By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
446,231 Members | 1,636 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 446,231 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Why no serious MS Application in .NET yet ??

P: n/a
As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention will be
the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is 2005,
..NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help of his
mum.
However, we see the same native office applications are coming out again,
and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but are
not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use "DOTNET"
in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to run
like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
themselves?


Nov 22 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
146 Replies


P: n/a

"Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%2******************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention will
be
the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is 2005,
.NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help of
his
mum.
The first public release of .NET was in 2/02. That makes .NET 3 years old,
not 5.
However, we see the same native office applications are coming out again,
and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but
are
not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use
"DOTNET"
in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to
run
like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
themselves?


I can't speak about babies, but my guess is that you won't see widespread
applications written in .NET until the .NET Framework is "baked in" to the
OS itself (Longhorn). Right now, the .NET Framework is only installed if
WinXP is updated with SP's or if the user manually added it themselves.
Nov 22 '05 #2

P: n/a
It is certainly possible to include the .NET runtime with an install. Even
after Longhorn is released it will be a long time before XP and W2K (or for
that matter, ME or 98) go away. Certainly as the number and maturity of
"baked in" managed interfaces increases, it will become easier to write and
distribute large commercial applications in .NET, but it is nevertheless
feasible today.

I would say that a much more significant reason is simply that the cost of
completely rewriting the entire codebase of a massive product like Office is
probably way too much to overcome even the benefits of .NET. What is
already starting to happen is that interfacing .NET applications to Office
is being supported via Primary Interop Assemblies. In future releases, I'd
expect managed interfaces to Office functionality will be "baked in" to
Office, and at that point, parts of Office (especially new ones) will begin
to be written as managed code. At some point, a few years down the road
when a complete rework is indicated for business reasons, I suspect that
individual office apps will one by one be rewritten mostly in managed code,
probably a combination of managed C++ and C#. And I suspect there will
always be a smattering of assembler hiding in there.

Microsoft is certainly willing to eat its own dog food, but you must never
forget that it takes time for the marketplace to absorb any new technology,
no matter how motivated people are and how good the technology may be.

--Bob

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:e8**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

I can't speak about babies, but my guess is that you won't see widespread
applications written in .NET until the .NET Framework is "baked in" to the
OS itself (Longhorn). Right now, the .NET Framework is only installed if
WinXP is updated with SP's or if the user manually added it themselves.

Nov 22 '05 #3

P: n/a
>So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft >itself use "DOTNET" in
its applications? valid question. At this point, I don't know the answer to that question.

--
Regards
Alvin Bruney
[Shameless Author Plug]
The Microsoft Office Web Components Black Book with .NET
available at www.lulu.com/owc
--------------------------------------------------
"Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%2******************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention will
be
the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is 2005,
.NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help of
his
mum.
However, we see the same native office applications are coming out again,
and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but
are
not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use
"DOTNET"
in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to
run
like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
themselves?


Nov 22 '05 #4

P: n/a
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:01:53 +0330, "Herr Lucifer"
<"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> wrote:
So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use "DOTNET"
in its applications?


It does!

Microsoft CRM
BizTalk 2004
Sharepoint

Julian

Nov 22 '05 #5

P: n/a
Herr Lucifer wrote:
As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention
will be the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now
it is 2005, .NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself
with some help of his mum.
However, we see the same native office applications are coming out
again, and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed
code....but are not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't
Microsoft itself use "DOTNET" in its applications? Is there any
concern over the baby's runnung performance inside Microsoft itself,
or they gonna teach the baby how to run like a C kinda guy in future,
so that they'll be able to use it for themselves?


Don't forget that .NET is mainly about writing *custom* business
applications, just like J2EE. By definition, that's exactly the type of
software you cannot simply buy from Microsoft ;-)

I also wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a managed code version
Office or any other established MS product. There's simply no business
case for that.

