Re: I have 2 versions of .NET, which is being used

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance



"Scott M." <s-mar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uwcPXqzDGHA.432@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> > Your terminology is misleading, 'native support of .NET' appears to be a
> > contradiction since most people use the term 'native' to mean x86 code.
>
> Most people use the term *native code* to mean x86 code, I didn't say
> *native code*, I said *native support*. I didn't say that Windows Vista
> uses .NET *as* its native code. The term *native* only means that
something
> is *built-in* or *standard* with something. Just as we can talk about the
> *native* data-types of this language or that. When people mean what you
> thought I was saying, they'll say *native code* (not native support)
> [splitting hairs at this point].
>
> > I understand what you mean now. However, note that Win 2003 Server had
> > .NET 1.1 installed from the distribution CD (and hence didn't require an
> > windows update), but that did not create a new .NET market.
>
> Because the average consumer doesn't run Win2003 Server.
>
> My point was simply that as .NET becomes *natively available* as part of
the
> most mainstream OS in the world, you will see more consumer applications
> written for .NET. And, by the way, in my first reply I also said that I
> don't believe it would happen as soon as Vista becomes available, it will
> take time for Vista to be the predominant OS out there.
>
> > Incidentally, the point of my article was that it's my opinion that
> > Microsoft have abandomed any intention of writing new code in .NET - the
> > new innovations in Vista will *all* be native (ie non-managed) code.
>
> Microsoft has not abandoned new .NET applications at all. Where did you
get
> that from? Vista [formerly Longhorn] has been in development since .NET
> was. It makes no sense to tear down your next major OS just to
incorporate
> your new development platform, just as you won't see Office re-written as
> .NET applications because of the millions of lines of non-managed code
that
> is in it.
>
> There is no reason at all to believe that *brand new* MS applications
> [again: down the line] won't be written in 100% managed code.
>
> -Scott
>

SQL Server 2005 is a .NET 2.0 application. The new MSDN runs on top of .NET
as well. I suspect that all new, as opposed to version upgraded, MS
applications will be written in managed code simply because of the security
implications of managed code.

Mike Ober.




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is that a joke ?
    ... > engineers. ... I was talking about applications like cad, cam, engineering stuf, math, ... > new Longhorn API has been dismissed. ... LH must run in 64bit processors too, so native code must be ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.general)
  • RE: Is that a joke ?
    ... > native code. ... It probably looks fast to Java or VB developers but what ... > about real time applications? ... > programmers but not the rest of us who used to hand-optimise our code, ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.general)
  • Re: Is that a joke ?
    ... avoid getting slapped around by .Net gotchas. ... > native code. ... It probably looks fast to Java or VB developers but what ... > What about CAD, CAE, CAM, scientific applications, utilities, math, ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.general)
  • Re: Is that a joke ?
    ... Can you quantify what 'slow' means for you? ... Is .NET just an approach to enterprise development? ... > believe that is fast for our own applications? ... LH must run in 64bit processors too, so native code must be ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.general)
  • Re: Is that a joke ?
    ... ..NET doesn't use a VM but compiles to native code. ... It probably looks fast to Java or VB developers but what ... > What about CAD, CAE, CAM, scientific applications, utilities, math, ... a garbage collector doesn't make good programmers or safe ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.general)