469,275 Members | 1,802 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,275 developers. It's quick & easy.

Is that a joke ?

That's what I keep asking myself whenever develop in .NET. Is this a joke a
farse or just a bad dream?

..NET is slow, actually slow is just a polite word I can use in a newsgroup.

..NET is just a VM and as one it works very slowly, before and after JIT. I
don't understand why some people insist that a VM can be compared with
native code. I really feel sick, whenever compare native C++ code against
the same code ported to C#. I don't know what is the performance loss with
databases or corporate solutions but my math/CAE functions run times slower
in .NET.

Managed code might be fast enough for enterprise apps, database front ends
or asp intranets. It probably looks fast to Java or VB developers but what
about real time applications?

What about CAD, CAE, CAM, scientific applications, utilities, math, imaging,
desktop publishing etc. What should developers who write such applications
must do ? Port them into UNIX ?

What happened to the rule i knew twenty years ago? "Next version of anything
should be at least faster and more stable than the previous one"

I have many questions for MS developers, although I'm sure nobody will ever
answer.

1. Is .NET just an approach to enterprise development?

2. Or another battle with Sun's Java

3. Or an MS conclusion that performance doesn't matter any more

4. If .NET was slow for WinFS, Office or Longhorn then why we have to
believe that is fast for our own applications?

5. If Microsoft want a new API why that must be based on VM technology?

6. Why MS call .NET a "safe" framework, safe from what? Safe from hackers, I
don't thin so, they can write anything they want in unmanaged code. Safe
from mem leaks, a garbage collector doesn't make good programmers or safe
applications. I still wonder what "safe" means.

7. Winforms1 will become obsolete because of WF2. WF2 will become obsolete
because of Avalon. Then why they introduced them? Just to have something
that hides Win32/GDI calls?

8. Longhorn drivers, kernel and anything "low-level" will be written in
native code. LH must run in 64bit processors too, so native code must be
natively compiled in 64bit API calls. That means Win32 will become Win64.
Why MS don't simply implement WinFX as an OO frontend to Win32/64 API,
leaving out the VM?

9. Mr Gates, why all that brain wash? You can fool some enterprise
programmers but not the rest of us who used to hand-optimise our code, just
to gain speed.

Finally, a single word question to all those bright scientists who work for
MS, Why ?

Please don't try to change my opinion, you cannot. By the way I'm not one of
those stupid guys who use to call Microsoft as M$. Me and all my colleagues
use Microsoft development tools since 1982 and we all know what exactly are
JIT, VM and native compiler.

I really like .NET/WinFX as a library and C# as a modern language, but I
feel sick with all that waste of processing power and lack of performance.

Regards

Ted Nicols
Jul 21 '05 #1
68 3241
Ted,

What about CAD, CAE, CAM, scientific applications, utilities, math,
imaging, desktop publishing etc.

Can you give me the percentage that represents the people, working at
insurance companies and banks, which are business wise busy with what you
wrote above. (and than real desktop publishing not things as Word.

Maybe gives that an idea about real business.

Cor
Jul 21 '05 #2
--> 1. Is .NET just an approach to enterprise development?
--> 2. Or another battle with Sun's Java
--> 3. Or an MS conclusion that performance doesn't matter any more

I wouldn't recommend using C# (and definitely not VB) to program a 3D
FPS, nor a CAD application. But, to be reasonable, you couldn't do it
in the vast majority of languages. That's not what they're here for; if
MS 'reinvented the wheel', would anyone be pleased? I develop many
useful applications in VB.NET that run as fast as they need to. It
would be an unproductive waste of time to use C++ or even VB6. Look at
sharpDevelop, the open source IDE. It runs quite on par with Delphi,
which is natively compiled, but sharpDevelop is written in C#.
--> 4. If .NET was slow for WinFS, Office or Longhorn then why we have
to believe that is fast for our own applications?

Nobody is forcing you to use .NET. There are a myriad of languages out
there... take your pick. For me, and my applications, and the
applications I've seen written and run, it works well enough.

--> 5. If Microsoft want a new API why that must be based on VM
technology?

First, MS gets slapped because "Java is the thing of the future". Then,
they get slapped because "they copy their competition". If the world
didn't want a VM API, MS wouldn't have made it. There are many things
that impossible or close to it to implement in a natively compiled
framework. And for the majority of apps, speed is not a killing issue,
so VMs work just fine.

--> 6. Why MS call .NET a "safe" framework, safe from what? Safe from
hackers, I don't thin so, they can write anything they want in
unmanaged code. Safe from mem leaks, a garbage collector doesn't make
good programmers or safe applications. I still wonder what "safe"
means.

"safe" is a loose term. "safe" could mean that eventually, there will
be no unmanaged code. "safe" could mean that more people could create
more useful applications using good practices without worrying about
garbage collection and the like. When the PC came out, many were wary
about switching from the typewriter. "On the PC, people don't have to
worry about typos! They won't be as careful!!!" How far did that
philosophy of "we learned it, so the new generation must learn it" get
them?

--> 7. Winforms1 will become obsolete because of WF2. WF2 will become
obsolete
because of Avalon. Then why they introduced them? Just to have
something
that hides Win32/GDI calls?

Think experimentation here. Considering the fact that less than thirty
years have passed since MS Windows became great, I as a developer am
willing to be forgiving when a new, better idea totally eclipses a past
innovation. Besides, the WF and Avalon ideas sure help out RAD
developers.

--> 8. Longhorn drivers, kernel and anything "low-level" will be
written in native code. LH must run in 64bit processors too, so native
code must be natively compiled in 64bit API calls. That means Win32
will become Win64. Why MS don't simply implement WinFX as an OO
frontend to Win32/64 API, leaving out the VM?

Well, that'd be great. That's the mistake they made with Win16, all
native stuff that won't run right on a Win32 machine. With a properly
made VM, the transition to Win64, and eventually Win128, will be
easier.

--> 9. Mr Gates, why all that brain wash? You can fool some enterprise
programmers but not the rest of us who used to hand-optimise our code,
just to gain speed.

He's out to make money for MS, he's out to promote his products. Brain
wash is what happens in tyrannical regimes.

--> Finally, a single word question to all those bright scientists who
work for MS, Why ?

Free Country, Freedom of Choice rings a bell. If they like it and love
it, let'm be. You don't have to work for MS; if you're correct in all
that you believe, join a competitor, fight against them following the
law (viruses prove nothing), and once again, if you're correct, the
world will come to you.

--> Please don't try to change my opinion, you cannot.

Why'd you ask all these questions, then? Arrr... I got writer's cramp
for nothing :)

--> By the way I'm not one of those stupid guys who use to call
Microsoft as M$. Me and all my colleagues use Microsoft development
tools since 1982 and we all know what exactly are JIT, VM and native
compiler.

I'd agree with you on that one. Your questions were all valid, and
you're obviously a knowledged developer. Your post is a good example of
non-profane, non-offensive tech discussion. Thanks Ted.

Jul 21 '05 #3
The .Net framework DOES compile code into native op-codes. It is NOT an
interpreter.

While some operations run quicker in C++, including the initial load of the
app into memory, the fact is that .Net apps are not substantially slower,
when running, than C++ apps for most uses. Perhaps you have hit on a
situation that runs slower? Perhaps if you tell is a little more about your
app?

--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--
"Ted Nicols" <__****************@mail.com> wrote in message
news:e3**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
That's what I keep asking myself whenever develop in .NET. Is this a joke
a farse or just a bad dream?

.NET is slow, actually slow is just a polite word I can use in a
newsgroup.

.NET is just a VM and as one it works very slowly, before and after JIT. I
don't understand why some people insist that a VM can be compared with
native code. I really feel sick, whenever compare native C++ code against
the same code ported to C#. I don't know what is the performance loss with
databases or corporate solutions but my math/CAE functions run times
slower in .NET.

Managed code might be fast enough for enterprise apps, database front ends
or asp intranets. It probably looks fast to Java or VB developers but what
about real time applications?

What about CAD, CAE, CAM, scientific applications, utilities, math,
imaging, desktop publishing etc. What should developers who write such
applications must do ? Port them into UNIX ?

What happened to the rule i knew twenty years ago? "Next version of
anything should be at least faster and more stable than the previous one"

I have many questions for MS developers, although I'm sure nobody will
ever answer.

1. Is .NET just an approach to enterprise development?

2. Or another battle with Sun's Java

3. Or an MS conclusion that performance doesn't matter any more

4. If .NET was slow for WinFS, Office or Longhorn then why we have to
believe that is fast for our own applications?

5. If Microsoft want a new API why that must be based on VM technology?

6. Why MS call .NET a "safe" framework, safe from what? Safe from hackers,
I don't thin so, they can write anything they want in unmanaged code. Safe
from mem leaks, a garbage collector doesn't make good programmers or safe
applications. I still wonder what "safe" means.

7. Winforms1 will become obsolete because of WF2. WF2 will become obsolete
because of Avalon. Then why they introduced them? Just to have something
that hides Win32/GDI calls?

8. Longhorn drivers, kernel and anything "low-level" will be written in
native code. LH must run in 64bit processors too, so native code must be
natively compiled in 64bit API calls. That means Win32 will become Win64.
Why MS don't simply implement WinFX as an OO frontend to Win32/64 API,
leaving out the VM?

9. Mr Gates, why all that brain wash? You can fool some enterprise
programmers but not the rest of us who used to hand-optimise our code,
just to gain speed.

Finally, a single word question to all those bright scientists who work
for MS, Why ?

Please don't try to change my opinion, you cannot. By the way I'm not one
of those stupid guys who use to call Microsoft as M$. Me and all my
colleagues use Microsoft development tools since 1982 and we all know what
exactly are JIT, VM and native compiler.

I really like .NET/WinFX as a library and C# as a modern language, but I
feel sick with all that waste of processing power and lack of performance.

