Coffeehouse Thread

42 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

article: Microsoft has lost its confidence in .NET

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Zeo

    I found this article to be a really good read. Well structured and really shows Microsoft's loss of faith in .Net for use inside of Widows.

    http://www.grimes.demon.co.uk/dotnet/vistaAndDotnet.htm

  • User profile image
    rjdohnert

    It was a good read.  I dont think that Microsoft has lost its confidence in .NET.  I think whats happening is that .NET is not living up to its full potential.  Microsoft in its own way is holding .NET back because the general public see's Microsoft not using .NET in any product and they think, 'hmmmmmm if Microsoft isnt using it why should I?'

    .NET still has the potential as long as Microsoft doesnt keep breaking its wings.

  • User profile image
    arunpv

    Zeo wrote:
    I found this article to be a really good read. Well structured and really shows Microsoft's loss of faith in .Net for use inside of Widows.

    http://www.grimes.demon.co.uk/dotnet/vistaAndDotnet.htm


    IIRC, Microsoft didn't publish that Vista is going to be completely based on .NET. Well, they did in the beginning and later said its not going to be. I am not surprised if Vista is not built on .NET.

    But the 3 pillars WPF/WCF/WFS are (I think) completely .NET

    I see .NET as a separate piece which can integrated later on. I am waiting for WinFS(holy grail)....Cool

  • User profile image
    Yggdrasil

    Zeo wrote:
    I found this article to be a really good read. Well structured and really shows Microsoft's loss of faith in .Net for use inside of Widows.

    http://www.grimes.demon.co.uk/dotnet/vistaAndDotnet.htm


    Oh, I see Richard Grimes is rehashing his regular "Microsoft doesn't believe in .NET" article, this time updated for the latest Vista CTPs. Same claims, same opinions.

    We've gone over his previous iterations here before. The general consensus, IIRC, is that his articles are mostly reactionary FUD. Managed code is not a good platform for writing core system components. It has great advantages over unmanaged code for client-server code and for long-running server processes, but is certainly not for writing OSs - at least not these days.
    Mark Russinovich, who certainly knows a thing or two about OSs and is hardly a fan of managed code either, has this to say:

    Mark Russinovich wrote:

    First, I stated that managed code is ideal for client-server applications, especially on the server side. On a server security is critical, and because server applications are long-running, avoiding memory leaks is also critical. For client-side only applications, however, security is only important if the client is network-enabled and connects to arbitrary and potentially compromised servers (like Internet Explorer does). Memory leaks are not as important because most client applications don’t require continuous access and restarting the application (or rebooting if necessary) resets a leak.


    In that article, he states why he thinks .NET applications are appropriate for some case and inappropriate for others - a much more balanced than Grimes':
    Richard Grimes wrote:
    My conclusion is that Microsoft has lost its confidence in .NET. They implement very little of their own code using .NET. The framework is provided as part of the operating system, but this is so that code written by third party developers can run on Vista without the large download of the framework. Supplying the .NET runtime for third party developers in this way is similar to Microsoft supplying msvbvm60.dll as part of XP.


    If you see .NET as a core OS component, it might seem that Microsoft have lost faith in it. If, however, you see .NET as a framework for application development (much like the VB Runtime, a component that Microsoft, as of XP, didn't lose faith in but also didn't develop the OS in), you can see that Microsoft is really pushing it for application development.

    An MS blog, a while ago, listed the lines of managed code shipped in Microsoft applications in the last few years. I'll try to find it and repost it here.

  • User profile image
    littleguru

    Who knows what is happening internally at Microsoft? Perhaps they are planning to release more products based on .NET. It's not true that MS has no product that builds upon .NET. Even C9 is .NET based. But there are a lot more!

  • User profile image
    dahat

    While I admit I have only skimmed it since seeing it on Digg this morning... I did find it an interesting and rather troolish article as it ignores a lot of what is coming down the pipe.

    Sure, the Vista kernel isn’t managed code... but most of WinFX is and despite how it appears in one beta or the next... will almost certainly be installed by default on a Vista machine come release day.

    I suspect that the person is also forgetting the Tablet PC and Media Center tools that would not be installed by default on his Vista machine... a good portion of which if I’m not mistaken are managed code as well.

    I wonder of the author is James Gosling in disguise... that guy just can’t handle the fact that .NET continues to do extremely well... despite his proclamations of it’s inferiority to Java over the years.

  • User profile image
    Ion Todirel

    arunpv wrote:
    Zeo wrote: I found this article to be a really good read. Well structured and really shows Microsoft's loss of faith in .Net for use inside of Widows.

    http://www.grimes.demon.co.uk/dotnet/vistaAndDotnet.htm


    IIRC, Microsoft didn't publish that Vista is going to be completely based on .NET. Well, they did in the beginning and later said its not going to be. I am not surprised if Vista is not built on .NET.

    But the 3 pillars WPF/WCF/WFS are (I think) completely .NET

    I see .NET as a separate piece which can integrated later on. I am waiting for WinFS(holy grail)....



    WCF is completely, WPF some parts are written in managed some are wrappers to native, about WinFS, core parts are written in native (C++), but API is written in C#. Why did they chose C++ instead of C#? because you can't use .NET at this level, what is .NET? an abstractisation layer build on top of the OS...

