3 ms·
So 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
by batista 15y ago
So 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".