On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 15:19:24 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> | Microsoft appears to have concentrated their development effort in Vista
>>> | on native code development. In contrast to PDC03LH, Vista has no
>>> | services implemented in .NET and Windows Explorer does not host the
>>> | runtime, which means that the Vista desktop shell is not based on the
>>> | .NET runtime.
This is not entirely accurate. As is often the case, early prototypes and
alphas give way to realism. Vista is, and always was, a native OS. It
makes no sense to "hide" the native API's as was originally suggested and
provide only managed ones.
About two years ago (IIRC) the edict came down from Bill Gates that Vista
would not be "based on" .NET, but a number of services and applications
would. These services and applications, would ship on the CD, but would
not be installed by default.
The claim that Vista has no services implemented in .NET is false. It just
has no services installed by default based on .NET. WinFX, which includes
Indigo (Windows Communication Foundation) and Avalon (Windows Presentation
Foundation) are both written in .NET (with native bits for the interface to
the OS). Also other libraries, such as Windows Workflow Foundation are
also written in .NET.
It's not "backing down" from support of .NET at all, as major work has been
done on these services. It's just that it makes much more sense to ship
this as an optional layer, rather than a mandatory one. Some people will
simply not want to use .NET.
> http://www.grimes.demon.co.uk/dotnet/vistaAndDotnet.htm
Richard Grimes is a well respected expert on Windows Development and has
written a lot of books on the subject. Microsoft has clearly backed off
integration of .NET into the core OS components, but has not backed off on
support of it in general.
The #1 reason for this move was to backport WinFX to XP. If WinFX were
integrated into Vista, then it would be very difficult to use the same code
base for both XP and Vista.
> It is not my turf to argue over. I have never used .NET. I can only suggest
> that it reflects badly on .NET when its creator is unable or unwilling to
> use it.
Neither is the case. They are simply in a scenario that requires that
WinFX be an optional component. Nearly everything coming from Microsoft in
terms of applications will have .NET reliance, including Office 12,
Expression, SQL Server, etc...
Microsoft uses .NET extensively. But it's not yet the right time to make
the OS entirely dependant upon .NET, which I think is a good thing.
|
|