Regards

Ted Nicols

Jul 21 '05 #4
> 1. Is .NET just an approach to enterprise development?
2. Or another battle with Sun's Java
3. Or an MS conclusion that performance doesn't matter any more
I wouldn't recommend using C# (and definitely not VB) to program a 3D
FPS. But, to be reasonable, you couldn't do it in the vast majority of
languages. That's not what they're here for; if MS 'reinvented the
wheel', would anyone be pleased? I develop many useful applications in
VB.NET that run as fast as they need to. It would be an unproductive
waste of time to use C++ or even VB6. Look at sharpDevelop, the open
source IDE. It runs quite on par with Delphi, which is natively
compiled, but sharpDevelop is written in C#.

4. If .NET was slow for WinFS, Office or Longhorn then why we have to believe that is fast for our own applications?
Nobody is forcing you to use .NET. There are a myriad of languages out
there... take your pick. For me, and my applications, and the
applications I've seen written and run, it works well enough.
5. If Microsoft want a new API why that must be based on VM technology?
First, MS gets slapped because "Java is the thing of the future". Then,
they get slapped because "they copy their competition". If the world
didn't want a VM API, MS wouldn't have made it. There are many things
that impossible or close to it to implement in a natively compiled
framework. And for the majority of apps, speed is not a killing issue,
so VMs work just fine.
6. Why MS call .NET a "safe" framework, safe from what? Safe from hackers, I don't thin so, they can write anything they want in unmanaged code. Safe from mem leaks, a garbage collector doesn't make good programmers or safe applications. I still wonder what "safe" means.
"safe" is a loose term. "safe" could mean that eventually, there will
be no unmanaged code. "safe" could mean that more people could create
more useful applications using good practices without worrying about
garbage collection and the like. When the PC came out, many were wary
about switching from the typewriter. "On the PC, people don't have to
worry about typos! They won't be as careful!!!" How far did that
philosophy of "we learned it, so the new generation must learn it" get
them?
7. Winforms1 will become obsolete because of WF2. WF2 will become obsolete because of Avalon. Then why they introduced them? Just to have something that hides Win32/GDI calls?
Think experimentation here. Considering the fact that less than thirty
years have passed since MS Windows became great, I as a developer am
willing to be forgiving when a new, better idea totally eclipses a past
innovation.
8. Longhorn drivers, kernel and anything "low-level" will be written in native code. LH must run in 64bit processors too, so native code must be natively compiled in 64bit API calls. That means Win32 will become Win64. Why MS don't simply implement WinFX as an OO frontend to Win32/64 API, leaving out the VM?
Well, that'd be great. That's the mistake they made with Win16, all
native stuff that won't run right on a Win32 machine. With a properly
made VM, the transition to Win64, and eventually Win128, will be
easier.
9. Mr Gates, why all that brain wash? You can fool some enterprise programmers but not the rest of us who used to hand-optimise our code, just to gain speed.
He's out to make money for MS, he's out to promote his products. Brain
wash is what happens in tyrannical regimes.
Finally, a single word question to all those bright scientists who work for MS, Why?
Free Country, Freedom of Choice rings a bell. If they like it and love
it, let'm be. You don't have to work for MS; if you're correct in all
that you believe, join a competitor, fight against them following the
law (viruses prove nothing), and once again, if you're correct, the
world will come to you.
Please don't try to change my opinion, you cannot.
Why'd you ask all these questions, then? Arrr... I got writer's cramp
for nothing :)
By the way I'm not one of those stupid guys who use to call Microsoft as M$. Me and all my colleagues use Microsoft development tools since 1982 and we all know what exactly are JIT, VM and native compiler.


I'd agree with you on that one. Your questions were all valid, and
you're obviously a knowledged developer. Your post is a good example of
non-profane, non-offensive tech discussion. Thanks Ted.

Jul 21 '05 #5
Ted Nicols wrote:

.NET is slow, actually slow is just a polite word I can use in a
newsgroup.
'Slow' is also a word that you should never use if you want any respect from
engineers. Can you quantify what 'slow' means for you? If anything,
some of my running battles with certain c++ programmers show that it's
just-as-fast to nearly-as-fast for many key processes such as word search
( using Regex ) and highly threaded applications.
1. Is .NET just an approach to enterprise development?
No, not just.
2. Or another battle with Sun's Java
Not another, but *the* battle.
3. Or an MS conclusion that performance doesn't matter any more
Performance always matters. Somehow, you have this outdated notion of what
performance in business or Enterprise means. In my business we apply
strict speed and performance metrics to all our Operations from loading a
file to updating a database. My motto is "under 1 ms' -- the goal of
atomic operations should always be less than a millesecond.
4. If .NET was slow for WinFS, Office or Longhorn then why we have to
believe that is fast for our own applications?
What are your applications?
6. Why MS call .NET a "safe" framework, safe from what? Safe from hackers,
I don't thin so, they can write anything they want in unmanaged code. Safe
from mem leaks, a garbage collector doesn't make good programmers or safe
applications.
Safe from self-created memory leaks. But there is always the unsafe
approach if you have the skills.
7. Winforms1 will become obsolete because of WF2. WF2 will become obsolete
because of Avalon. Then why they introduced them? Just to have something
that hides Win32/GDI calls?
If you read the papers, the idea of making .NET as the only interface to the
new Longhorn API has been dismissed.
8. Longhorn drivers, kernel and anything "low-level" will be written in
native code. LH must run in 64bit processors too, so native code must be
natively compiled in 64bit API calls. That means Win32 will become Win64.
Why MS don't simply implement WinFX as an OO frontend to Win32/64 API,
leaving out the VM?
That's the first brilliant thing you've said.
9. Mr Gates, why all that brain wash? You can fool some enterprise
programmers but not the rest of us who used to hand-optimise our code,
just to gain speed.
Then go ahead. You can still use your hands, and your /head/. Meanwhile,
the Enterprise is adopting .NET in *droves*.
Finally, a single word question to all those bright scientists who work
for MS, Why ?
Well, that view of Lake Samnamnish from the big houses they bought with
their bonuses for one.
Please don't try to change my opinion, you cannot. By the way I'm not one
of those stupid guys who use to call Microsoft as M$. Me and all my
colleagues use Microsoft development tools since 1982 and we all know what
exactly are JIT, VM and native compiler.
Okay, then you must have higher level contacts than this newsgroup...or
don't you?
I really like .NET/WinFX as a library and C# as a modern language, but I
feel sick with all that waste of processing power and lack of performance.


Quantify.
Quantify.
Quantify.

--
Texeme Textcasting Technology
http://www.texeme.com
Jul 21 '05 #6

"Wraith Daquell" <WD******@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
--> 5. If Microsoft want a new API why that must be based on VM
technology?

First, MS gets slapped because "Java is the thing of the future". Then,
they get slapped because "they copy their competition". If the world
didn't want a VM API, MS wouldn't have made it.
This isn't the reason for .Net at all. The real reason for it is because
Microsoft can save money in development and support of their development
languages by slapping them all on top of the CLR. Microsoft doesn't do
anything because "the people" want them to - just look at how they swept the
classic VB developers under the rug (millions of them) without paying any
attention to what they wanted or needed.
There are many things
that impossible or close to it to implement in a natively compiled
framework.
This is just plainly not true. Name an application or data manipultaion
that cannot be done outside a VM.
And for the majority of apps, speed is not a killing issue,
so VMs work just fine.

--> 6. Why MS call .NET a "safe" framework, safe from what? Safe from
hackers, I don't thin so, they can write anything they want in
unmanaged code. Safe from mem leaks, a garbage collector doesn't make
good programmers or safe applications. I still wonder what "safe"
means.

"safe" is a loose term. "safe" could mean that eventually, there will
be no unmanaged code. "safe" could mean that more people could create
more useful applications using good practices without worrying about
garbage collection and the like. When the PC came out, many were wary
about switching from the typewriter. "On the PC, people don't have to
worry about typos! They won't be as careful!!!" How far did that
philosophy of "we learned it, so the new generation must learn it" get
them?
""Safe" was a keyword used to generate interest in a product that was not
needed (.Net).

The imaginary "DLL Hell" was also listed as a reason for .Net. This too was
a lie. All that you had to do to avoid the "DLL Hell" boogey man was to
place your DLLs in the same directory as your executable! What a farce!
--> 7. Winforms1 will become obsolete because of WF2. WF2 will become
obsolete
because of Avalon. Then why they introduced them? Just to have
something
that hides Win32/GDI calls?

Think experimentation here. Considering the fact that less than thirty
years have passed since MS Windows became great, I as a developer am
willing to be forgiving when a new, better idea totally eclipses a past
innovation. Besides, the WF and Avalon ideas sure help out RAD
developers.
Wrong again.... Microsoft, as a corporation, is very business savy. There
are several real reasons for changing the user interface - not one of which
has anything to do with innovation or helping developers.

For one, Microsoft knows that "new and shiny" sells operating systems. Just
look at XP. What great and new things did XP give us over 2000 except a
shiny new interface and new names for the same old OS tools? Not much.

People aren't very smart. You can slap a new cover on an old book and it
will sell nearly as well as the first time it was released. Same thing goes
for cars, houses, campaign promises and operating systems. This is simply
user manipulation.

Another reason for Avalon would be to give back to the PC hardware industry
for it's help in making Microsoft the monopoly it is today. To get the "new
shiny" buttons in Longhorn, most users will need a new (or at least
upgraded) PC to reach the 3Ghz CPU, 512MB RAM and 3D capable graphics cards
needed to run it. This is just another "new and shiny" covering on the same
unstable core.

And, what PC manufacturer wouldn't agree to sell your OS if it means more PC
sales for them?

--> 8. Longhorn drivers, kernel and anything "low-level" will be
written in native code. LH must run in 64bit processors too, so native
code must be natively compiled in 64bit API calls. That means Win32
will become Win64. Why MS don't simply implement WinFX as an OO
frontend to Win32/64 API, leaving out the VM?

