2 ms·
Yeah I've always assumed there must have been some really traumatic experiences in the past for Windows/.NET to become so completely divorced. I mean it'd have
by mike_hearn 2y ago
Yeah I've always assumed there must have been some really traumatic experiences in the past for Windows/.NET to become so completely divorced. I mean it'd have made sense to port or rewrite a pile of all the little utilities and subsystems that aren't performance sensitive at least. But I guess the backwards compatibility story w.r.t. .NET generics killed off their interest in allowing .NET to become a part of the Windows API.
- mwcampbell 2y agoOne of the few Windows utilities that was allowed to be based on .NET, in Vista and Windows 7, was Narrator, the screen reader shipped with the OS. But Narrator was rewritten in C++ for Windows 8. That was still before I got there, but of course I asked about the history, since I was on the Narrator team. I think the deciding factor for doing the rewrite was the sluggish startup of the .NET version. I guess the need to run on Windows Phone 8.1 and Windows 10 Mobile was likely another factor, though now I don't recall if my teammates specifically said that it was.
- neonsunset 2y agoBack then performance profile of .NET (Framework) was just not where it is today sadly (even with C++/CLI there were warts, but I only know what is publicly available unlike the sibling comment).