Re: Any *TOP* software developed on .NET (like Office, DB engine etc.)
From: UAError (null_at_null.null)
Date: 01/20/05
- Next message: amber: "child/parent forms"
- Previous message: mabrin: "singleton object per request"
- In reply to: sq1492_at_mail.ru: "Any *TOP* software developed on .NET (like Office, DB engine etc.)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:57:17 -0500
sq1492@mail.ru wrote:
>There are lots of talks about .Net going around. .Net is considered to
>be a RAD (rapid application development) framework so the question
>remains open whether it's useful for developing software when there are
>some requirements other than developments speed. What I mean is
>performance. I know there were already a lot of talk around about that,
>but imho one point remained unconsidered. Precisely, what *EXACTLY*
>top-100 (or top-200 whatever) software is developed using .NET.
>
Not exactly what you wanted but this may still be of some
interest:
.net Framework Windows Forms Customers
http://www.windowsforms.net/Default.aspx?tabindex=9&tabid=48
Visual Studio Case Studies
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/productinfo/casestudies/
>
>Will Office or Visual Studio ever be re-written entirely on .NET?
Tomorrow? No.
Next year? No.
Within the next 10 Years? Likely.
IMO C++.NET exists to give Microsoft's products an upgrade
path to future Windows platforms.
Basically we're experiencing the beginning of the
Win32->WinFX(.net) transitional period. Anyone remember how
long the Win16->Win32 transition took? It all started with
this "Win32s" addon for Windows 3.1, matured to "Win32"
which was usable in the NT line but only really hit its full
stride with 2K and XP.
So really .NET is the current day "Win32s". "Win16->Win32"
was all about utilizing the 32 bit Intel core.
"Win32->WinFX" seems more ambitious as it seems to aim for a
Windows core that no longer depends on implementation
details of Intel hardware.
>and the main question:
>Will ever be SQL Server be re-written on .NET????
Not in the near future. But in the long term strategy it
will have to be ported because the goal of greater hardware
independence benefits the server lines more than it does the
desktops.
>If so Oracle will get
>a dramatic advantge in speed over MS!!!!
>
What, has Oracle given up its commitment to Java? I remember
how painfully slow and big things initially were when going
from 8 to 8i - but eventually the hardware and
implementation caught up. However the JVM will always sit ON
TOP of the OS. "The operating system IS the virtual machine"
is one of the aspects of the long term WinFX strategy. And
there is always the option replacing IL components of the
core with custom native components to boost performance on a
popular platform. That way you can target the broadest range
of hardware platforms with the pure IL implementation of
WinFX while retaining the freedom to optimize select
platforms to be competitive were it counts.
Digressing...
Also Oracle always had the historical advantage. As a
database company they would always target "up-scale"
platforms - their clients could usually afford the hardware
(and their software). Need more performance - "Scale Up".
SQL Server had more humble beginnings and is limited to the
Wintel architecture - which meant SQL Server had to focus on
the "Scale Out" options (which has its own administrative
challenges).
However as CPU manufacturers are starting to approach the
theoretical limits of their manufacturing processes,
increases in hardware performance over time are going to
diminish which may make "scaling out" a more lucrative if
not the only possible option (and Oracle has been preparing
for that). So as time goes on the nature of the competition
may change.
... but by then nobody will be paying attention to RDBMSs
because they are too busy with their BPMSs. :)
>
>WinFX is about to become the next API for developing Windows software
>but obvisously both managed code and winfx/.net-approach seems to be
>absolutely inappropriate for certain software. Considering VS it may
>seem OK 'cause compatition from Eclipse is weak, but it's not the case
>with SQL Server! Performance plays an important role with it! So imho
>there;s a strong hope Win32 (or maybe other *FAST* API) will live on.
>Any comments?
'Any fool can write code that a computer can understand.
Good programmers write code that humans can understand.'
Martin Fowler,
'Refactoring: improving the design of existing code', p.15
- Next message: amber: "child/parent forms"
- Previous message: mabrin: "singleton object per request"
- In reply to: sq1492_at_mail.ru: "Any *TOP* software developed on .NET (like Office, DB engine etc.)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
