4 ms·

Interesting article but kind of weird that it goes into such a level of technical detail while still attempting to explain basic concepts like garbage collectio

Interesting article but kind of weird that it goes into such a level of technical detail while still attempting to explain basic concepts like garbage collection.

dmix 14y ago
Yeah, I'm not sure who the expected audience for this piece is. Programmers? IT people? Non-technical? Seems caught in between them all.
- co_pl_te 14y ago
  Here's a tweet from the author of the article before it was published that might shed some light on that: "I have possibly the nerdiest, longest article I've ever written going up at 1930 Central tonight." https://twitter.com/DrPizza/status/260154952868057088 https://twitter.com/DrPizza/status/260154952868057088 So, I'd say the audience is nerds in general. I agree the article doesn't seem to have a definite target audience, but I think — in some sense — that is the beauty of Ars Technica's content. It's accessible enough that non-technical nerds can get value from it, but technical enough that more hardcore nerds appreciate it.
- DrPizza 14y ago
  My intended audience is, I guess, anyone who's ever taken something apart in a bid to figure out how it works. The ability to put the thing back together again such that the thing continues to work is strictly optional. I hope it's deep enough that programmers who haven't been tracking Microsoft's efforts religiously will find it educational, but not so deep that someone who's merely interested in what makes the operating system tick is scared off.
  - arscan 14y ago
    I expected this to be a short, mainly fluff 1 pager based on the title. I was pleasantly surprised when it wasn't. In order to pass judgement on MS's design choices for WinRT you really need to understand the history of the technologies involved. I think that this does a great job of doing just that. BTW, I fall into the "programmer who hasn't been religiously tracking MS" category.
  - pkteison 14y ago
    Thank you for writing it like this. Parts of it I was quite familiar with, but parts of it I have zero exposure to, and I really like being able to review the parts I already know as a way to check your credibility on the parts I know nothing about. Only thing I found lacking was I disagree with the characterization of the OS/2 split - 'forcing Microsoft...' seems to imply a backwards cause and effect from my understanding of things. But if that's the only nit I can pick in such a long detailed article, then it's darned well done.
sondh 14y ago
I find it in the middle in a good way. Detailed enough for tech people yet still explain some basic (but important) terminologies for curious people. It's a win-win situation really: tech people do not know all the things about Win32 (think about a mobile dev who wants to try out the new OS). I also like the way he mentioned COM and .NET as unsearchable, guess what is the next big framework/foundation from Microsoft?

Interesting article but kind of weird that it goes into such a level of technical detail while still attempting to explain basic concepts like garbage collection.

dmix 14y ago

Yeah, I'm not sure who the expected audience for this piece is. Programmers? IT people? Non-technical? Seems caught in between them all.

co_pl_te 14y ago
Here's a tweet from the author of the article before it was published that might shed some light on that: "I have possibly the nerdiest, longest article I've ever written going up at 1930 Central tonight." https://twitter.com/DrPizza/status/260154952868057088 https://twitter.com/DrPizza/status/260154952868057088 So, I'd say the audience is nerds in general. I agree the article doesn't seem to have a definite target audience, but I think — in some sense — that is the beauty of Ars Technica's content. It's accessible enough that non-technical nerds can get value from it, but technical enough that more hardcore nerds appreciate it.
DrPizza 14y ago
My intended audience is, I guess, anyone who's ever taken something apart in a bid to figure out how it works. The ability to put the thing back together again such that the thing continues to work is strictly optional. I hope it's deep enough that programmers who haven't been tracking Microsoft's efforts religiously will find it educational, but not so deep that someone who's merely interested in what makes the operating system tick is scared off.
- arscan 14y ago
  I expected this to be a short, mainly fluff 1 pager based on the title. I was pleasantly surprised when it wasn't. In order to pass judgement on MS's design choices for WinRT you really need to understand the history of the technologies involved. I think that this does a great job of doing just that. BTW, I fall into the "programmer who hasn't been religiously tracking MS" category.
- pkteison 14y ago
  Thank you for writing it like this. Parts of it I was quite familiar with, but parts of it I have zero exposure to, and I really like being able to review the parts I already know as a way to check your credibility on the parts I know nothing about. Only thing I found lacking was I disagree with the characterization of the OS/2 split - 'forcing Microsoft...' seems to imply a backwards cause and effect from my understanding of things. But if that's the only nit I can pick in such a long detailed article, then it's darned well done.

sondh 14y ago

I find it in the middle in a good way. Detailed enough for tech people yet still explain some basic (but important) terminologies for curious people. It's a win-win situation really: tech people do not know all the things about Win32 (think about a mobile dev who wants to try out the new OS). I also like the way he mentioned COM and .NET as unsearchable, guess what is the next big framework/foundation from Microsoft?