Well, that'd be great. That's the mistake they made with Win16, all
native stuff that won't run right on a Win32 machine. With a properly
made VM, the transition to Win64, and eventually Win128, will be
easier.
Bull. Microsoft is increasingly making it more difficult to move forward.
Just ask anyone that has had to port VB6 to VB.Net in an enterprise
application.

--> 9. Mr Gates, why all that brain wash? You can fool some enterprise
programmers but not the rest of us who used to hand-optimise our code,
just to gain speed.

He's out to make money for MS, he's out to promote his products. Brain
wash is what happens in tyrannical regimes.
Microsoft is like Neverland. All of Michael's (and Bill's) cheerleaders are
there telling him what he wants to hear to make sure they keep getting that
paycheck.

They make the decisions YOU have to live with. Don't fool yourself into
thinking that MS is in the business of suppporting customers. It's i the
business of supporting investors.

--> Finally, a single word question to all those bright scientists who
work for MS, Why ?

Free Country, Freedom of Choice rings a bell. If they like it and love
it, let'm be. You don't have to work for MS; if you're correct in all
that you believe, join a competitor, fight against them following the
law (viruses prove nothing), and once again, if you're correct, the
world will come to you.


One word......money.

Jim
Jul 21 '05 #7
Jim Hubbard wrote:
This isn't the reason for .Net at all. The real reason for it is because
Microsoft can save money in development and support of their development
languages by slapping them all on top of the CLR. Microsoft doesn't do
anything because "the people" want them to - just look at how they swept
the classic VB developers under the rug (millions of them) without paying
any attention to what they wanted or needed.


Huh?Â* That's crazy. As far as I can see, they just elevated all those VB
developers to status of c++ developers by giving them features like
Threading that works, Remoting and Reflection as well as the ability to
develop windows services.

A VB6 developer who's willing to do a little training and work can now be
part of the *club*.
--
Texeme Textcasting Technology
http://www.texeme.com
Jul 21 '05 #8
"Ted Nicols" <__****************@mail.com> wrote in
news:e3**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl:
That's what I keep asking myself whenever develop in .NET. Is this a
joke a farse or just a bad dream?


Many others have posted good replies to your questions, but here is my view and addresses directly
many of your questions.

http://www.codeproject.com/dotnet/WhyDotNET.asp
--
Chad Z. Hower (a.k.a. Kudzu) - http://www.hower.org/Kudzu/
"Programming is an art form that fights back"

Make your ASP.NET applications run faster
http://www.atozed.com/IntraWeb/
Jul 21 '05 #9
> First, MS gets slapped because "Java is the thing of the future". Then, they get slapped because "they copy their competition". If the world didn't want a VM API, MS wouldn't have made it.
This isn't the reason for .Net at all. The real reason for it is because Microsoft can save money in development and support of their development languages by slapping them all on top of the CLR. Microsoft doesn't do anything because "the people" want them to - just look at how they swept the classic VB developers under the rug (millions of them) without paying any attention to what they wanted or needed.
Yeah, they swept them under the rug, and yeah, that's too bad. I'm
serious. But VB6 is old, and the developers are competent. The language
is not changing much, so I can sympathize with both sides. But I don't
(I have, but don't anymore) work with VB6, so I can't empathize as
much. You win a cookie with this point.
There are many things that are impossible or close to it to implement in a natively compiled framework. This is just plainly not true. Name an application or data manipultaion that cannot be done outside a VM.
The problem with the "DLL Hell", and the solution you gave for it, is
that many developers just didn't follow those guidlines. The nice thing
about the CLR is that it's all there, loaded into the system, for you
to use. Also, debugging is much easier to implement (as is reverse
engineering... I know). And with a project such as Mono, the problems
of portability seem to fade into the background.
"safe" is a loose term. "safe" could mean that eventually, there will
be no unmanaged code. "safe" could mean that more people could create
more useful applications using good practices without worrying about
garbage collection and the like. When the PC came out, many were wary
about switching from the typewriter. "On the PC, people don't have to
worry about typos! They won't be as careful!!!" How far did that
philosophy of "we learned it, so the new generation must learn it" get
them? ""Safe" was a keyword used to generate interest in a product that was not needed (.Net).
Good point, well taken, but... some proof?
The imaginary "DLL Hell" was also listed as a reason for .Net. This too was a lie. All that you had to do to avoid the "DLL Hell" boogey man was to place your DLLs in the same directory as your executable! What a farce!
See above ^
Think experimentation here. Considering the fact that less than thirty years have passed since MS Windows became great, I as a developer am willing to be forgiving when a new, better idea totally eclipses a past innovation. Besides, the WF and Avalon ideas sure help out RAD developers.
Wrong again.... Microsoft, as a corporation, is very business savy. There are several real reasons for changing the user interface - not one of which has anything to do with innovation or helping developers. For one, Microsoft knows that "new and shiny" sells operating systems. Just look at XP. What great and new things did XP give us over 2000 except a shiny new interface and new names for the same old OS tools? Not much. People aren't very smart. You can slap a new cover on an old book and it will sell nearly as well as the first time it was released. Same thing goes for cars, houses, campaign promises and operating systems. This is simply user manipulation. Another reason for Avalon would be to give back to the PC hardware industry for it's help in making Microsoft the monopoly it is today. To get the "new shiny" buttons in Longhorn, most users will need a new (or at least upgraded) PC to reach the 3Ghz CPU, 512MB RAM and 3D capable graphics cards needed to run it. This is just another "new and shiny" covering on the same unstable core. And, what PC manufacturer wouldn't agree to sell your OS if it means more PC sales for them?
Your argument here is completely valid. It's so valid, in fact, that it
would make the Mac users who complain that Windows is too old and ugly
looking, pretty angry. WF and Avalon have (will) help developers. And
it's Microsoft's job to sell their software. They wouldn't be much of a
company if their motto was, "Don't make the product look good." Like
you said, this goes for every company. It's part of the way of
business.

--> 8. Longhorn drivers, kernel and anything "low-level" will be written in native code. LH must run in 64bit processors too, so native code must be natively compiled in 64bit API calls. That means Win32 will become Win64. Why MS don't simply implement WinFX as an OO frontend to Win32/64 API, leaving out the VM?
Well, that'd be great. That's the mistake they made with Win16, all native stuff that won't run right on a Win32 machine. With a properly made VM, the transition to Win64, and eventually Win128, will be easier. Microsoft is increasingly making it more difficult to move forward. Just ask anyone that has had to port VB6 to VB.Net in an enterprise application.
Okay, this point defines the argument. While all the VB6 programmers
are angry, and partly rightly so, this is progress. For better, or
worse, it remains to be seen, though I see a bright horizon. There have
always been the nay-sayers through history, consider the steam-engine,
the car, the rocket-ship. To move forward, something has to be left
behind. In a radical situation like the move from VB6 to .NET,
Microsoft is making the statement that they are trying to change things
for the better. I think they have, and there's alot of people behind
me.

He [Bill Gates] is out to make money for MS, he's out to promote his products. Brain
wash is what happens in tyrannical regimes. Microsoft is like Neverland. All of Michael's (and Bill's) cheerleaders are there telling him what he wants to hear to make sure they keep getting that paycheck. They make the decisions YOU have to live with. Don't fool yourself into thinking that MS is in the business of suppporting customers. It's the business of supporting investors.
And I bet that MS would continue to prosper if nobody bought their
products? My point is, people are buying it. People are liking it.

Free Country, Freedom of Choice rings a bell. If they like it and love it, let'm be. You don't have to work for MS; if you're correct in all that you believe, join a competitor, fight against them following the law (viruses prove nothing), and once again, if you're correct, the world will come to you. One word......money.


It's hard to criticize a manger for wanting to get paid. Until I stand
in Mr. Gates' shoes (and I'm not likely to ever do that), I won't down
him like that. He stands in the balance between two volatile worlds -
The Company, and The People. Neither of which will ever be pleased.

As a final note here, I've got to say that I don't agree with
everything MS does. I don't work for them, have never worked for them,
and don't know if I ever will.

Jul 21 '05 #10

<ja*****@texeme.com> wrote in message
news:uK********************@speakeasy.net...
Jim Hubbard wrote:
This isn't the reason for .Net at all. The real reason for it is because
Microsoft can save money in development and support of their development
languages by slapping them all on top of the CLR. Microsoft doesn't do
anything because "the people" want them to - just look at how they swept
the classic VB developers under the rug (millions of them) without paying
any attention to what they wanted or needed.
Huh? That's crazy. As far as I can see, they just elevated all those VB
developers to status of c++ developers by giving them features like
Threading that works, Remoting and Reflection as well as the ability to
develop windows services.


That's because, like Microsoft, you haven't done your homework on just who
Visual Basic 6 programmers were or their skills and goals.

The majority of Visual Basic 6 programmers were not professional programmers
and had no desire to be. They were people that did other jobs to make a
living (lawyers, accountants, mail clerks, students, etc.) and found Visual
Basic to be an easy-to-use tool that they could use to write simple programs
to make their lives (or hobbies) easier.

They had no interest in becomming a professional developer on the level of a
C/C++ programmer. Their interest lied in RAD development of solutions to
everyday problems that confronted them. Visual Basic 6 (and its
predecessors) gave them such a simple RAD tool. It was powerful enough to
accomplish almost anything they could imagine, but simple enough that
learning it did not take away vast amounts of time from their primary job.

With .Net, Microsoft essentially destroyed that. Now, you MUST devote the
time to become a professional developer in order to use VB.Net. The RAD
tool we all loved is dead. And, so is the devotion of millions of Visual
Basic 6 programmers.

Visual Basic programmers that did decide to deveop for a living frequently
learned C++ to do the things that professional developers like to do. But,
that in no way forced the everyday RAD developer that used Visual Basic 6 as
a tool to enhance their non-programming jobs to devote hours and hours to
learning all of the underpinnings of COM+ to use an activex control. VB.Net
changed that for the worse.

Had Microsoft sought out exactly who their Visual Basic 6 millions were (and
cared), they never would've made such a tremendous blunder (both in image
and business).

