Re: Changes in 2005.
- From: "Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]" <mvp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 11:48:53 -0400
Dan,
I don't think that expecting VS.NET 2005 to compile for the .NET 1.1
runtime is reasonable. Just like with VB3/4/5/6 etc etc, you couldn't
compile an application for a previous runtime. The only environment that I
know of that allowed this is C++ (but I'm not completely sure about this),
since there was no runtime to speak of.
VS.NET 2003 does not compile to unmanaged code. For all managed code,
the JIT compiler handles the compilation to unmanaged code from IL. The
only unmanaged code that VS.NET can create is unmanaged C++, which VS.NET
2005 supports as well.
I see it the same way I see it as the upgrade from VB5 to VB6 (I'm a bit
young, so I wasn't around for many other major shifts like this). The way I
see it, yes, the client has to upgrade from .NET 1.1 to .NET 2.0, but with
Windows Update cramming the new runtimes down your throat (and WU will push
2.0 when it is released), as well as the fact that different .NET runtimes
can run side-by-side, I'd MUCH rather take .NET over previous runtimes.
I took the time to read the article posted by Mark Jerde. While I do
think that Joel is on crack (at least when he wrote the article), to his
credit, the article is over a year old. There are too many instances in the
article where he lists a specific problem which can be specifically
addressed with .NET solutions (or other solutions not .NET related even,
just .NET makes them very easy). An example of this is his statement about
web applications not providing the rich UI experience. Smart clients are a
way to do this. It's not easy (but it's not overly hard either), it's just
new, and people are too afraid to come out from under the protective blanket
they THINK they have. While this isn't the cause for eveyone to resist new
ways of doing things (I do think ROI is a valid reason to not move to new
technologies whenever they appear), it certainly is a big one, IMO.
There are also a few areas in the article where he is outright wrong.
One of the biggest errors is where he states that WinFX is a replacement for
the Win32 API. This simply is not true. It simply provides new
functionality. SendMessage and CreateFile are not going anywhere (the
framework wouldn't work if that was the case). This goes back to people not
liking new things, for (personal) security reasons. What's interesting is
that I don't see Joel blasting MS for when they used COM to wrap many API
functions, as well as new functionality in the OS which is provided only
through COM interfaces. I also find it interesting that there is no mention
of the expansion of the Windows API (for example, transactional NTFS),
preferring to act as if there is none.
He goes on to quote Paul Graham:
There is all the more reason for startups to write Web-based software now,
because writing desktop software has become a lot less fun. If you want to
write desktop software now you do it on Microsoft's terms, calling their
APIs and working around their buggy OS. And if you manage to write something
that takes off, you may find that you were merely doing market research for
Microsoft.
Unfortunately, he is using a statement about the environment a decade
ago to justify his perception of migration patterns now. This doesn't work.
..NET wasn't around 10 years ago, and writing these kinds of apps on windows
platforms was difficult, which is why HTML was preferred. However, if you
are going to tell me that you would rather write an ASP.NET app (or web app)
over a smart client app (especially with ClickOnce on the horizon), I would
pretty much say you are out of your mind. God forbid if you had to display
information of a heiarchical nature in a web app.
Anyways, I could go on, but it would be more of the same. The article
is interesting, but I put it in the same camp as the people petitioning MS
to continue supporting VB6 (here's a hint, it's not the camp you want to be
in). This isn't to say I think VB6 is bad, but if I had a choice to develop
between that and .NET, the choice is easy for me (and yes I know the people
petitioning MS for VB6 (sorry, VB.COM, my mistake) are doing it for the
hobbyist programmer, I don't see VB.NET being that much of a different thing
than VB6 (at least to the extent that the hobbyist programmer uses it for)).
Flame away! =)
--
- Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
- mvp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Dan Bass" <Not Listed> wrote in message
news:O6gxUpjgFHA.2424@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>> In the end, APIs will always change, and it's not always possible to
>> make the new versions work with the old declarations. MS has always been
>> committed to backwards compatability, so I am not surprized by them
>> taking this approach as .NET 2.0 comes out.
>
> Would be nice if VS.Net 2005 compiled to .Net 1.1... After all, 2003
> compiles to unmanaged code, all be it the code needs adjusting to get it
> to compile.
>
> I find the new IDE great to use, but don't necessarily want to insist on
> the client having .Net 2.0.
>
> Do you have any comments on that article posted by Mark Jerde? I found it
> most interesting.
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Changes in 2005.
- From: Dan Bass
- Re: Changes in 2005.
- From: Jon Skeet [C# MVP]
- Re: Changes in 2005.
- References:
- Changes in 2005.
- From: Mark Broadbent
- Re: Changes in 2005.
- From: Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
- Re: Changes in 2005.
- From: Dan Bass
- Changes in 2005.
- Prev by Date: Re: Creating a COM object
- Next by Date: XML Serializer
- Previous by thread: Re: Changes in 2005.
- Next by thread: Re: Changes in 2005.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
