30 ms·

.NET is still called COM+ in .NET's source code, they initially envisioned .NET as a successor to COM. They wrote about COM+ in 1997 in an issue of Microsoft Sy

by kgeist 2y ago

.NET is still called COM+ in .NET's source code, they initially envisioned .NET as a successor to COM. They wrote about COM+ in 1997 in an issue of Microsoft Systems Journal (they talked about GC, runtime type info, etc.) It makes me believe the idea for .NET (COM+) existed before the lawsuit. It's possible that after the lawsuit, the COM+ and J++ teams were merged to reposition it as mainly a Java alternative.

pjmlp 2y ago
That was the Ext-VOS project, that I made a reference to. WinRT was supposed to replace .NET by the original goals, after the Sinofsky and his followers took over Windows development after Vista, it has been COM as the main API. "Turning to the past to power Windows’ future: An in-depth look at WinRT" https://arstechnica.com/features/2012/10/windows-8-and-winrt-everything-old-is-new-again/ https://arstechnica.com/features/2012/10/windows-8-and-winrt... However as we all know by know, it didn't went down as expected.
- kgeist 2y ago
  I never heard about "Ext-VOS". Tried googling it, and all mentions of it are from you ("pjmlp"), on Reddit, Github, etc. :) Where can I read more about it?
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    Don Syme from .NET generics and F# fame has written about it, that is how we got made aware of it. Now those blog posts are kind of gone from their original hosts. F# HOPL paper, https://fsharp.org/history/hopl-final/hopl-fsharp.pdf https://fsharp.org/history/hopl-final/hopl-fsharp.pdf Original blog post on way back machine, including the link to "MSR White Paper: Proposed Extensions to COM+ VOS (Draft)" paper. https://web.archive.org/web/20190111203733/https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dsyme/2012/07/05/more-c-net-generics-research-project-history-the-msr-white-paper-from-mid-1999/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190111203733/https://blogs.msd...
    - kgeist 2y ago
      OK, so from what I've read, "VOS" was the older name for CTS (Common Type System), not the name of the whole project. The project was named COM+, COM Object Runtime, and Project Lightning at different times. "Ext-VOS" ("extensions to VOS") is a document that primarily proposes generics, which were only added in C# 2.0.
neonsunset 2y ago
> .NET is still called COM+ in .NET's source code There was mostly no reason to cause unnecessary code churn to rename pre-existing code with complus-named variables inside dotnet/runtime. External-facing features and documentation never reference it. For compatibility reasons it still recognizes env. variables prefixed with COMPlus_ alongside DOTNET_ though. See: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Adotnet%2Fruntime%20complus&type=code https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Adotnet%2Fruntime%20complu... In a similar vein, NativeAOT code still prominently references project RedHawk (these are slowly being renamed).

by kgeist 2y ago

pjmlp 2y ago

That was the Ext-VOS project, that I made a reference to. WinRT was supposed to replace .NET by the original goals, after the Sinofsky and his followers took over Windows development after Vista, it has been COM as the main API. "Turning to the past to power Windows’ future: An in-depth look at WinRT" https://arstechnica.com/features/2012/10/windows-8-and-winrt-everything-old-is-new-again/ https://arstechnica.com/features/2012/10/windows-8-and-winrt... However as we all know by know, it didn't went down as expected.

kgeist 2y ago
I never heard about "Ext-VOS". Tried googling it, and all mentions of it are from you ("pjmlp"), on Reddit, Github, etc. :) Where can I read more about it?
- pjmlp 2y ago
  Don Syme from .NET generics and F# fame has written about it, that is how we got made aware of it. Now those blog posts are kind of gone from their original hosts. F# HOPL paper, https://fsharp.org/history/hopl-final/hopl-fsharp.pdf https://fsharp.org/history/hopl-final/hopl-fsharp.pdf Original blog post on way back machine, including the link to "MSR White Paper: Proposed Extensions to COM+ VOS (Draft)" paper. https://web.archive.org/web/20190111203733/https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dsyme/2012/07/05/more-c-net-generics-research-project-history-the-msr-white-paper-from-mid-1999/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190111203733/https://blogs.msd...
  - kgeist 2y ago
    OK, so from what I've read, "VOS" was the older name for CTS (Common Type System), not the name of the whole project. The project was named COM+, COM Object Runtime, and Project Lightning at different times. "Ext-VOS" ("extensions to VOS") is a document that primarily proposes generics, which were only added in C# 2.0.

neonsunset 2y ago

> .NET is still called COM+ in .NET's source code There was mostly no reason to cause unnecessary code churn to rename pre-existing code with complus-named variables inside dotnet/runtime. External-facing features and documentation never reference it. For compatibility reasons it still recognizes env. variables prefixed with COMPlus_ alongside DOTNET_ though. See: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Adotnet%2Fruntime%20complus&type=code https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Adotnet%2Fruntime%20complu... In a similar vein, NativeAOT code still prominently references project RedHawk (these are slowly being renamed).