A VB6 developer who's willing to do a little training and work can now be
part of the *club*.


To hell with the "club"! Classic VB developers wanted to get their jobs
done in the most efficient manner possible. They didn't give a damn about
impressing themselves ("Ooooo, look what I know!"). That's the domain of
arrogant geek asses that don't have a clue about getting business done.

In my 22+ years in programming, I've lead teams of programmers for some of
the highest profile companies in the U.S., and I'll take a part-time
programmer that just wants to get the job done over a bunch of "professional
developers" (with their in-fighting and bitching and whining and lack of
people skills) any day.

All too frequently, "professional developers" are only interested in playing
with the newest "toy", and they don't think about how it will affect daily
business. They are more concerned with the "new and shiny" stuff than with
accomplishing the company's goals in the most efficient manner possible.
That's what's happening with .Net.

Nobody seems interested in the security lapses in .Net (for applications
that are distributed). Nobody seems to realize that ,Net is written
specifically for Microsoft to realized it's goals of software-as-a-service.
And, they sure as hell don't realize that Microsoft has turned them into the
world's largest beta program for a product designed solely around
Microsoft's own goals for it's software.

I just die everytime I see a contractor go into a small company and start
preaching the Microsoft doctrine of the Microsoft SDLC. It's like watching
Tom Cruise talk about psychiatric drugs......they look sincere, but they are
simply brainwashed drones and lost as hell when it comes to accomplishing
business goals in as efficient a manner as possible. (Hey, at least it's
entertaining......right?)

I, for one, wish that Microsoft would've been broken up. I think we'd all
have been better off.

Jim


Jul 21 '05 #11
Jim Hubbard wrote:
The majority of Visual Basic 6 programmers were not professional
programmers
and had no desire to be. They were people that did other jobs to make a
living (lawyers, accountants, mail clerks, students, etc.) and found
Visual Basic to be an easy-to-use tool that they could use to write simple
programs to make their lives (or hobbies) easier.


Then you shouldn't be addressing .NET at all.

You should be learning Avalon and WinFx.
--
Texeme Textcasting Technology
http://www.texeme.com
Jul 21 '05 #12

"Wraith Daquell" <WD******@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
First, MS gets slapped because "Java is the thing of the future". Then,
they get slapped because "they copy their competition". If the world
didn't want a VM API, MS wouldn't have made it.
This isn't the reason for .Net at all. The real reason for it is because
Microsoft can save money in development and support of their >>development
languages by slapping them all on top of the CLR. Microsoft doesn't do
anything because "the people" want them to - just >>look at how they swept
the classic VB developers under the rug (millions of them) without paying
any attention to what they wanted or >>needed.
Yeah, they swept them under the rug, and yeah, that's too bad. I'm
serious.


And, who's to say you're not next? When MS comes out with C*.ZAP to replace
everything in C# and offers not valid upgrade, you'll sing a different tune
then.
But VB6 is old, and the developers are competent. The language
is not changing much, so I can sympathize with both sides.
Not changing much?! You have no idea what you are taking about.......
But I don't
(I have, but don't anymore) work with VB6, so I can't empathize as
much. You win a cookie with this point.
I'd rather have VB 7.
There are many things that are impossible or close to it to implement in
a natively compiled framework.

This is just plainly not true. Name an application or data manipultaion
that cannot be done outside a VM.


The problem with the "DLL Hell", and the solution you gave for it, is
that many developers just didn't follow those guidlines. The nice thing
about the CLR is that it's all there, loaded into the system, for you
to use.


Exactly! Microsoft couldn't get it's own programmers to not leave bad code
(possible buffer overruns, etc.) in their own source.....so they opt to
force it down their throats. This was not the case with most programs
written at most companies. It was an OS problem that Microsoft could not
control with their own coders. But, they forced the "solution" on us all.
Also, debugging is much easier to implement (as is reverse
engineering... I know). And with a project such as Mono, the problems
of portability seem to fade into the background.
Mono is a joke. It has, is and always will be playing "catch-up" to
Microsoft's every move. That's why they'll always be behind. Microsoft
creates and they copy. Why don't these people innovate for themselves?

I talked to one of the head developers at Suse about this very thing. They
should break away and write a RAD development environment for Linux instead
of following MS like a lost puppy. He agreed, but said that the corporate
heads at Novell wouldn't hear of it.

<snip>
""Safe" was a keyword used to generate interest in a product that was not
needed (.Net).


Good point, well taken, but... some proof?


"DLL Hell" that didn't exist. Code that can be disassembled by your
competition. A buggy OS that still leaves you vulnerable. How many proofs
would you like?

How about this one......C# can still write unmanaged code. That blows one
hell of a hole into the whole garbage collection scheme.....in fact, it
completely negates it and all other ".Net advantages".
The imaginary "DLL Hell" was also listed as a reason for .Net. This too
was a lie. All that you had to do to avoid the "DLL Hell" boogey man was
to place your DLLs in the same directory as your executable! What a
farce!
See above ^


<snip>
Your argument here is completely valid. It's so valid, in fact, that it
would make the Mac users who complain that Windows is too old and ugly
looking, pretty angry. WF and Avalon have (will) help developers. And
it's Microsoft's job to sell their software. They wouldn't be much of a
company if their motto was, "Don't make the product look good." Like
you said, this goes for every company. It's part of the way of
business.
You can certainly make your product look good. Third party components for
Visual Basic did that very well. But, what MS is doing is painting a used
car and selling it to you as new. That is wrong.

<snip>
Microsoft is increasingly making it more difficult to move forward. Just
ask anyone that has had to port VB6 to VB.Net in an enterprise
application.


Okay, this point defines the argument. While all the VB6 programmers
are angry, and partly rightly so, this is progress. For better, or
worse, it remains to be seen, though I see a bright horizon.


Me too. I see developer applications like REALBasic that are bright stars
on that horizon. Its company only does development software (not OS's or
applications that compete with it's developer's applications like MS). They
MUST listen to their developers, and they do.
There have
always been the nay-sayers through history, consider the steam-engine,
the car, the rocket-ship.
True. People also thought the Titanic, Ross rifles (look up Canadian
Soldiers in WW I) , the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, disco and smoking were just
great too.
To move forward, something has to be left
behind.
Not true. C++ wasn't left behind. It was brought forward and can continue
to run and be used from the .Net IDE. They could've done this with Visual
Basic 6. They simply CHOSE to abandon the largest group of developers on
the planet.
In a radical situation like the move from VB6 to .NET,
Microsoft is making the statement that they are trying to change things
for the better.
Are you really that niave?
I think they have, and there's alot of people behind
me.
There were a lot of people behind Hitler......didn't make it right.
He [Bill Gates] is out to make money for MS, he's out to promote his
products. Brain
wash is what happens in tyrannical regimes.
Microsoft is like Neverland. All of Michael's (and Bill's) cheerleaders
are there telling him what he wants to hear to make sure they keep
>>getting that paycheck. They make the decisions YOU have to live with.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that MS is in the business of
>>suppporting customers. It's the business of supporting investors.


And I bet that MS would continue to prosper if nobody bought their
products? My point is, people are buying it. People are liking it.


People are NOT buying it willingly. They are buying it because they won't
have support for the older technology. If people were given a true choice,
VB6 and C++ would rule.
It's hard to criticize a manger for wanting to get paid. Until I stand
in Mr. Gates' shoes (and I'm not likely to ever do that), I won't down
him like that. He stands in the balance between two volatile worlds -
The Company, and The People. Neither of which will ever be pleased.
I will down him like that. I have stood in a similar position (customers
want one thing, while the shareholders want quick money). I chose the
customers and the shareholders were better off for it. Eventually they
figured it out.
As a final note here, I've got to say that I don't agree with
everything MS does. I don't work for them, have never worked for them,
and don't know if I ever will.


Actually, I hope that you do. It would be a real eye-opener for you.

With whatever you choose, I wish you the best.

Jim
Jul 21 '05 #13

<ja*****@texeme.com> wrote in message
news:RM********************@speakeasy.net...
Jim Hubbard wrote:
The majority of Visual Basic 6 programmers were not professional
programmers
and had no desire to be. They were people that did other jobs to make a
living (lawyers, accountants, mail clerks, students, etc.) and found
Visual Basic to be an easy-to-use tool that they could use to write
simple
programs to make their lives (or hobbies) easier.


Then you shouldn't be addressing .NET at all.

You should be learning Avalon and WinFx.


For what? Microsoft will just throw that out when it's convenient for
*them* to do so.

Jul 21 '05 #14
Jim Hubbard wrote:
For what? Microsoft will just throw that out when it's convenient for
*them* to do so.


Go Linux.

--
Texeme Textcasting Technology
http://www.texeme.com
Jul 21 '05 #15

<ja*****@texeme.com> wrote in message
news:d8********************@speakeasy.net...
Jim Hubbard wrote:
For what? Microsoft will just throw that out when it's convenient for
*them* to do so.


Go Linux.


The only thing that's missing is a RAD tool for Linux that's as easy as VB.

REALBasic is making some great strides in that area.....and I've got my
fingers crossed.

Jim
Jul 21 '05 #16
> Yeah, they swept them under the rug, and yeah, that's too bad. I'm serious.
And, who's to say you're not next? When MS comes out with C*.ZAP to replace everything in C# and offers not valid upgrade, you'll sing a different tune then.
Nah, I keep up with the times. Call me young and unsatisfied, but I'm
always waiting for something new to come out. (famous last words)
""Safe" was a keyword used to generate interest in a product that was not needed (.Net).

Good point, well taken, but... some proof?

"DLL Hell" that didn't exist. Code that can be disassembled by your competition. A buggy OS that still leaves you vulnerable. How many proofs would you like?
How about this one......C# can still write unmanaged code. That blows a hole into the whole garbage collection scheme.....in fact, it completely negates it and all other ".Net advantages".


