5 ms·

I think that's more because those apps were already written in C++ long before C# was even dreamed of.

by j_baker 16y ago

marshray 16y ago
I really don't think that's the case for technical reasons. I was trying to think of a good counterexample though and I realized that I can't think of any new first-rate apps Microsoft has "innovated" since they sent their app division down the .Net road. Perhaps some new component that comes bundled with Windows (other than .Net runtime platform itself of course). Perhaps the movie maker thing, malicious software tool, etc. You might find a UI built with .Net, but I doubt you'll see much (if any) under-the-hood code written in C#.
- noblethrasher 16y ago
  Sharepoint? Visual Studio 2010?
- marshray 16y ago
  Sharepoint? Isn't that primarily an ASP.NET web site UI? Yes, that's an example of the kind of thing that .Net is a good fit for. I think there are some COM components that SharePoint supplements MS Office documents with. I bet those are written with native code. Visual Studio 2010? If you recall the massive loss in UI responsiveness in the transition from the VC6 to VS.net, you'll see why they're excited about going back to native C++.
  - Luyt 16y ago
    Glad to see I'm not the only one annoyed by the sluggish feel of .net applications. That's why I still use good old C++, albeit with some Borland extensions around the Win32 API. My clients are grateful for it.
  - dingle_thunk 15y ago
    SharePoint is a particularly messy mix of COM and .NET - certainly not a good example of either approach.
- Hov 16y ago
  Yeah, it's been a slow uptake. But so far we have stuff like Expression Blend, Windows Live Writer and SQL Server Management Studio that come to mind. Not to mention the Visual Studio shell and editor. And of course, the seriously awesome Powershell.
jinushaun 16y ago
No, it's not that. Severals teams within MS, notably Windows, still haven't bought into .NET. Most still prefer C++ for performance reasons. This division been well documented here.

I think that's more because those apps were already written in C++ long before C# was even dreamed of.

by j_baker 16y ago

I think that's more because those apps were already written in C++ long before C# was even dreamed of.

I really don't think that's the case for technical reasons. I was trying to think of a good counterexample though and I realized that I can't think of any new first-rate apps Microsoft has "innovated" since they sent their app division down the .Net road. Perhaps some new component that comes bundled with Windows (other than .Net runtime platform itself of course). Perhaps the movie maker thing, malicious software tool, etc. You might find a UI built with .Net, but I doubt you'll see much (if any) under-the-hood code written in C#.

noblethrasher 16y ago
Sharepoint? Visual Studio 2010?
marshray 16y ago
Sharepoint? Isn't that primarily an ASP.NET web site UI? Yes, that's an example of the kind of thing that .Net is a good fit for. I think there are some COM components that SharePoint supplements MS Office documents with. I bet those are written with native code. Visual Studio 2010? If you recall the massive loss in UI responsiveness in the transition from the VC6 to VS.net, you'll see why they're excited about going back to native C++.
- Luyt 16y ago
  Glad to see I'm not the only one annoyed by the sluggish feel of .net applications. That's why I still use good old C++, albeit with some Borland extensions around the Win32 API. My clients are grateful for it.
- dingle_thunk 15y ago
  SharePoint is a particularly messy mix of COM and .NET - certainly not a good example of either approach.
Hov 16y ago
Yeah, it's been a slow uptake. But so far we have stuff like Expression Blend, Windows Live Writer and SQL Server Management Studio that come to mind. Not to mention the Visual Studio shell and editor. And of course, the seriously awesome Powershell.

jinushaun 16y ago

No, it's not that. Severals teams within MS, notably Windows, still haven't bought into .NET. Most still prefer C++ for performance reasons. This division been well documented here.