Apple Obj-C beat C# 4 by 20 years | Tech Off

ido.ran

#Dec 4th, 2008 @ 2:53 PM

I agree that VB and MFC overlapped. But this is not the issue.

The issue here is that Microsoft change technology to fast.

I agree that sometime you have to break compatibility to move forward, but Microsoft do it every time.

I'm not talking about OS API compatibility, which mostly exists, I'm talking about programming language compatibility. COM was design to be compatible with everything, virtually, but it's just to hard to get it right.

.NET was design to run everywhere, virtually, but it is still Windows only (don't tell me about mono, please).

The foundations on which Microsoft built it's product are out-of-date.

NTFS is not getting near HFS+ when it comes to strong-link, soft-link. WinFS sound like good idea, but not so good implementation.

DirectX is getting better, still not as good as OpenGL.

Microsoft security model (UAC) is really bad copy of Apple security model (let's just ask the user for password each click on the mouse!).

Windows Manager - Apple has "Windows Server" for long time running OpenGL, Microsoft create vista's Windows Server which take 1GB when you login, without any window open, and another 500MB for each window you open. That's why you need 4GB to run 2 IE and 1 mspaint windows in Vista.

If I'm wrong please teach me.

I don't know everything, but I am willing to see beyond Microsoft.

Ido.

Minh
WOOH! WOOH!

In reply to ido.ran

#Dec 5th, 2008 @ 8:39 AM

I'm talking about programming language compatibility

This is not a problem isolated to MS

The foundations on which Microsoft built it's product are out-of-date.

What do you mean by that?

WinFS sound like good idea, but not so good implementation.

You are the few who thinks WinFS is a good idea.

DirectX is getting better, still not as good as OpenGL.

Can you provide details on what you mean by this?

Microsoft security model (UAC) is really bad copy of Apple security model (let's just ask the user for password each click on the mouse!).

UAC is not a security model. It's a cover-your-ass model.

That's why you need 4GB to run 2 IE and 1 mspaint windows in Vista.

Can you point to some reference for the above fact?

Bas
It finds lightbulbs.

In reply to ido.ran

#Dec 5th, 2008 @ 8:39 AM

Microsoft security model (UAC) is really bad copy of Apple security model (let's just ask the user for password each click on the mouse!).

Too bad that you've never seen or used UAC, then.

Anyway, what is this? A "Apple is better than M$ w00t!!" post disguised as a post about programming, which fell flat after you realised that there are people here that know a lot more about the history of programming than you do, so now you just revert to standard Vista bashing?

If I'm wrong please teach me. I don't know everything, but I am willing to see beyond Microsoft.

Are you? Or are you just trolling with the "I am just asking if these things I just stated as blatant facts are really true" excuse?

ido.ran

In reply to Minh

#Dec 5th, 2008 @ 10:27 AM

I'm talking about programming language compatibility
This is not a problem isolated to MS

This is not isolated to MS, but as a Microsoft programmer for the past 7 years I've been using wide variety of programming models provided by Microsoft. COM is the only real common denominator of Microsoft. It is great technology yet to hard to get right. COM is in the foundation of all Microsoft products (including Windows and .NET) and it look like it is here to stay.

I've never wrote production product using Java, yet, I know that they take much more care on keeping old code from breaking. Just look at the amount of directives added to each .NET language, look at the implementation of generics in .NET which break exists code.

The foundations on which Microsoft built it's product are out-of-date.
What do you mean by that?

I mean that the file system, drivers (which change drastically each release of new OS), graphic system have not change much since 2000 and even then they were not so great.

Window is _Graphical_ user interface, yet the most graphic thing is picture here and there.

WPF change that by allowing animation and composition of UI, but the core GDI is still obsolete. I know that Vista has great window manager which works with DirectX, but friend of my bought computer 1 year ago, Core 2 Duo, 2 GB of DDR3, Fast HD, GeForce 8000 series and the computer take about 800 MB when you just turn it on, if she open Messenger and PhotoShop in the same time the computer stop respond and just go "ding" on everything you click.

If a turn-over is needed then do it, but they try to stay compatible and move forward at the same time and it doesn't seem to be working.