DLL Hell did exist. Not to directly to refute you or anything. I have
three junked computers' worth of proof. And the problem didn't lie with
MS. Native code can be decompiled as well (MSIL, assembly, not much
difference). As for the buggy OS, think about what vulnerable means.
It's the people with anti-MS philosophy that write the terrible viruses
and such that makes the world vulnerable. This problem does not
originate by MS, nor is it mitigated by anyone, Linux, Apple, or
Microsoft.
I wouldn't say that the unmanaged feature of C#'s compiler is bad. I'm
happy to learn it has this; I was not aware. It doesn't blow a hole
into the scheme... it puts an extra switch into the pipe for choosy
developers. When did extra options ever negate something relevant to
this?
You can certainly make your product look good. Third party components for Visual Basic did that very well. But, what MS is doing is painting a used car and selling it to you as new. That is wrong.
Personally, I liked the features of XP. Yeah, it wasn't a Major major
upgrade from 2000, but it fixed alot of things (Plug and Play,
anyone?). As for Visual Basic.NET just being an old program redone; if
that were true, VB6 developers wouldn't be complaining, and instead of
debating with you right now I'd be eating chocolate cake.
While all the VB6 programmers are angry, and partly rightly so, this is progress. For better, or worse, it remains to be seen, though I see a bright horizon. Me too. I see developer applications like REALBasic that are bright stars on that horizon. Its company only does development software (not OS's or applications that compete with it's developer's applications like MS). They MUST listen to their developers, and they do.
REALBasic's download page doesn't work, I tried it, and they admit it
in their FAQ. But if you choose them, I applaud you for it. This is the
concept that MS makes their programs available, not mandatory. No
matter how sneaky they are, they're NOT the ones buying their software,
so it's not their fault (unless they're underhanded, which they
sometimes are, granted) if something runs amuck.

As for the Titanic and all that, it doesn't apply to this discussion
and I was foolish to put that point in in the first place. BTW, in
regards to Ross Rifles... are you a WW buff? Nice!
To move forward, something has to be left behind. Not true. C++ wasn't left behind. It was brought forward and can continue to run and be used from the .Net IDE. They could've done this with Visual Basic 6. They simply CHOSE to abandon the largest group of developers on the planet.
This is an interesting idea. I bet that someone could write a VB6 addon
for Visual Studio. I'll have to think about that one.
In a radical situation like the move from VB6 to .NET, Microsoft is making the statement that they are trying to change things for the better. Are you really that niave?
Read, optimistic.
I think they have, and there's alot of people behind me. There were a lot of people behind Hitler......didn't make it right.
The first time .NET sets off a major killing spree, you betcha I'm on
your side. I think that, since both of us follow different ideas, it
may be that we're both right, wrong, or neither. VB6 is a great
language, as is .NET; they both have their uses; yeah, MS was wrong to
dump you; these things happen.

Instead of quoting and reposting and all that for the rest, I'll just
spill my thoughts.
Sometimes, I think, if people were left to themselves, the earth would
quagmire. Hitler was left to himself for too long. So are the spyware
companies. .NET has displaced a tidal-wave, and nothing can stop it. I
didn't make .NET, I can't defend it like, say, a certified professional
could. But I can say that, since this change is in motion, we could all
sort of work towards refining it and enhancing it.

If we never get a chance to argue again, I must say that this has been
a fascinating discussion.
With whatever you choose, I wish you the best.


Thanks. To you too. Hopefully, this will all smooth out.

-Wraith

Jul 21 '05 #17
Jim Hubbard wrote:

<ja*****@texeme.com> wrote in message
news:d8********************@speakeasy.net...
Jim Hubbard wrote:
For what? Microsoft will just throw that out when it's convenient for
*them* to do so.


Go Linux.


The only thing that's missing is a RAD tool for Linux that's as easy as
VB.

REALBasic is making some great strides in that area.....and I've got my
fingers crossed.

Jim


You should look at /boo/

--
Texeme Textcasting Technology
http://www.texeme.com
Jul 21 '05 #18
<ja*****@texeme.com> wrote in message
news:fO********************@speakeasy.net...
'Slow' is also a word that you should never use if you want any respect
from
engineers. Can you quantify what 'slow' means for you? If anything,
some of my running battles with certain c++ programmers show that it's
just-as-fast to nearly-as-fast for many key processes such as word search
( using Regex ) and highly threaded applications.
I was talking about applications like cad, cam, engineering stuf, math,
scientific applications, data aquisition etc. In that case I hope you
understand that .NET regex performance doesn't help a lot.
Last two years, I've ported a lot of code from C++ to C# and managed C++.
I've seen up to 4x performance decrease and more than 7x resources usage.
Please don't ask me what was the comparison results when tested data
aquisition & analysis, testing just peaked to 100% of CPU usage and the
application was not able to poll data.
Not to mention user interface slowness, probably that will be changed in the
future.
Performance always matters. Somehow, you have this outdated notion of
what
performance in business or Enterprise means. In my business we apply
strict speed and performance metrics to all our Operations from loading a
file to updating a database. My motto is "under 1 ms' -- the goal of
atomic operations should always be less than a millesecond.
Do you really think that this kind of performance is all we need today ?
I suppose that in your business, you still use programs like imaging, math
or statistics, archivers, spreadsheet, utilities etc.
Can you tell me how database performance can help Photoshop, for example,
rendering an image or an archiver to compress files or even the OS itself to
do other usefull tasks ?

What are your applications?

I'm working on engeeneering, industrial automation and CAD projects.

Safe from self-created memory leaks. But there is always the unsafe
approach if you have the skills.
AFAIK there is no "self-created" leaks.
If a developer use to allocate memory and forgets to free it then don't
blame Win API for that.
What do you think this kind of developers will do in .NET? Maybe GC will
protect framework from their faults but I cannot see how the system will be
protected from their poor coding.

If you read the papers, the idea of making .NET as the only interface to
the
new Longhorn API has been dismissed.
I've read the papers and the only thing I understood is that WinFX will be
the primary programming API. And as you know WinFX is managed code. Of
course Win32/64 will be there too, although it will be called "legacy".
8. Longhorn drivers, kernel and anything "low-level" will be written in
native code. LH must run in 64bit processors too, so native code must be
natively compiled in 64bit API calls. That means Win32 will become Win64.
Why MS don't simply implement WinFX as an OO frontend to Win32/64 API,
leaving out the VM?


That's the first brilliant thing you've said.


I'm glad you agreed with that.


Okay, then you must have higher level contacts than this newsgroup...or
don't you?


What you mean by that ? If you asked if I know MS people then the answer is
"NO" with the exception of a few of them who were in the same univ with me
years ago.
Even if I knew Bill Gates, do you think that I could make him change
Microsoft's roadmap ?
One think I've learned all these years, is that nobody, including mr Gates,
makes a decission based on his own will. I'm sure that MS marketing people
either have plans for web service market or believe that personal computer
market is dead.
I wonder what will happen when MS try to rewrite Excel or Word in managed
code (!) Unless they have plans to make Office available as a web service on
subscription basis.

What a future for the "computer science" world !

Regards

Ted Nicols.
Jul 21 '05 #19
"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:ei**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Can you give me the percentage that represents the people, working at
insurance companies and banks, which are business wise busy with what you
wrote above. (and than real desktop publishing not things as Word.

Maybe gives that an idea about real business.


You're right Cor, that means business for MS marketing people.
Unfortunately I'm one of those old-timers who learned that Computer is a
system that computes as fast as it can.

Ted
Jul 21 '05 #20
"Wraith Daquell" <WD******@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
I wouldn't recommend using C# (and definitely not VB) to program a 3D
FPS, nor a CAD application. But, to be reasonable, you couldn't do it
in the vast majority of languages.
Sorry but I have to disagree. Any programming language can do that stuff, if
is a real optimized native compiler.
The last twenty four years I wrote similar projects in Basic (remember
BASCOM ?) C, C++, Pascal and others.
Currently I'm using C++ and some assembler.
Nobody is forcing you to use .NET. There are a myriad of languages out
there... take your pick. For me, and my applications, and the
applications I've seen written and run, it works well enough.
I have no problem with the language been used. The problem is the slowness
of the VM.
Targeting to Win32 is a temporary solution. IF Microsoft continue declaring
WinFX as the primary Longhorn API, then I have to start thinking porting our
projects to .NET. And that is a real disaster (performance wise).

First, MS gets slapped because "Java is the thing of the future". Then,
they get slapped because "they copy their competition". If the world
didn't want a VM API, MS wouldn't have made it. There are many things
that impossible or close to it to implement in a natively compiled
framework. And for the majority of apps, speed is not a killing issue,
so VMs work just fine.
I don't agree that "world wants a VM" at least people who know and respect
the technology.
A VM is a "fast port" tool, no more no less. Of course, fast porting
applications to different OSes means money but waht about quality and
performance ?

He's out to make money for MS, he's out to promote his products. Brain
wash is what happens in tyrannical regimes.
Yeah, that's true...
Free Country, Freedom of Choice rings a bell. If they like it and love
it, let'm be. You don't have to work for MS; if you're correct in all
that you believe, join a competitor, fight against them following the
law (viruses prove nothing), and once again, if you're correct, the
world will come to you.
Hmm, I have nothing against Microsoft as a company. Actually I believe that
they have some of the brightest people in computer industry.
As I said before, I never aggreed with people who believe that linux is the
best OS or anything MS builds is crap.

Why'd you ask all these questions, then? Arrr... I got writer's cramp
for nothing :)
These are rhetoric questions, you know :)

--> By the way I'm not one of those stupid guys who use to call
Microsoft as M$. Me and all my colleagues use Microsoft development
tools since 1982 and we all know what exactly are JIT, VM and native
compiler.

I'd agree with you on that one. Your questions were all valid, and
you're obviously a knowledged developer. Your post is a good example of
non-profane, non-offensive tech discussion. Thanks Ted.


