4 ms·

I think the difference here is that C# (and the .NET platform) was never meant to completely replace C/C++ Win32 development; it was a higher-level solution for

by pmilot 11y ago

I think the difference here is that C# (and the .NET platform) was never meant to completely replace C/C++ Win32 development; it was a higher-level solution for a certain class of Windows applications. I might be wrong, but I thought Swift was designed as an eventual replacement for Objective-C (with its seamless interoperability, and the fact that it uses the same runtime as Objective-C, it doesn't seem that far-fetched). If it is meant to be Objective-C's successor, then Apple should really be preaching by example at this point.

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
> I think the difference here is that C# (and the .NET platform) was never meant to completely replace C/C++ Win32 development Oh no, it was meant to replace them. Win32 was going to be deprecated, all new stuff would be on native .NET APIs, there'd be a Windows Presentation Foundation and a Windows Filesystem and it'd all be great. The thing is that Longhorn fell apart, and with it the dream of replacing Win32 died forever. Now we have WinRT, but unlike the plans for Longhorn, WinRT actually sits on top of Win32.
- pmilot 11y ago
  Right! Longhorn; totally forgot about that and WinFS. Talk about a failed endeavour... WinRT however is definitely not a replacement for Win32. It's way too sandboxy (last time I checked, you couldn't even pull up a list of fonts installed on the host system using the WinRT APIs only).