Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements


cbae cbae
  • What Windows needs

    , magicalclick wrote

    I have brought this up when TVs having Android OS in the stores several years ago. I don't recall the forum reactions. But, I know one truth. Bas will be the winner on this because the only way to compete with Android on device OS is not only free, but, also open source. The capability to customize the OS is crucial for these smart devices. And no matter how MS managed to bring their OS to free pricing, it is still closed. And that's when I have admitted defeat as I have supported close source setup prior to that. Sadly in the particular market, I have to agree with the MS haters, MS has to bring out open source OS to compete.

    There's no reason you can't build an open source platform on top of a closed source operating system. Almost all of Microsoft's web-centric initiatives are open source now: Katana, OWIN, SignalR, etc.


  • Waiting for Windows 9 :-)

    , MasterPi wrote

    I want them to do something about tech like Ruby not running well on Windows. Basically, it all boils down to devs supporting *nix first and not really caring about optimizing the Windows port of things. It's easy to justify going Mac if all you want to do is RoR dev.

    I started another thread about Microsoft developing platforms for verticals to foster development on Windows. RoR isn't necessarily tied to a vertical, but it certainly can be considered a platform. In recent memory, Microsoft has gotten its hands dirty getting third-party platforms running in Windows and/or Azure (Node.js and Docker come to mind).

  • What Windows needs

    I'm realizing that there are tons of device verticals that could each benefit from their own unified platform+API. I see many opportunities for Microsoft to foster application development on Windows (whether its desktop or Windows Store application development) by forming industry alliances and developing Windows-based platforms for these alliances.

    1. Home automation*
    2. In-vehicle infotainment*
    3. Security/surveillance systems
    4. Automotive diagnostic equipment
    5. Medical diagnostic equipment
    6. Point of sale devices

    *Both Google and Apple are going after these verticals already

    As it stands now, every vertical is a huge mess. Equipment makers are responsible for their own software. Even if equipment makers want to protect their own rice bowls of compatible equipment, they don't necessarily want to be in the business of developing the software for their products. If each vertical had its own unified platform, equipment manufacturers could allow third parties do the development of the software, allowing them to focus on what they do best--the equipment.

    Stephen Elop famously said that there's a war of ecosystems going on. In order to control an ecosystem, you need to create the platform and the APIs, and being first to create the platform+API goes a long way toward winning the war. Microsoft already has a solid foundation onto which it can build these vertical platforms (Windows + .NET/WinRT). It just needs to take the next step.

    I know Microsoft has already done something like this in the area of multimedia with the Media Transfer Protocol, but it's at a really low-level and the main intent was to create an abstraction for file management. I'm talking about creating something at a much higher level.


  • Waiting for Windows 9 :-)

    If Microsoft were smart, they'd release the public beta for Windows 9 on September 9 (i.e. 09/09). And the significance of the numerals on that date is only part of the reason to do so. C'mon, Microsoft! Grow a pair and do it! Being able to witness the collective outrage of the tech press would be enough of a reason to do so.

  • Why do some programmers write code this way?

    , blowdart wrote

    Bug logged you fussy people :P

    Who said complaining in the Coffeehouse won't do anything? :)

  • Meanwhile, at Microsoft

    , JohnAskew wrote

    W3bbo's cool.

    If this Microsoft thing doesn't work out, he'll gain valuable experience toward becoming a mall cop. ;)

  • Why do some programmers write code this way?

    , bondsbw wrote

    @cbae:  I don't think an implicit "await" is possible, because there could be cases like the following:

    Task ds = DoSomethingAsync();
    Task dse = DoSomethingElseAsync();
    await Task.WhenAll(ds, dse);

    I was thinking something along the lines of:

    Task ds = async DoSomethingAsync();Task dse = async DoSomethingElseAsync();var result = async Task.WhenAll(ds, dse);

    It would be similar to using the "out" keyboard in both the method definition and the calling line of code when using out parameters.

    Certainly, if you have a lot of asynchronicity in your code, this ends up being six of one, half a dozen of the other, but what I've found is that there are a lot of asynchronous methods in some SDKs that don't lend themselves to be used asynchronously very often. It's nice that they can be called asynchronously if you have such a use case, but it makes it more cumbersome to call those methods in the use cases in which you don't need asynchronicity, which might be the majority of the time.

  • Meanwhile, at Microsoft

    So, is W3bbo the same guy as PopeDai?

  • Why do some programmers write code this way?

    I see "await" so often used with calls to asynchronous methods, it almost seems like "await" should have been implied (and optional) and another keyword should have been used to explicitly make the method run asynchronously.

  • Why do some programmers write code this way?

    , JohnAskew wrote


    It's the Arch-Villain of SuperCoder, I know his mark, it's "Cut & Paste" !

    You're probably right.