Thank you Wraith

Ted
Jul 21 '05 #21
>
You're right Cor, that means business for MS marketing people.
Unfortunately I'm one of those old-timers who learned that Computer is a
system that computes as fast as it can.


Ted

I can assure you that I was one of those.

However from the time that processors (and chipset) became every time
cheaper and became below the let say 5000 dollar I did not look anymore (in
general speaking) at speed of the program (For me is important efficiency,
what means for me good maintainable programs which process in a for the user
comfortable speed).

I was keeping track on the use of memory because that stayed a long time
expensive. Than from the time that the memory became as cheap as it is
already a while now, I found that absolute unimportant how many has to be
used as long as it is not at the top.

I find it crazy that I see that people are looking very much, how they can
prevent unboxing and boxing. I see here never in these newsgroups questions
what is the best way for efficient screenpainting. While that consumes
normally in a client system the most processing time.

Just my thought,

Cor
Jul 21 '05 #22
Ted,

Before you understand me wrong, I have the opinion that for the group you
mentioned a great deal of the applications have at the moment to be in C or
C++ or even lower. (Or needs engines using that to perform parts)

Therefore was this the only part that I answered.

Cor
Jul 21 '05 #23
"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
However from the time that processors (and chipset) became every time
cheaper and became below the let say 5000 dollar I did not look anymore
(in general speaking) at speed of the program (For me is important
efficiency, what means for me good maintainable programs which process in
a for the user comfortable speed).
You're right Cor.
Do you know what I cannot understand ? The fact that although every year
computers become faster, the software, including OS, becomes slower. Not
only because of .NET though.
I find it crazy that I see that people are looking very much, how they can
prevent unboxing and boxing. I see here never in these newsgroups
questions what is the best way for efficient screenpainting. While that
consumes normally in a client system the most processing time.


Say that again Cor, most developers seem ignoring that painting is the most
power consuming task.

Ted
Jul 21 '05 #24
"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Before you understand me wrong, I have the opinion that for the group you
mentioned a great deal of the applications have at the moment to be in C
or C++ or even lower. (Or needs engines using that to perform parts)


I know that Cor and agree with you.
The real problem is not with the language itself, but the underneath
technology, .JITed VM in .NET case. I'm sure you know what I mean by that.
Nothing beats a native compiled application in performance and resource
usage regardless the type of project. For example, even plain database
applications use sorting, charting, archiving, statistic analysis etc.

Ted
Jul 21 '05 #25
"Nick Malik [Microsoft]" <ni*******@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:yd********************@comcast.com...
The .Net framework DOES compile code into native op-codes. It is NOT an
interpreter.
I know that Nick, that doesn't make it a true compiler, at least an
optimized one.
You said that it "compiles" code into native op-codes. Can you tell me
what's the difference between .NET and native Win32 compiled code, in
machine processing cycles?
Do you want the answer to that? Thousand of times more processing cycles not
including the JIT delay.
That means performance loss.

While some operations run quicker in C++, including the initial load of
the app into memory, the fact is that .Net apps are not substantially
slower, when running, than C++ apps for most uses. Perhaps you have hit
on a situation that runs slower? Perhaps if you tell is a little more
about your app?


No need for something special to proove that. Just try to make some math, 3d
matrix transformation for example.
I bet you will see more than 5x slower times in managed code.

Regards

Ted
Jul 21 '05 #26
"Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu" <cp**@hower.org> wrote in message
news:Xn**************************@127.0.0.1...
Many others have posted good replies to your questions, but here is my
view and addresses directly
many of your questions.

http://www.codeproject.com/dotnet/WhyDotNET.asp


Chad,
thanks for the article, interesting. Anyway I disagree with many parts of
it, but that's not the point.
I know quite well what is good and what is really bad with .NET.

Give me back the performance of native compiled applications and I'll become
the "most happy MS fan" you ever met.

Regards

Ted
Jul 21 '05 #27

"Ted Nicols" <__****************@mail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
"Wraith Daquell" <WD******@gmail.com> wrote in message

First, MS gets slapped because "Java is the thing of the future". Then,
they get slapped because "they copy their competition". If the world
didn't want a VM API, MS wouldn't have made it. There are many things
that impossible or close to it to implement in a natively compiled
framework. And for the majority of apps, speed is not a killing issue,
so VMs work just fine.


I don't agree that "world wants a VM" at least people who know and respect
the technology.
A VM is a "fast port" tool, no more no less. Of course, fast porting
applications to different OSes means money but waht about quality and
performance ?


Even with the more money, exactly how much more money will we make? The
most current estimates place the Microsoft OS's at 89.9% according to
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp.

So, just how much money is going to come rolling in from 10.1% of the non-MS
users and at what cost? How much will you spend and how much will you gain?

We won;t even mention that there is no successful ports of the .Net platform
yet (one that includes all intrinsic controls shipped with .Net for
Windows). And, if you use a 3rd party .Net control on Windows.....you can
just forget cross-platform use!

This was another one of the marketing mantras that was as close to an
outright lie as you can get without crossing the line. Let's call it a
MAJOR deception.

Jim
Jul 21 '05 #28
>
I know that Cor and agree with you.
The real problem is not with the language itself, but the underneath
technology, .JITed VM in .NET case. I'm sure you know what I mean by that.
Nothing beats a native compiled application in performance and resource
usage regardless the type of project. For example, even plain database
applications use sorting, charting, archiving, statistic analysis etc.

Ted,

However, in my opinion beats whatever CLI using language every to native
written code when it becomes about larger applications. A CLI program can
easily reuse parts of programs, for what the human brain is not capable to
do. Therefore large (true) native programs needs a lot of power to reload or
whatever.

Therefore there is in my opinion not a 1 to 1 answer. There will always be
situations, which are very difficult to decide where to go to native code
and when to use CLI. The bias of the person will probably make the
decisions, however you cannot expect from a human that they are always
reasonable.

Again just my thought,

Cor


Jul 21 '05 #29
Hi Ted,
You are an avelange me friend:-)
You must realize that after Java was introduced, the whole context of
programing is sifted, the main reason for that is the JVM as you mention,
this gives us the programers the freedom to write a code and not worry if it
run on XP or Win95, or UNIX ect, this great think, is not with out a time
cost of the execution time.
Problems With Sun microsystems:
When Microsoft release the Visual Studio 6, did a really foolish thing and
include java in BUT the build there own libraries enstead of the standard
java ones, ex:
instead of Java.AWT you had to call Microsoft.Graphics, As you can imaging
the SUN took them to court and won !!(what a suprice!!).
So the build there own Virtual Machine and actually did a lot more after
that, NET doesn't only gives you portability in your code but you can chose
the lanquage (syntax) you preffer without the limitations of it since you
call the same libraries, AND what for me rise above the java at the moment
is that NOBODY knows! better the native windows libraries than microsoft so
it gives the ability to run kernel methods DirectX and over all you have all
your pc in your good hands to do what ever you pleased with it!.
TIME HOUND US ALL!!!!
The time seetback everybody thinks is minor cos the evolution of the
processing time the last 10 years grow very mucth and in the next 2 years
there will be no problem for the most demanding application.

Personally i come from a java backround and the last 2 yrs i work as a c#
developer and i grow to love (sort of) NET framework, you can really do many
stuff that will take a c++ user 500 lines of code to do in 50 line. I would
preffer Sun to had made that move intead of Microsoft , but i can blame them
cos Microsoft don't release to the comunity the code behind windows.
So Ted, i can say this, for sure NET is not a joke, is a useful tool that
unfortunatlly microsoft make it!!! and look like it will be around for qiute
some time.
Thx for the philosofical mod that you put me in to, and sorry about me
spelling, English is not me first laquage.
Regards Nassos Reyzidis

"Ted Nicols" <__****************@mail.com> wrote in message
news:e3**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
That's what I keep asking myself whenever develop in .NET. Is this a joke
a farse or just a bad dream?

.NET is slow, actually slow is just a polite word I can use in a
newsgroup.

.NET is just a VM and as one it works very slowly, before and after JIT. I
don't understand why some people insist that a VM can be compared with
native code. I really feel sick, whenever compare native C++ code against
the same code ported to C#. I don't know what is the performance loss with
databases or corporate solutions but my math/CAE functions run times
slower in .NET.

Managed code might be fast enough for enterprise apps, database front ends
or asp intranets. It probably looks fast to Java or VB developers but what
about real time applications?

What about CAD, CAE, CAM, scientific applications, utilities, math,
imaging, desktop publishing etc. What should developers who write such
applications must do ? Port them into UNIX ?

What happened to the rule i knew twenty years ago? "Next version of
anything should be at least faster and more stable than the previous one"

I have many questions for MS developers, although I'm sure nobody will
ever answer.

1. Is .NET just an approach to enterprise development?

2. Or another battle with Sun's Java

3. Or an MS conclusion that performance doesn't matter any more

4. If .NET was slow for WinFS, Office or Longhorn then why we have to
believe that is fast for our own applications?

5. If Microsoft want a new API why that must be based on VM technology?

6. Why MS call .NET a "safe" framework, safe from what? Safe from hackers,
I don't thin so, they can write anything they want in unmanaged code. Safe
from mem leaks, a garbage collector doesn't make good programmers or safe
applications. I still wonder what "safe" means.

7. Winforms1 will become obsolete because of WF2. WF2 will become obsolete
because of Avalon. Then why they introduced them? Just to have something
that hides Win32/GDI calls?

8. Longhorn drivers, kernel and anything "low-level" will be written in
native code. LH must run in 64bit processors too, so native code must be
natively compiled in 64bit API calls. That means Win32 will become Win64.
Why MS don't simply implement WinFX as an OO frontend to Win32/64 API,
leaving out the VM?

9. Mr Gates, why all that brain wash? You can fool some enterprise
programmers but not the rest of us who used to hand-optimise our code,
just to gain speed.

Finally, a single word question to all those bright scientists who work
for MS, Why ?