WinFS sound like good idea, but not so good implementation.

You are the few who thinks WinFS is a good idea.

Hierarchical folder structure is what we know, but it is clearly not the best.

If you have photo of you during Christmas, where do you put it? In My Photos or in Christmas Photos? Neither answer will be right because it should be in both.

With WinFS Microsoft want to change it, and change is hard, even when it for the best.

DirectX is getting better, still not as good as OpenGL.
Can you provide details on what you mean by this?

Picture worth thousand words right? Play with a Mac OS for a while and get the feeling of what it mean to have desktop which work using OpenGL. You need to experience it to understand. Then open Activity Monitor and watch that WindowServer take 30-70 MB or real memory (not 500MB-1GB like vista does).

Microsoft security model (UAC) is really bad copy of Apple security model (let's just ask the user for password each click on the mouse!).

UAC is not a security model. It's a cover-your-ass model.

You just made my point. Microsoft took their security to far.

They should reconsider it, I understand that Windows 7 take a step back, we'll see.

That's why you need 4GB to run 2 IE and 1 mspaint windows in Vista.
Can you point to some reference for the above fact?

As I wrote before, I experience it first hand.

I'm running Windwos XP (sp3) on my MacBook and it works great, much better than vista does.

-----

I'm not here to bash Microsoft. There are a lot of great products and programming platforms.

I didn't know anything about Apple and Mac unit a friend start to show me all the great things they have.

Mac is not perfect either. Mac can crash too, it not what I'm looking for "a perfect system" is doesn't exists.

The great thing about Mac is that their 20 years old ideas are still valid today, and they keep them up-to-date.

I'll tell you another thing about me. I bought iPhone about year back. After using it for a while I realized that it just fun (yep fun) to use it. I'm very technical guy, for all I care the phone could be all ASCII, I just want it to dial and receive calls, but after using the iPhone I understand how important it is that system will be fun to use.

Another thing is to mention the good things Microsoft have.

Office for a start, and I write in Hebrew, there is no other application to write Hebrew documents like Microsoft Office.

WPF and WCF are great frameworks from Microsoft. I'm using them right now to develop application and WPF is productive and fun and the same time.

Power Shell (Monad) is the best thing they manage to create ever. It is the one thing that beat Unix. The idea to pass objects instead of text between commands (CmdLet) is wonderful and they should get all the credit for it.

Think about it.

Bas
It finds lightbulbs.

In reply to ido.ran

#Dec 6th, 2008 @ 3:16 AM

So how many UAC prompts have you actually seen?

Dexter

In reply to ido.ran

#Dec 6th, 2008 @ 3:16 AM

Oh boy, can someone be more ignorant/misinformed than you?

.NET based on COM? Nope, it's not. .NET can talk to COM objects, you can even implement COM objects using .NET but .NET objects are not COM objects and they don't need COM to run. The .NET runtime itself is written in C/C++ and its use of COM is mostly limited to some APIs for hosting, debugging etc.

Generics broke existing code? Nope, they did not. Generics were specifically designed not to break existing code. There were some issues upgrading code written for .NET 1.x to .NET 2.0 but they weren't generics related. It's true that dlls compiled for .NET 2.0 couldn't be loaded by the .NET 1.x runtime but I find that to be quite normal. And no thanks, I'd rather have broken code/dlls rather than the dubious implementation of generics found in Java.

OpenGL better than DirectX? Well, maybe, but no way I'm going to accept that as a fact just because you say the OS X desktop is "cool". If it's indeed "cool" it's really a matter of desktop implementation and not OpenGL vs. DirectX.

WindowServer taking 30-70 megabytes? Yeah, as I'm writing this my Vista's "Desktop Window Manager" (dwm.exe) takes about 63 megabytes and I have 4 windows opened. I've never seen dwm.exe consuming 500-1000 megabytes, you'll probably need to open 100 windows or more for that to happen. I suspect you're comparing WindowServer's process memory usage with the whole Vista's memory usage. In that case you're not misinformed, you're plain dumb.

ido.ran

In reply to Dexter

#Dec 6th, 2008 @ 4:12 AM

Thank you for the complements Smiley

COM is limited to hosting and debugging? If it was even only hosting it means that COM is under any .NET application.

