Considering the knee-jerk reaction they got with partial demos and statements, it doesn't surprise me much. They are seriously risking a marketing issue of Vista proportions here, so it makes sense to try and get the whole story out, all in one piece.
@Blue Ink: If they wanted to get the whole story out in one piece they should have told nothing until //BUILD/ about development.
Now lets quit blowing it out of proportion, get back to our daily routine and let the CoffeeHouse be very very quite like it was before the Windows8 news! Haha
They at least need to expand on the HTML5/JS thing to keep all of us .NET developers from worrying that our skills will soon be obsolete.
any press is good press?
Perhaps (hopefully) MS are just adopting consumer device apple tactics. When I boil it down, I'd still develop Silverlight today if they were going HTML5 as extremely as everyone says. The user experience is better.
oh boy, I think MS needs some damage control with the current uproar from SL devs. I personally is not worried about HTML Vista Gadgets, but, MS needs to think about other SL devs' reactions.
I think that BUILD will actually be about the new compiler technology that Bartok and Pheonix research has led to, and not just about Windows 8. I believe that Microsoft doesn't really have much intention to make tools to directly manipulate HTML/JS, but will extend existing tools, in particular Blend and VS to compile down to HTML/JS - and run on a JS based .NET Framework.
I also think we'll be able to target either CLR=>IL=>JS or CLR=>Bartok/Pheonix=>Native. I think that there will also be a way to compile parts of an application from CLR=>IL=>JS and parts to native. As the Windows 8 leaks have demonstrated, the Windows 8 sample applications have HTML/JS UIs, that interop with the Windows Runtime dlls by marshalling JSON through MSHelpUI.dll to other dlls, which appear to be compiled from C# into native dlls. It also appears that the UI can either be targeted to be output as HTML/JS or XAML/IL, or native Win32.
Of course, I have absolutely no idea if any of this is correct.
Yeah, I really doubt there will be any magical IL to JS compiler. The problem with that is it's hard to make it efficient because it's an abstraction inversion, i.e. translating from something lower-level to something higher-level, and that just doesn't work very well. The native, managed and platform integration story will be "call DLLs through the Windows Runtime", where WinRT is basically a new version of COM/ActiveX designed to allow more idiomatic JS APIs, more secure sandboxing, etc. The reason they're being so secretive about it is they're trying to work out how to explain/spin this to the non-Microsoft-oriented web developers they're trying to court without them hearing "ActiveX" (which is what it basically is), and running for the hills
I don't understand why people think support for HTML5/JS as first-class apps precludes support for .NET and other platforms.
Win7/IE9 already supports HTML5 apps by way of pinning to taskbar. I'd just expect more of the same going forward?
"Our approach means no compromises—you get to use whatever kind of device you prefer to run the apps you love. This is sure to inspire a new generation of modern hardware and software development, improving the experience for PC users around the world." - BUILD
They are also touting this as the biggest thing since Windows 95. That's a hard sell. There has to be a reason, and it's not HTML5/JS.
@ContextFree: Microsoft already has implemented an IL to JS compiler in Volta. I tried to find a link, but guess what, all the Volta videos are no longer available. Strange?? Not really. However, I'll concede that maybe it's C# to JS ... which Script# already does, but not as deeply. Also see http://hildr.luminance.org/Platformer/Platformer.html ; there's nothing stopping compilation from one Turing complete runtime to another but imagination, and blood, sweat and tears (and buckets of cash).
"They are also touting this as the biggest thing since Windows 95. That's a hard sell. Therehas to be a reason, and it's not HTML5/JS."
er, new touch shell, new touch UI, new app distribution/deployment and sandboxing model, new cloud integration stuff, support for a new processor architecture, new C++ APIs, new COM replacement/revamp? And new HTML/JS integration as well. Seems to already meet that standard, just from what we already know.
@contextfree`: Point taken, but while the whole package out of the box may be a big deal, all of these things have been possible before and while it's good that things will be easier, what's new enough about all of this to be as big a difference as Windows 3.1 vs. Windows '95? New APIs that make what was possible before, slightly easier, isn't that big a deal. Support for ARM, was announced a while ago, and demoed at Mix'11. Touch isn't new.
Why switch the conference from "PDC" to "BUILD"? There's something going on deeper than what has been announced, otherwise MS devs wouldn't be saying, "None of us at Microsoft can say anything until //build/ in September"; everything you mentioned has already been officially announced (except the new version of COM, AFAIK). One thing is for sure, I'm going to do my best to make the conference this year. I'll be sorely dissappointed if things don't pan out along the lines I've predicted. I've been wrong in the past, however, so I won't be too surprised, either way.
I guess I wasn't a developer at the time so I'm not sure what all the differences between Win3.1 and Win95 were from that perspective. From an end-user POV the main difference was the new shell. "The biggest change since ..." isn't exactly something objective that can be rigorously defined, so there will always be different ideas of what does or doesn't justify it, but it's at least a plausible claim based only on what we know.
The name change is because they want to attract a wider audience, and the secrecy again is because they're trying to figure out how to woo a new audience that is very suspicious of them, and they're trying to be very careful about how they do it.
@contextfree`: Point taken, but while the whole package out of the box may be a big deal, all of these things have been possible before and while it's good that things will be easier, what's new enough about all of this to be as big a difference as Windows 3.1 vs. Windows '95?
Well "The biggest thing since Windows '95" has oft been rolled out as a way of hyping up something which has largely turned out to be nothing of the sort. I think the marketing guys just liked the way the whole Windows '95 thing is remembered by folks (who've long since forgotten stories of BIOS incompatabilities and other issues that have long since been buried by nostalgia). Course that might just be because I'm wearing my cynical hat this morning.
Why switch the conference from "PDC" to "BUILD"?
If I were to put on my cynical hat again, running one BUILD conference will be cheaper than running PDC, WinHEC and MIX.
Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.