At over a million lines of c#, it counts. Doesn't Exchange 12 require Windows Server 2003 64-bit? If so, the .NET 2.0 framework will ship as part of the OS. In this case, you can't tell from looking at the Exhange 12 system requirements if .NET is required as it's part of the OS. Mike Ober. > > See reply to Nicks post. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > their whole reason for existing is to manipulate -other- .net > applications. > > Doesn't Exchange 12 require Windows Server 2003 64-bit? No. It even runs on Windows 2000 server. -regards, Dave According to the Exchange 12 FAQ, MS will only be releasing Exchange 12 on Window 2003 R2 x64 servers and later. These servers have .NET 2.0 built in. Mike. > > Doesn't Exchange 12 require Windows Server 2003 64-bit? > > No. It even runs on Windows 2000 server. > > -regards, > Dave Pardon me. You are right. I was looking at the reqs for Exchange 2003, Exchange "11", not Exchange 12. -regards, I still have to give this a close look at this paper but I'm not really convinced that checking which type of files the OS provides is a valid approach (sorry if I got a wrong idea by a quick read). If you see .NET as a way to abstract the API from the underlying gory details (and not something on which each and every component should be necessarily built upon), the approach would be rather to see which new and existing APIs are exposed to the Managed world in Vista... SignaturePatrice > > >2) is .NET definitely the future of Windows programming? I heard that > > >this is going to be the main programming platform in Vista [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > -regards, > dave >>>2) is .NET definitely the future of Windows programming? I heard that >>>this is going to be the main programming platform in Vista [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > -regards, > dave Well, that would mean Java is also to become extinct from the same reasons. And many other languages, too. >>>>2) is .NET definitely the future of Windows programming? I heard that >>>>this is going to be the main programming platform in Vista [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Well, that would mean Java is also to become extinct from the same > reasons. And many other languages, too. 1. java is not tied to Sun anway near as strongly as .NET to MS 2. Nobody ever claimed that they were going to rewrite all their core apps and OS in java. 3. Sun has Star Office and everyone else has Open Office - all java. This has gone way further than anyone originally expected and is very good. MS is apparently NOT writing MS Office in .NET > 3. Sun has Star Office and everyone else has Open Office - all java. This > has gone way further than anyone originally expected and is very good. MS is > apparently NOT writing MS Office in .NET OpenOffice isn't written in Java - at least most of it isn't. There's Java *integration* in OpenOffice, but it's optional. See http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/instructions.html Not sure about StarOffice, but I think the same is true for that too. SignatureJon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet If replying to the group, please do not mail me too | 2. Nobody ever claimed that they were going to rewrite all their core apps | and OS in java. MS never claimed that either. Its a development framework - pure and simple. And a good one too. Don't read too much into it. | 3. Sun has Star Office and everyone else has Open Office - all java. This | has gone way further than anyone originally expected and is very good. MS is | apparently NOT writing MS Office in .NET. Why would they? People seem to bring this up as if it somehow slams .Net. You don't take millions of lines of tested code and throw it out - well normally you don't want to (they about did just that with Vista, but that is another story). They use plenty of .Net for new stuff. I would have to guess MS now puts out more managed code then not. It would be an interesting "ticker" item to put on their web site splunked from daily builds or something. I understand that there was a demo given where they took the C++ code for PowerPoint and configured it and compiled using managed C++. Apparently while it's not completely managed, many existing apps could be migrated to .NET over time. SignatureChristopher A. Reed "The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient." >| 2. Nobody ever claimed that they were going to rewrite all their core >apps [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > interesting "ticker" item to put on their web site splunked from daily > builds or something. Did you hear anything about the relative speed while using the managed version? SignatureWilliam Stacey [MVP] |I understand that there was a demo given where they took the C++ code for | PowerPoint and configured it and compiled using managed C++. Apparently | while it's not completely managed, many existing apps could be migrated to I haven't anything about the speed, but as I understand it, given the way PowerPoint works in the first place, the timing may not be relevant. SignatureChristopher A. Reed "The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient." > Did you hear anything about the relative speed while using the managed > version? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > | while it's not completely managed, many existing apps could be migrated > to Hello leibnizster, l> a few years ago I started learning C#/.net. I noticed that it wasn't l> very fast but it was easy to learn and fast to program. But recently l> I saw some tests which proced .NET to be rather slow compared to l> native windows programming. it's for lowlevel programming. Such areas as graphics, drivers, audio/video processing are best with native code l> What I'm asking is: l> 1) is it worth it to learn win32 programming anymore? it's worth to know how to use it. I see no reason to deep into it if you are not going to work in the areas I've described early l> 2) is .NET definitely the future of Windows programming? I heard that l> this is going to be the main programming platform in Vista It's main for windows now, but not on physical layer :) for vista .net is a main platform and API will work in specific boundaries (like DOS now) --- WBR, Michael Nemtsev :: blog: http://spaces.msn.com/laflour "At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." (c) Friedrich Nietzsche Microsoft wants win32 to be dead. Microsoft says their contribution of bugs to win32 is made by design. http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/ProductFeedback/viewfeedback.aspx?feedbackid=ed5ab 761-cc0c-4a52-bd0d-0ea3f705e88e&lc=1033 > hello, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Thank you
Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.