Please don't try to change my opinion, you cannot. By the way I'm not one
of those stupid guys who use to call Microsoft as M$. Me and all my
colleagues use Microsoft development tools since 1982 and we all know what
exactly are JIT, VM and native compiler.

I really like .NET/WinFX as a library and C# as a modern language, but I
feel sick with all that waste of processing power and lack of performance.

Regards

Ted Nicols

Jul 21 '05 #30
"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:O6**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
However, in my opinion beats whatever CLI using language every to native
written code when it becomes about larger applications. A CLI program can
easily reuse parts of programs, for what the human brain is not capable to
do. Therefore large (true) native programs needs a lot of power to reload
or whatever.
That's true Cor, if fast reloading program portions is necessary.
The real problem isn't with the loading performance though. It is the
managec code runtime performance which bothers me.
Therefore there is in my opinion not a 1 to 1 answer. There will always be
situations, which are very difficult to decide where to go to native code
and when to use CLI. The bias of the person will probably make the
decisions, however you cannot expect from a human that they are always
reasonable.


I have to agree with that. It is a big truth.

Ted
Jul 22 '05 #31
Hi Nassos,

I know what Java meant to all "high-level" developers, including Microsoft
people.
The problem with all those VM based languages is the fact that they
sacrifice performance in the temple of easy porting applications to
different architectures.
Performance-wise, Java was always one of the worst systems ever used before,
even on pure SUN systems I had the chance to use. I'm sure you know what I
mean, considering your Java experience. Now we have to fight with .NET
oddities.
One of the very first parts I liked in .NET was and still is, CO#. After
almost 25 years using CO/CO++ I still find it a difficult to use language
that has to be rewritten. CO# is something I'd like to have as a stand alone
optimized compiler, instead based on .NET framework.

Unfortunately I cannot call .NET not JAVA an evolution. What for example,
offered Java to computer technology ?
Nothing but just a new cross development environment, mostly suitable for
enterprise applications or educational purposes.
Ask any experienced developer to rewrite a Java application to a native
compiled language and I'm sure that the resulted applications will be tens
of times faster and smaller.
The time seetback everybody thinks is minor cos the evolution of the
processing time the last 10 years grow very mucth and in the next 2 years
there will be no problem for the most demanding application.
Then why after so many years, applications like Photoshop or ACAD are still
so slow on average machines ?
Because CPU power increases but coding quality decreases. Also, new
developers like finishing their project as fast they can, ignoring many
times what debugging really means.
The real world problem is that my clients, as an example, wan a fast
application today. What can I tell them ? "Please wait a few years, get new
advanced computers and this slow dog will run happy again?"
So Ted, i can say this, for sure NET is not a joke, is a useful tool that
unfortunatlly microsoft make it!!! and look like it will be around for
qiute some time.
..NET is definitely not a joke. It is managed code performance what I called
a joke. Don't forget that even Microsoft developers, cannot use it for
processing critical parts of Longhorn. As a result, LH will be written
almost entirely in unmanaged code. But Microsoft want from us to use managed
code for our own applications. That's what I don't understand.
Thx for the philosofical mod that you put me in to, and sorry about me
spelling, English is not me first laquage.


I thank you for your honest opinion and the nice talking.
BTW my English look much worst than yours, you know English isn't my native
language too.

Regards

Ted Nicols
Jul 22 '05 #32
If you want to keep working using .NET you could also consider using Managed
C++ perhaps... It should give you both the ability to get something as quick
as what you have done previously but still use some of the .NET capabilities
if needed.

You may want also to time more precisely (if not already done) to see why
your C# code behaves this way and if it could be enhanced...
I would suggest posting a specific question one by one to get some help.
Here it's a general discussion that will unlikely help... As a side note
..NET doesn't use a VM but compiles to native code. Yopu could likely even
see the machine code that is finally used and see how it is different from a
C++ counterpart to try to narrow down were the difference lies (for example
do you see that math operations are much slower ?)

--

Patrice

"Ted Nicols" <__****************@mail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:e3**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
That's what I keep asking myself whenever develop in .NET. Is this a joke a farse or just a bad dream?

.NET is slow, actually slow is just a polite word I can use in a newsgroup.
.NET is just a VM and as one it works very slowly, before and after JIT. I
don't understand why some people insist that a VM can be compared with
native code. I really feel sick, whenever compare native C++ code against
the same code ported to C#. I don't know what is the performance loss with
databases or corporate solutions but my math/CAE functions run times slower in .NET.

Managed code might be fast enough for enterprise apps, database front ends
or asp intranets. It probably looks fast to Java or VB developers but what
about real time applications?

What about CAD, CAE, CAM, scientific applications, utilities, math, imaging, desktop publishing etc. What should developers who write such applications
must do ? Port them into UNIX ?

What happened to the rule i knew twenty years ago? "Next version of anything should be at least faster and more stable than the previous one"

I have many questions for MS developers, although I'm sure nobody will ever answer.

1. Is .NET just an approach to enterprise development?

2. Or another battle with Sun's Java

3. Or an MS conclusion that performance doesn't matter any more

4. If .NET was slow for WinFS, Office or Longhorn then why we have to
believe that is fast for our own applications?

5. If Microsoft want a new API why that must be based on VM technology?

6. Why MS call .NET a "safe" framework, safe from what? Safe from hackers, I don't thin so, they can write anything they want in unmanaged code. Safe
from mem leaks, a garbage collector doesn't make good programmers or safe
applications. I still wonder what "safe" means.

7. Winforms1 will become obsolete because of WF2. WF2 will become obsolete
because of Avalon. Then why they introduced them? Just to have something
that hides Win32/GDI calls?

8. Longhorn drivers, kernel and anything "low-level" will be written in
native code. LH must run in 64bit processors too, so native code must be
natively compiled in 64bit API calls. That means Win32 will become Win64.
Why MS don't simply implement WinFX as an OO frontend to Win32/64 API,
leaving out the VM?

9. Mr Gates, why all that brain wash? You can fool some enterprise
programmers but not the rest of us who used to hand-optimise our code, just to gain speed.

Finally, a single word question to all those bright scientists who work for MS, Why ?

Please don't try to change my opinion, you cannot. By the way I'm not one of those stupid guys who use to call Microsoft as M$. Me and all my colleagues use Microsoft development tools since 1982 and we all know what exactly are JIT, VM and native compiler.

I really like .NET/WinFX as a library and C# as a modern language, but I
feel sick with all that waste of processing power and lack of performance.

Regards

Ted Nicols

Jul 22 '05 #33
> Because CPU power increases but coding quality decreases. Also, new
developers like finishing their project as fast they can, ignoring many
times what debugging really means.
The real world problem is that my clients, as an example, wan a fast
application today. What can I tell them ? "Please wait a few years, get
new advanced computers and this slow dog will run happy again?"


Ted, i could not agree more with you, but coding quality decreases, cos many
people are going in the busness for different reasons than before, me
personally start coding in mid 80's and at that time money from it was not
the issue, it was pure love and masochism!! personally i want it to "win"
this devil machine that came in to my life(Spectrum technology rules!!!lol),
now the industry produce a lot of money and many people sees this as an
opportunity to make a lot of cash!! I had a personal experience , i knew a
gay that was a truck driver, lost him for 3 years and found him again
owning a computer store and acting as he was a pc guru, How lame is that!.
I remember a time that when i achived something with my code, very easy to
do nowdays, i feld like the king of the world (still do!!), i don't care
about the money, but the thrill of setting a goal and achiving it .
I study Electronic engineering with computer sience, and one of my biggest
problem is that i can't merge this two, unless i write assembly and c++, So
managed code and Java, for sure get of your hands the absolute control of
the device, that for people like us is VERY bad, we where used to have
control of our machine and be more cerfull with our code (cos we didn't want
to have to destroy our "love" PC).
For the future i hope that we will be able to swift the industry (big
coorporations) from money makers to problem solvers (yes i kown Outopia) but
hope dies last!!!
Know if i don't want to get fired!! i sould stop imaging what it should be,
and write some quick and crappy code.
Cheers Men it was a plasure talking to you!
Jul 22 '05 #34
"Ted Nicols" <__****************@mail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
"Nick Malik [Microsoft]" <ni*******@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:yd********************@comcast.com...
The .Net framework DOES compile code into native op-codes. It is NOT an
interpreter.
I know that Nick, that doesn't make it a true compiler,


As opposed to a "fake" compiler?
at least an optimized one.
It is better optimized than many compilers in the past, perhaps not as
optimized as C++ in VS6. It is still an optimized compiler.
You said that it "compiles" code into native op-codes. Can you tell me
what's the difference between .NET and native Win32 compiled code, in
machine processing cycles?
Not without more research, no.
Do you want the answer to that? Thousand of times more processing cycles
not including the JIT delay.
I'd like to know where you get your numbers. Independent analysis, please.
That means performance loss.
If your statements are truly representative of a typical processing app, I
will accept them. There are a wide variety of benchmarks. Pick one.

While some operations run quicker in C++, including the initial load of
the app into memory, the fact is that .Net apps are not substantially
slower, when running, than C++ apps for most uses. Perhaps you have hit
on a situation that runs slower? Perhaps if you tell is a little more
about your app?


No need for something special to proove that. Just try to make some math,
3d matrix transformation for example.
I bet you will see more than 5x slower times in managed code.


You have laid the charges, Ted. I ask you to provide evidence. I will not
prove your point for you.

I do not believe that you will see a 5x speed loss. I do believe that you
may see a 1.5x speed loss. Matrix calculation is not the primary goal of C#
or .net languages, but they don't stink at it.
--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--
Jul 22 '05 #35
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 20:36:28 +0300, "Ted Nicols"
<__****************@mail.com> wrote:

<drivel snipped>

Please don't feed the trolls.

Oz
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Jul 22 '05 #36
"Nick Malik [Microsoft]" <ni*******@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jq********************@comcast.com...
I know that Nick, that doesn't make it a true compiler, As opposed to a "fake" compiler?


