>Yet that was exactly what I was doing in 2001. Using C++/CLI predecessor, Managed C++, to create .NET components that exposed a RPC library written in C [...]

>Yet that was exactly what I was doing in 2001. Using C++/CLI predecessor, Managed C++, to create .NET components that exposed a RPC library written in C [...] Exposing a low level C library to a .NET application isn't adding .NET to an average C++ application just because you prefer to write some new feature in C#. But that's exactly what Apple wants you to be able to do with Swift. >Yes you can, otherwise I and many other Windows devs wouldn't be using C++/CLI and C++/CX on our applications. Like no one would ever do anything that isn't smooth or efficient. >They never thrown it away, .NET embraced COM, allowing its consumption and exposing .NET classes as COM objects. Right. I think you know exactly how communicating strategic intent works. COM was relegated to legacy tech in 2000. They "embraced" it only to stay backwards compatible. They only rediscovered COM as a strategic piece of the puzzle rather recently after realizing what a huge mistake they had made back then. >I can provide similar examples for Oracle, IBM, Apple and Google if you wish. I know you could, as could I. But to what end? Do we really need proof that Microsoft isn't the only company that is capable of major strategic fuck-ups?