Cheers,
--
http://www.joergjooss.de
mailto:ne********@joergjooss.de
Nov 22 '05 #6

P: n/a
The .NET is great, but it needs a lot of work to replace the windows api.
Before asking that Office is written in .NET, the ListBox should be written
in .NET!

regards
Alejandro Lapeyre

"Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:%2******************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention will
be
the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is 2005,
.NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help of
his
mum.
However, we see the same native office applications are coming out again,
and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but
are
not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use
"DOTNET"
in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to
run
like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
themselves?


Nov 22 '05 #7

P: n/a
Applications apart from Content Management Server and most of BizTalk 2004?

Where is the business case for completely destabilizing the Office codebase with a total rewrite?

And as others have stated - .NET's been released for 3 years not 5.

Regards

Richard Blewett - DevelopMentor
http://www.dotnetconsult.co.uk/weblog
http://www.dotnetconsult.co.uk

As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention will be
the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is 2005,
.NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help of his
mum.
However, we see the same native office applications are coming out again,
and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but are
not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use "DOTNET"
in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to run
like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
themselves?
Nov 22 '05 #8

P: n/a
Lucifer,

I think that it will only be interesting for Microsoft to renew there older
success applications for Net ones, when other operating system builders have
full and correct implemented .Net.

Than they can sell there applications as well for that. Although I cannot
see even from that any economical benefit for them at the moment.

This changes of course when .Net they will implement in the OS in the same
way as IE was done in past. However, probably you know the law problems that
has given, because of the rumours their concurrent made, so I assume they
have to think twice.

Just my thought,

Cor
Nov 22 '05 #9

P: n/a

"alejandro lapeyre" <al**************@jotmail.com> wrote
The .NET is great, but it needs a lot of work to replace the windows api.
Before asking that Office is written in .NET, the ListBox should be
written in .NET!


Replace the API? You're kidding! Dot Net doesn't really do anything on its
own. It only calls the unmanegd APIs (built in Win32) from a managed
environment. Take a look inside the framework yourslef to see what is really
there.
Download and use this disassembler: (Reflector)
"http://www.aisto.com/roeder/dotnet"
Nov 22 '05 #10

P: n/a
That is why I said there is a lot of work to do.
there is nothing done yet.

regards,
Alejandro Lapeyre

"Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:O5**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

"alejandro lapeyre" <al**************@jotmail.com> wrote
The .NET is great, but it needs a lot of work to replace the windows api.
Before asking that Office is written in .NET, the ListBox should be
written in .NET!


Replace the API? You're kidding! Dot Net doesn't really do anything on its
own. It only calls the unmanegd APIs (built in Win32) from a managed
environment. Take a look inside the framework yourslef to see what is
really there.
Download and use this disassembler: (Reflector)
"http://www.aisto.com/roeder/dotnet"

Nov 22 '05 #11

P: n/a
That is why I said there is a lot of work to do.
There is (almost) nothing done yet.

I know Lutz Reflector and i am not kidding.

regards,
Alejandro Lapeyre

"Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:O5**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

"alejandro lapeyre" <al**************@jotmail.com> wrote
The .NET is great, but it needs a lot of work to replace the windows api.
Before asking that Office is written in .NET, the ListBox should be
written in .NET!


Replace the API? You're kidding! Dot Net doesn't really do anything on its
own. It only calls the unmanegd APIs (built in Win32) from a managed
environment. Take a look inside the framework yourslef to see what is
really there.
Download and use this disassembler: (Reflector)
"http://www.aisto.com/roeder/dotnet"

Nov 22 '05 #12

P: n/a
When the next version of SQL Server comes out, it will have an internal CLR.
That is a pretty serious application utilizing .NET. As far as office goes,
or Windows, it will take some time, as .NET radically changes things. I
would expect MS apps around the Longhorn release and not before (maybe even
after).

There are, however, third party apps with .NET. Look at Sony, who has
released versions of its premiere video editing suite in .NET.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SD, SE, DBA

*************************************************
Think outside the box!
*************************************************
"Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:#c**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention will be the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is 2005,
.NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help of his mum.
However, we see the same native office applications are coming out again,
and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but are not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use "DOTNET" in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to run like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
themselves?


