Re: Is that a joke ?
- From: "jabailo@xxxxxxxxxx" <jabailo@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 11:47:39 -0700
Ted Nicols wrote:
> .NET is slow, actually slow is just a polite word I can use in a
> newsgroup.
'Slow' is also a word that you should never use if you want any respect from
engineers. Can you quantify what 'slow' means for you? If anything,
some of my running battles with certain c++ programmers show that it's
just-as-fast to nearly-as-fast for many key processes such as word search
( using Regex ) and highly threaded applications.
> 1. Is .NET just an approach to enterprise development?
No, not just.
> 2. Or another battle with Sun's Java
Not another, but *the* battle.
> 3. Or an MS conclusion that performance doesn't matter any more
Performance always matters. Somehow, you have this outdated notion of what
performance in business or Enterprise means. In my business we apply
strict speed and performance metrics to all our Operations from loading a
file to updating a database. My motto is "under 1 ms' -- the goal of
atomic operations should always be less than a millesecond.
> 4. If .NET was slow for WinFS, Office or Longhorn then why we have to
> believe that is fast for our own applications?
What are your applications?
> 6. Why MS call .NET a "safe" framework, safe from what? Safe from hackers,
> I don't thin so, they can write anything they want in unmanaged code. Safe
> from mem leaks, a garbage collector doesn't make good programmers or safe
> applications.
Safe from self-created memory leaks. But there is always the unsafe
approach if you have the skills.
> 7. Winforms1 will become obsolete because of WF2. WF2 will become obsolete
> because of Avalon. Then why they introduced them? Just to have something
> that hides Win32/GDI calls?
If you read the papers, the idea of making .NET as the only interface to the
new Longhorn API has been dismissed.
> 8. Longhorn drivers, kernel and anything "low-level" will be written in
> native code. LH must run in 64bit processors too, so native code must be
> natively compiled in 64bit API calls. That means Win32 will become Win64.
> Why MS don't simply implement WinFX as an OO frontend to Win32/64 API,
> leaving out the VM?
That's the first brilliant thing you've said.
> 9. Mr Gates, why all that brain wash? You can fool some enterprise
> programmers but not the rest of us who used to hand-optimise our code,
> just to gain speed.
Then go ahead. You can still use your hands, and your /head/. Meanwhile,
the Enterprise is adopting .NET in *droves*.
> Finally, a single word question to all those bright scientists who work
> for MS, Why ?
Well, that view of Lake Samnamnish from the big houses they bought with
their bonuses for one.
> Please don't try to change my opinion, you cannot. By the way I'm not one
> of those stupid guys who use to call Microsoft as M$. Me and all my
> colleagues use Microsoft development tools since 1982 and we all know what
> exactly are JIT, VM and native compiler.
Okay, then you must have higher level contacts than this newsgroup...or
don't you?
> I really like .NET/WinFX as a library and C# as a modern language, but I
> feel sick with all that waste of processing power and lack of performance.
Quantify.
Quantify.
Quantify.
--
Texeme Textcasting Technology
http://www.texeme.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Is that a joke ?
- From: Ted Nicols
- Re: Is that a joke ?
- References:
- Is that a joke ?
- From: Ted Nicols
- Is that a joke ?
- Prev by Date: RE: SQL 2000 and .NET events
- Next by Date: Re: Is that a joke ?
- Previous by thread: Re: Is that a joke ?
- Next by thread: Re: Is that a joke ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