    And .NET is not only a piece of software (is a a great piece of software, but)  is much more.

    I agree with Russinovich, from a developer standpoint .NET is the future .NET is the present. And someday something like this will make all of our dreams reality (writting OSs in C#, drivers, core elements etc.)

  • User profile image
    littleguru

    I run the program here (the one the guy uses for his tests) and I got the following:

    Number of executable files: 8380
    Number of managed files: 1158
    Number of files that host the CLR: 31


    Well it seems that my statistic varies a little bit from the one in the article.

  • User profile image
    Ion Todirel

    littleguru wrote:
    Who knows what is happening internally at Microsoft? Perhaps they are planning to release more products based on .NET. It's not true that MS has no product that builds upon .NET. Even C9 is .NET based. But there are a lot more!


    ... and what .NET based app's do you know?

  • User profile image
    Detroit Muscle

    This doesn't surprise me. Managed code is only suitable for a tiny minority of computer software problems. When Microsoft debuted .Net they marketed it as being used everywhere in the future. I think time has proven managed code to be suitable for only a small number of computer software applications.

  • User profile image
    SimianJones

    I find the whole article's premise skewed.  To me the whole argument is like saying, "New cars aren't made entirely out of metal so manufactures must be losing faith in metal."  There are *very* few complex systems that are made up entirely of homogeneous components.

    I'd much rather Microsoft pick the best technology for the situation vs. moving everything .NET just for a bullet point in the .NET marketing literature.  I still develop client applications in Delphi simply because they are fast and highly portable yet I believe .NET is currently the best server technology out there (despite my love of Ruby).  At the end of the day my clients want what is fast and stable, not a certain technology, and that's what I want from Vista.  I don't care if the whole thing is written in LISP or hand-tuned asm, I just want it *fast* and *stable*.

  • User profile image
    Chadk

    I find this article completely useless.

    I was at a session at Microsoft, about WinFx.

    The speaker said that the UI used parts of Wpf(Not the full install, but a few assemblies), for the UI.
    Aswell is Microsoft beginning to use .NET and WinFX for quite alot of applications, thats going to ship.

    Aswell microsoft, internal in the company, uses applications based on .NET. I remember a guy from the VB team, i think it was, said that.

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    Chadk wrote:
    The speaker said that the UI used parts of Wpf(Not the full install, but a few assemblies), for the UI.

    This is partially true. The Desktop Window Manager does depend on some parts of WPF, but only on unmanaged parts.

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    Detroit Muscle wrote:
    This doesn't surprise me. Managed code is only suitable for a tiny minority of computer software problems. When Microsoft debuted .Net they marketed it as being used everywhere in the future. I think time has proven managed code to be suitable for only a small number of computer software applications.


    Oh Really.  Suitable is a rather vague term, so forgive me if I go off half-cocked here. 

    I'd love to hear you describe a single computer software application that could not gain some advantage by using managed code and why.

    And, while were at it, make sure you describe what YOU think managed code means.  I suspect, since you admittedly don't use it, that you don't understand its merits.



  • User profile image
    amotif

    In his conclusion:

    grimes wrote:

    .NET is not used in the user interface [of Windows Vista]...


    I don't know if he still believes this but I'm quite sure it wasn't true when he wrote it. I know it's not true today.

    I'm not suggesting that writing managed world-class apps in managed code is easy... but he sure seems to draw earth-shattering conclusions from viewing things his own way.

  • User profile image
    Larry​Osterman

    rjdohnert wrote:
    It was a good read.  I dont think that Microsoft has lost its confidence in .NET.  I think whats happening is that .NET is not living up to its full potential.  Microsoft in its own way is holding .NET back because the general public see's Microsoft not using .NET in any product and they think, 'hmmmmmm if Microsoft isnt using it why should I?'

    .NET still has the potential as long as Microsoft doesnt keep breaking its wings.


    I don't even agree with that.  First off, his analysis is massively flawed,  he totally missed the single biggest consumer of .Net in the operating system.

    Secondly,  many of the things he's complaining about being missing were mostly hype - in particular, he talks about a managed version of the shell, I don't believe anyone EVER claimed the shell would be managed in Longhorn.

    A lot of people read a huge amount of stuff into what Microsoft said at the 2K3 PDC that wasn't actually what we said, and now they're beating Microsoft up because of what they imagined we had said.

    .Net is hugely important to Microsoft and continues to be so.  There are several MAJOR shipping Microsoft applications that are written using .Net. 

    The bottom line is: There were significant pieces of Windows XP that are written using managed code, and there are significant pieces of Vista that are written using Managed code.



  • User profile image
    Shark_M

    Microsoft could not really deploy .NET to all windows users. That is a problem facing many developers of the .NET plat form.  Not many people have .Net 2.0 installed in their pc. Microsoft is hoping that developers deploy .NET for them Sad, that is what it appears like.

  • User profile image
    Rossj

    Shark_M wrote:

    Microsoft could not really deploy .NET to all windows users. That is a problem facing many developers of the .NET plat form.  Not many people have .Net 2.0 installed in their pc. Microsoft is hoping that developers deploy .NET for them , that is what it appears like.



    They could have deployed 1.1 with SP2, and I seem to recall - although I could be wrong, that they didn't.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.