3 ms·
Off topic - but I got to ask - what's up with Microsoft pushing C++ ? They were pushing .NET then all the sudden it's back to C++ .NET is for corporate stuff m
by batista 15y ago
Off topic - but I got to ask - what's up with Microsoft pushing C++ ? They were pushing .NET then all the sudden it's back to C++
.NET is for corporate stuff mostly. i.e in-company apps, corporate web apps and the like. They never touted .NET as a replacement for C++ for actual Windows apps and they never rewrote their apps (Office, etc) in .NET managed C#. In that area, .NET has been doing well. They don't propose people start using C++ for that, just as .NET was never meant for Desktop application development (and only niche apps use it, like only niche apps use Java for the desktop --Azureus etc).
As for the recent focus on C++, well C++ is having a major new version. And it was always their major weapon for application development (of which there are millions out there for Windows, from major stuff like Photoshop to the lamest shareware crap).
So, .NET/C++: orthogonal.
They could have picked up Mono after Novell, fund it separately (to avoid legal risks) and establish .NET as a truly cross-platform solution.
What sense would that make? So they give their customers a free and open source way to move away from Windows and run their .NET stuff in a Unix stack?
- moonchrome 15y ago>So they give their customers a free and open source way to move away from Windows and run their .NET stuff in a Unix stack? This is 2012, you don't win by trying to lock in your customers - because people have been burned more than a few times by that business model and there are plenty of alternatives (eg. Java, now with JavaFX 2/3 might make a decent push on the client side, especially if they implement it for iOS/Android).
- fauigerzigerk 15y ago.NET is for corporate stuff mostly. i.e in-company apps, corporate web apps and the like. They never touted .NET as a replacement for C++ for actual Windows apps I don't agree with that. MFC was used for lots of corporate desktop applications and some if not most of those are being replaced by Windows Forms and WPF apps. Replacing C++ MFC apps with .NET is exactly what Microsoft told Windows developers to do in the past 10 years and that's what they did. http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends?q=MFC%2C+WPF%2C+winforms&l= http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends?q=MFC%2C+WPF%2C+winforms&...
- batista 15y agoSo what part you don't agree with? As I said, "They never touted .NET as a replacement for C++ for actual Windows apps" -- actual as in "not corporate". So, we're in agreement here. They did told them to replace old MFC with .NET, but only for corporate desktop applications, not actual shrink-wrapped desktop apps.
- fauigerzigerk 15y agoYou said "So, .NET/C++: orthogonal". I interpreted that as "there is little overlap" and that's what I disagree with. 98% of both in-house or shrink-wrapped desktop apps could easily be written in C#/.NET. Those MFC apps are not just corporate. There's a large number of shrink wrapped desktop apps for all kinds of industries. We are in total agreement that Microsoft never pushed Adobe to rewrite Photoshop in C#, but Photoshop and MS Office are a tiny, tiny niche as a share of all Windows desktop apps. So when MSDN suddenly starts promoting C++ for Windows desktop apps, I don't believe for a second that their target audience is a handful of Adobe devs. C++ and .NET are not "orthogonal" at all on the Windows desktop. You could make a point that their push is entirely about games and graphics/video processing. It didn't sound like that to me though.
- batista 15y agoC++ and .NET are not "orthogonal" at all on the Windows desktop. Well, I believe they are, except if by Desktop you mean "corporate desktop". But I mean all the hundreds of millions user desktops, which I don't consider a "tiny niche".