Nov 22 '05 #13

P: n/a
Joe
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 12:53:46 +0100, "Cor Ligthert"
<no************@planet.nl> wrote:
This changes of course when .Net they will implement in the OS in the same
way as IE was done in past. However, probably you know the law problems that
has given, because of the rumours their concurrent made, so I assume they
have to think twice.


And even then, considering that most willing users dropped from the
upgrade cycle with Office95*, what killer features could Microsoft
come up with in their Office product that would justify rewriting this
huge piece of software with the .Net API?

There's just no economic value in rewriting what works now. Instead,
with time, they'll probably use .Net to write new products, and
add-ons to existing products, as .Net becomes a standard component of
Windows.

Joe.

* by far, those using more recent versions do it not because they went
out and bought the upgrades, but simply because the latest version
comes preinstalled on new computers
Nov 22 '05 #14

P: n/a
Does that mean that *new products (ex Internet Explorer 7) would be partial
or fully .NET?

--
Regards
Alvin Bruney
[Shameless Author Plug]
The Microsoft Office Web Components Black Book with .NET
available at www.lulu.com/owc
--------------------------------------------------
"Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <No*************@comcast.netNoSpamM> wrote in
message news:Of**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
When the next version of SQL Server comes out, it will have an internal
CLR.
That is a pretty serious application utilizing .NET. As far as office
goes,
or Windows, it will take some time, as .NET radically changes things. I
would expect MS apps around the Longhorn release and not before (maybe
even
after).

There are, however, third party apps with .NET. Look at Sony, who has
released versions of its premiere video editing suite in .NET.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SD, SE, DBA

*************************************************
Think outside the box!
*************************************************
"Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:#c**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention will

be
the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is 2005,
.NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help of

his
mum.
However, we see the same native office applications are coming out again,
and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but

are
not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use

"DOTNET"
in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to

run
like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
themselves?



Nov 22 '05 #15

P: n/a
The Avalon is partially in .NET ( I mean the one in XP freestyle Longhorn),
hence it is too slow. That's the main issue i think. Things are gonna slow
down when come from c++ into .NET . However, i think the future graphic
cards driver might solve that GDI+ problem.

"Alvin Bruney [Microsoft MVP]" <www.lulu.com/owc> wrote in message
news:Ot**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Does that mean that *new products (ex Internet Explorer 7) would be
partial or fully .NET?

--
Regards
Alvin Bruney
[Shameless Author Plug]
The Microsoft Office Web Components Black Book with .NET
available at www.lulu.com/owc
--------------------------------------------------
"Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <No*************@comcast.netNoSpamM> wrote in
message news:Of**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
When the next version of SQL Server comes out, it will have an internal
CLR.
That is a pretty serious application utilizing .NET. As far as office
goes,
or Windows, it will take some time, as .NET radically changes things. I
would expect MS apps around the Longhorn release and not before (maybe
even
after).

There are, however, third party apps with .NET. Look at Sony, who has
released versions of its premiere video editing suite in .NET.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SD, SE, DBA

*************************************************
Think outside the box!
*************************************************
"Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:#c**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention
will

be
the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is 2005,
.NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help of

his
mum.
However, we see the same native office applications are coming out
again,
and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but

are
not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use

"DOTNET"
in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to

run
like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
themselves?




Nov 22 '05 #16

P: n/a
Web Matrix, BizTalk, MS Small Business Accounting (SBA), SQL CLR support,
ASP.Net in IIS 7.0, probably others. I think SBA is the first all managed
Office app. So we might expect new apps (not all) to be written in managed
code and legacy apps not ported unless there is some good reason. ASP.Net
is a good example of a good reason. There where so many new features and
model changes (i.e. xml config, drop metabase, rework to plugable
components, full managed api, etc) that they could justify rewritting from
scratch in c#. Can you imagine the work to port something like Word and
Excel to C#?