Since COM is anywhere in Microsoft products in in .NET too, it in the hosting, in WPF when it talk to directX (I just wrote an application which have COMInteropException when it is pure WPF application).

The memory consumption I describe was from computer running Vista and has several IE open, several Messenger windows open and Photoshop open.

The "cool" is directed to the desktop usage as well as writing application in Mac as well.

ido.ran

In reply to Bas

#Dec 6th, 2008 @ 3:47 AM

I know you don't want to get into the argument about UAC.

It was nice idea which got implemented really bad.

I hope Windows 7 will get it right.

Bas
It finds lightbulbs.

In reply to ido.ran

#Dec 6th, 2008 @ 5:12 AM

I know you don't want to get into the argument about UAC.

Oh, I do. That's why I keep asking about it. It's just that you're the one who made one blatantly wrong statement about it and then avoided discussing it when asked about it. It would seem that you are the one who doesn't want to get into the argument.

AndyC

In reply to ido.ran

#Dec 5th, 2008 @ 8:39 AM

ido.ran said:
NTFS is not getting near HFS+ when it comes to strong-link, soft-link

You may well be the only person ever to attempt to claim HFS+ is superior to NTFS. Hint: It really, really isn't.

ido.ran

In reply to AndyC

#Dec 6th, 2008 @ 11:52 PM

I'll be glad to open thread for each discussion here, my point was about dynamic keyword in C# 4, not challenge Windows Vs Mac OS. I'll get into each thing seperatly.
Ido.

AndyC

In reply to ido.ran

#Dec 7th, 2008 @ 12:40 AM

And the dynamic keyword is just late-binding, which has it's roots in assembly language indirect addressing. Claiming any one high level language "invented" it is a bit like claiming they invented addition.

figuerres
???

In reply to ido.ran

#Dec 5th, 2008 @ 8:39 AM

Well where would I start?

"NTFS is not getting near HFS+ when it comes to strong-link, soft-link."

what does that mean? what is the problem in NTFS that symlinks and hard links would fix?

"compatibility. COM was design to be compatible with everything, virtually, but it's just to hard to get it right.

.NET was design to run everywhere, virtually, but it is still Windows only (don't tell me about mono, please)."

what? Well .net can be implimented on any platform, are you saying that Microsoft should provide a .net for every OS ??
what would the business benefit to MSFT to do that?
do you have any idea of the problems MSFT would have with folks suing them for trying to create a monoply?
MSFT created .Net as a MSFT platform to benefit MSFT customers.
if a third party (like Mono) wants to have .net they can.
end of story.
no drama, no epic fail.

as for "DirectX is getting better, still not as good as OpenGL."
well a while back I saw some really ugly hate going round the OGL camp... but I do not spend time following it.
but what's the point?
both have been around for a long time, both do graphics, each has it's user base.
so? I have not had any DX problems of late... why should I care about OGL??

and
"Windows Manager - Apple has "Windows Server" for long time running OpenGL, Microsoft create vista's Windows Server which take 1GB when you login, without any window open, and another 500MB for each window you open. That's why you need 4GB to run 2 IE and 1 mspaint windows in Vista."

WHAT? is that in english?
why would a server run a graphics display system? and 4 gigs ?? but as a whole I can't figure out what you are really trying to say there...

Seems like you need a full set of basic CompSci 101 classes ....

Minh
WOOH! WOOH!

In reply to ido.ran

#Dec 6th, 2008 @ 3:16 AM

This is not isolated to MS, but as a Microsoft programmer for the past 7 years I've been using wide variety of programming models provided by Microsoft. COM is the only real common denominator of Microsoft. It is great technology yet to hard to get right. COM is in the foundation of all Microsoft products (including Windows and .NET) and it look like it is here to stay.

.Net uses COM a lot, but it's not the "foundation" of .Net. Maybe it all depends on how you define "foundation." COM definitely isn't the foundation of Windows, in terms that Windows isn't built on COM.