No Nick, as opposed to a native multipass optimized compiler.
It is better optimized than many compilers in the past, perhaps not as
optimized as C++ in VS6. It is still an optimized compiler.
Absolutely disagree with that. Resulted executable machine code is no near
to C++ generated code in efficiency.
Do you want the answer to that? Thousand of times more processing cycles
not including the JIT delay.


I'd like to know where you get your numbers. Independent analysis,
please.


Nick, after 25 years working on research & development plus two degrees in
computer science and h/w architecture I don't need an "independed" analysis
to prove something that is obvious. At least I can prove it to myself.
You don't need them too. Just code some complex math in both languages and
compare their machine language map. Not such a difficult test.
If you simply want to check the code efficiency, just use a timer, the
difference will be more than noticeable :)
You have laid the charges, Ted. I ask you to provide evidence. I will
not prove your point for you.


Didn't asked that Nick. It is my honest opinion based on my own observations
after months of porting portions of our code to .NET.
As already said, I really like C# and .NET classes lib, actually that is the
primary reason I'd like to port my company's projects to this framework. I'm
not that kind of developer who dislike anything new and evolutionary. It's
the performance loss that bothers me.
..NET may be more than fast enough for many tasks, like regular desktop,
client server and web applications. Unfortunately I cannot say the same for
applications like automation, real time acquisition and analysis and other
engineering tasks.

Of course, it's too early for a verdict. .NET/WinFX is far from been a
finished product so we all have to give Microsoft a little time to polish
its rough edges.

Regards

Ted Nicols
Jul 22 '05 #37
"ozbear" <oz****@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:42c08275.1040710609@news-server...
Please don't feed the trolls.


Honestly, that is not my intention.

Ted
Jul 22 '05 #38
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@newsgroups.com> wrote in
news:u_********************@giganews.com:
The only thing that's missing is a RAD tool for Linux that's as easy
as VB.


Uh, you mean like Kylix which has been out for many years now?

--
Chad Z. Hower (a.k.a. Kudzu) - http://www.hower.org/Kudzu/
"Programming is an art form that fights back"

Develop ASP.NET applications easier and in less time:
http://www.atozed.com/IntraWeb/
Jul 22 '05 #39
"Ted Nicols" <__****************@mail.com> wrote in
news:ey**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl:
Give me back the performance of native compiled applications and I'll
become the "most happy MS fan" you ever met.


Thats not going to happen. :)

IMO its way overdue that we should begin focusing on code SAFETY. .NET forces overrun checking,
etc.. things that most native compiler developers turn off.

What WILL happen is improved performance and faster CPU's. And to be honest - Given nearly
every program on my sysetm (Outlook, whatever..) I'd gladly trade a bit of performance for less
crashing and less data loss.
--
Chad Z. Hower (a.k.a. Kudzu) - http://www.hower.org/Kudzu/
"Programming is an art form that fights back"

Empower ASP.NET with IntraWeb
http://www.atozed.com/IntraWeb/
Jul 22 '05 #40
"Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu" <cp**@hower.org> wrote in message
news:Xn**************************@127.0.0.1...
Thats not going to happen. :)
That's exactly what I'm afraid...
IMO its way overdue that we should begin focusing on code SAFETY. .NET
forces overrun checking,
etc.. things that most native compiler developers turn off.
Hmm, I prefer well coded, optimized and debuged programs than a secure
environment that does those things.
If today's software developers ignore what coding quality really means, then
what will happen with future "point & clickers" :)

What WILL happen is improved performance and faster CPU's. And to be
honest - Given nearly
every program on my sysetm (Outlook, whatever..) I'd gladly trade a bit of
performance for less
crashing and less data loss.


You're right on that, Chad.

Ted
Jul 22 '05 #41

"Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu" <cp**@hower.org> wrote in message
news:Xn**************************@127.0.0.1...
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@newsgroups.com> wrote in
news:u_********************@giganews.com:
The only thing that's missing is a RAD tool for Linux that's as easy
as VB.


Uh, you mean like Kylix which has been out for many years now?


Uh, no.....I mean something that is actually supported......something with
continuing revisions.

If you look at when Kylix 3 was released
(http://www.borland.com/resources/en/...and_kylix3.pdf
is the closest I could get on their site - OCTOBER 2002!) it seems that
development has stopped.

I called Borland today and the sales rep said that she didn't know (and
couldn't find) when Kylix 3 was released. She said that she hasn't heard
anything about Kylix development or whether Borland is continuing Kylix
development at all.

Kylix is dead, and that's too bad.

Jim
Jul 22 '05 #42
I had high hopes for kylix but alas Borland seems to be letting it
whither on the vine. I sincerely hope they go back to it and better yet
move C++ builder to linux.

I'm still try to justify doing anything with .net because frankly I dont
see much of an improvement for the developer and a huge runtime dependency.
Jul 22 '05 #43
The thing that is really bad is the VM isnt shared so as more apps are
written in .net, each of them is going to load its own VM. This is
going to blow your memory up pretty quickly.
Jul 22 '05 #44
garbage collection just trades one problem for another. while you get
memory managed for "free", you lose deterministic destruction and easy
managing of native resources like GDI handles, file handles, etc. I
guess the "using" hack helps this in C# and .net 2.0 looks like it may
give C++ determinstic destruction?

With shared pointers, smart pointers, stack based and copyable objects,
I dont have to do very much memory management in native c++ anyhow so
what am I really getting from .net?
Jul 22 '05 #45
Why would you have to "justify" doing something with .NET ?

If you have no use for .NET just don't use it and pick what your prefer.
It's as simple as that...

Patrice

--

"Mike Margerum" <mi**@junk.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
I had high hopes for kylix but alas Borland seems to be letting it
whither on the vine. I sincerely hope they go back to it and better yet
move C++ builder to linux.

I'm still try to justify doing anything with .net because frankly I dont
see much of an improvement for the developer and a huge runtime

dependency.
Jul 22 '05 #46
Hi,
Some of dotNet MVPs and MS engineers are not honest here. My own
observations show that dotNet decreases non-web software quality a lot in
performance and consuming resources. Particularly, dotNet remoting is bad,
and should be ditched and re-written with more careful consideration! dotNet
serialization is bad!! dotNet is 5 years old now, but there is no
outstanding (core) application like IE6, MS Office, SQL server and IIS
written from dotNet in this world to prove it yet!!! dotNet MVPs and MS
engineers don't treat us like an idiot. It would be better to both MS and
us!

On the surface, dotNet is super, but it is not so nice internally to
use except web development. At this point, dotNet is very good with web
development only.
"Ted Nicols" <__****************@mail.com> wrote in message
news:em**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
"Nick Malik [Microsoft]" <ni*******@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jq********************@comcast.com...
I know that Nick, that doesn't make it a true compiler,

As opposed to a "fake" compiler?


No Nick, as opposed to a native multipass optimized compiler.
It is better optimized than many compilers in the past, perhaps not as
optimized as C++ in VS6. It is still an optimized compiler.


Absolutely disagree with that. Resulted executable machine code is no near
to C++ generated code in efficiency.
Do you want the answer to that? Thousand of times more processing cycles
not including the JIT delay.


I'd like to know where you get your numbers. Independent analysis,
please.


Nick, after 25 years working on research & development plus two degrees in
computer science and h/w architecture I don't need an "independed"
analysis to prove something that is obvious. At least I can prove it to
myself.
You don't need them too. Just code some complex math in both languages and
compare their machine language map. Not such a difficult test.
If you simply want to check the code efficiency, just use a timer, the
difference will be more than noticeable :)
You have laid the charges, Ted. I ask you to provide evidence. I will
not prove your point for you.


Didn't asked that Nick. It is my honest opinion based on my own
observations after months of porting portions of our code to .NET.
As already said, I really like C# and .NET classes lib, actually that is
the primary reason I'd like to port my company's projects to this
framework. I'm not that kind of developer who dislike anything new and
evolutionary. It's the performance loss that bothers me.
.NET may be more than fast enough for many tasks, like regular desktop,
client server and web applications. Unfortunately I cannot say the same
for applications like automation, real time acquisition and analysis and
other engineering tasks.

Of course, it's too early for a verdict. .NET/WinFX is far from been a
finished product so we all have to give Microsoft a little time to polish
its rough edges.

Regards

Ted Nicols

Jul 22 '05 #47
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:02:49 +0300, Ted Nicols wrote:
Hmm, I prefer well coded, optimized and debuged programs than a secure
environment that does those things.


How much more does it cost in programmer time -- including training time,
development time, debugging time -- to come up with "well coded, optimized
and debugged programs" that were written from the ground up?

You think the business world is going to wait around for a million Ted
Nicols to be educated and trained?

Enabling lesser programmers to build the apps that business wants, is a
SMART MOVE. Programmer time is WAY more expensive than CPU time.
Jul 22 '05 #48
Ross,
Enabling lesser programmers to build the apps that business wants, is a
SMART MOVE. Programmer time is WAY more expensive than CPU time.


Sometimes programs are for computers where peoples lives are in involved.
Although I agree with your general statement, has Ted not told his whys in a
general way, moreover he has denied that.

In my opinion is the live of a human more important than the time of the
programmer.

However you may disagree with me, it is just my opinion,

Cor
Jul 22 '05 #49
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:59:40 +0200, Cor Ligthert wrote:
Ross,
Enabling lesser programmers to build the apps that business wants, is a
SMART MOVE. Programmer time is WAY more expensive than CPU time.


Sometimes programs are for computers where peoples lives are in involved.
Although I agree with your general statement, has Ted not told his whys in a
general way, moreover he has denied that.

In my opinion is the live of a human more important than the time of the
programmer.

However you may disagree with me, it is just my opinion,


Oh, certainly I agree. .NET, and Java, and virtual machines in general,
are NOT for all situations. But bringing them into the mix to widen the
pool of programmers was a great idea, just like FORTRAN was a great idea
since it allowed programmers to write programs that had a measure of
portability.
Jul 22 '05 #50

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.