, DeathByVisualStudio wrote

OMG! Is this the end of .NET? Wink

That was fun.

Of course not, its a Nirvana ! of the Phoenix ! Smiley (Nirvana could be a perfect codename btw)

VB5 is not the end of VB right ? that was VB6 ...... oh wait.

No, this is just a logical thing when the CLR want to reach resource-constrained devices,
do you think the managed language teams will sit there listening Herb Sutter bragging about
the performance advantages of C++/native code and then give up and do nothing ? huh.

At least, a much-better optimized NGEN wont kill the platform right ?

, Charles wrote

@felix9: Good boy.

C

So, may I go on ? talking about 'incomplete technical information' or 'partial data', there are indeed so many questions and mysteries about this thing.

What about the CLR ? will it be exactly the same CLR too ? or something like SLR ? I guess the Redhawk itself is somehow dead, because a seperate and different runtime is not practical, if you can't port existing .NET code directly, then its not that useful.

Then how compatible will the language be ? IIRC Bartok has some limitations on language features right ? (could be wrong though) Can I set 'Compile to native' as a checkbox, like in VB5 ? or could it be a seperate kind of project type with some rules ?

IIRC the benefits of VB5 native compiling were limited because most of the code calls into the runtime library / COM anyway and wont gain much from native code in itself, except heavy math routines. And in the WinRT world you can always write those code in native languages. so ... I guess Herb Sutter was right about the inlining of templates, without virtual calls, C++ is still better.

What about P/Invoke and reversed P/Invoke ? IIRC one good thing about Redhawk is low cost and seamless calls between C and C# code, right ? is this why we wont need XNA anymore ?

What about the Metadata ? Reflections ? Emit ?

Hmmmm..... really want to hear someone really knows what they are talking about to talk !