You seem to have a problem with stuff not having forward or backward compatibility. This is nowhere close to a problem that only MS has. Maybe just because you've only been using MS techs that you think this problem is unique to MS.

I've never wrote production product using Java, yet, I know that they take much more care on keeping old code from breaking.

How can you make a statement like that about Java when your exposure is so limited? How do you know "they take much more care"? Can you give me an example?

Just look at the amount of directives added to each .NET language, look at the implementation of generics in .NET which break exists code.

How can generic break existing code, if generics is a new function that could not have been used before? Can you give me an example where generics breaks existing code?

I mean that the file system, drivers (which change drastically each release of new OS), graphic system have not change much since 2000 and even then they were not so great.

The file system hasn't changed. True. What changes do you want to add to NTFS that you think would make it better? I don't buy WinFS as a compelling feature to give the file system. I think Search is a great feature to give the file system. It's implementation hasn't been great until Vista, but I think they did a decent job.

It's true that the graphics system needs a major overhaul, and that's what they did for Vista. Unfortunately, what went out with Vista is only the foundation, and didn't receive any drastic user-level stuff, and Vista got a black eye for it. There's no doubt, MS got complacent w/ Windows graphics because they had such a huge share of the market. They are also paralyzed by keeping things the same for the business world (where they make the majority of their $$$).

I know that Vista has great window manager which works with DirectX, but friend of my bought computer 1 year ago, Core 2 Duo, 2 GB of DDR3, Fast HD, GeForce 8000 series and the computer take about 800 MB when you just turn it on, if she open Messenger and PhotoShop in the same time the computer stop respond and just go "ding" on everything you click.

Windows takes 800 MB when you turn it on, because the system has plenty of memory to spare. Taking up 800 MB isn't necessarily a bad thing. How come you don't look into how much Photoshop is taking up in memory. Photoshop is KNOWN to be a meory hog.

If a turn-over is needed then do it, but they try to stay compatible and move forward at the same time and it doesn't seem to be working.

If you know the history of MS, you'd know that they are the best at keeping compatibility. Did you know that you can still run Win3.1 apps on Vista. This is why business love them so much. This is why they can't change as fast as Apple in terms of UI.

Hierarchical folder structure is what we know, but it is clearly not the best.

If you have photo of you during Christmas, where do you put it? In My Photos or in Christmas Photos? Neither answer will be right because it should be in both.

With WinFS Microsoft want to change it, and change is hard, even when it for the best.

The problem you described above IS NOT what WinFS was design to solve. WinFS wanted to be a system-level object-oriented file system. It was ambitious, and I'm not sure I understood completely the problem it wanted to solve. It's 2008, and still no one has anything on the market resembling WinFS, so I take that as a cue that nobody needed it in the first place.

Picture worth thousand words right? Play with a Mac OS for a while and get the feeling of what it mean to have desktop which work using OpenGL. You need to experience it to understand. Then open Activity Monitor and watch that WindowServer take 30-70 MB or real memory (not 500MB-1GB like vista does).

You can't say one graphics API is better than the other by simply looking at what UI runs on top of them. There's so many layers going on there that it isn't a valid comparison. I'm sensing a pattern here with your ideas. OK, so who really LOVE developing on Windows, and truth be told, developing on any platform has it's ups and downs. So, you're liking MacOS, but believe me the more you get to know the Mac, you'll realize that it has warts just like any other OSes.

That's why you need 4GB to run 2 IE and 1 mspaint windows in Vista.

As I wrote before, I experience it first hand.

Can you give me a screenshot?

Sven Groot
My name has 9 letters. Coincidence? I think not...

In reply to ido.ran

#Dec 6th, 2008 @ 3:16 AM

Picture worth thousand words right? Play with a Mac OS for a while and get the feeling of what it mean to have desktop which work using OpenGL. You need to experience it to understand. Then open Activity Monitor and watch that WindowServer take 30-70 MB or real memory (not 500MB-1GB like vista does).

I don't know how much memory MacOS's desktop composition uses, but Vista definitely isn't anywhere near what you're claiming.

As you can see, dwm.exe is using even less than the 30MB you claimed for MacOS. And I opened a whole bunch of windows so it'd be a fair comparison.