--
William Stacey, MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com

"Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:#c**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention will be the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is 2005,
.NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help of his mum.
However, we see the same native office applications are coming out again,
and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but are not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use "DOTNET" in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to run like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
themselves?



Nov 22 '05 #17

P: n/a
I have a rant about this kind of complaint:
http://codingsanity.blogspot.com/200...about-net.html

"Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%2******************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention will
be
the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is 2005,
.NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help of
his
mum.
However, we see the same native office applications are coming out again,
and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but
are
not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use
"DOTNET"
in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to
run
like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
themselves?

Nov 22 '05 #18

P: n/a
Herr Lucifer wrote:
As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention will
be the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is
2005, .NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some
help of his mum.
However, we see the same native office applications are coming out again,
and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but
are not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use
"DOTNET" in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to
run like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
themselves?


Like most primitives, you think an application is a desktop application.

That is too far from the truth.

You know what the most used application today is?

Yahoo!

Yes, Yahoo!

It's the most used, most useful and most loved /application/ on earth.

It just happens to run on a server, with lightweight client called a
browser.

That is what .Net is used for...building web apps...and there are millions
of them.

Also. .Net and J2EE are used for SOA -- service oriented architecture. The
application is the totality of the useful services, applets, web services
and web applications build with these tools.

That is what an /application/ is in 2005.

So if you're looking for a spreadsheet -- get a time machine and head on
back to 1985.
Nov 22 '05 #19

P: n/a

"Richard Blewett [DevelopMentor]" <ri******@NOSPAMdevelop.com> wrote in
message news:eL*************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Applications apart from Content Management Server and most of BizTalk
2004?

Where is the business case for completely destabilizing the Office
codebase with a total rewrite?

And as others have stated - .NET's been released for 3 years not 5.

Regards

Richard Blewett - DevelopMentor
http://www.dotnetconsult.co.uk/weblog
http://www.dotnetconsult.co.uk

As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention
will be
the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is 2005,
.NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help of
his
mum.
However, we see the same native office applications are coming out again,
and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but
are
not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use
"DOTNET"
in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to
run
like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
themselves?


Would you know if the app your running is a dotnet app?

What do you consider "Serious"?
Nov 22 '05 #20

P: n/a
Well, If it takes ages to load, then it is one!(kidding)
Ok: simply Use "Dependency Walker" which comes with VS 6 and VS 2003.

By Serious I mean sth like office. Sth that would be sold to customers.

"DHOLLINGSWORTH2" <DH*************@cox.net> wrote in message
news:LqeUd.18615$yr.13621@okepread05...

"Richard Blewett [DevelopMentor]" <ri******@NOSPAMdevelop.com> wrote in
message news:eL*************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Applications apart from Content Management Server and most of BizTalk
2004?

Where is the business case for completely destabilizing the Office
codebase with a total rewrite?

And as others have stated - .NET's been released for 3 years not 5.

Regards

Richard Blewett - DevelopMentor
http://www.dotnetconsult.co.uk/weblog
http://www.dotnetconsult.co.uk

As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention
will be
the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is 2005,
.NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help of
his
mum.
However, we see the same native office applications are coming out again,
and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but
are
not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use
"DOTNET"
in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to
run
like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
themselves?


Would you know if the app your running is a dotnet app?

What do you consider "Serious"?

Nov 22 '05 #21

P: n/a

So far, Bob's response sounds like the most correct response. Cost is also
the reason whey we have only just now begun to migrate our commercial apps to
..NET. We have a huge investment in COM and replacing that overnight is not
feasible, or warranted.

Markus
"Bob Grommes" wrote:
It is certainly possible to include the .NET runtime with an install. Even
after Longhorn is released it will be a long time before XP and W2K (or for
that matter, ME or 98) go away. Certainly as the number and maturity of
"baked in" managed interfaces increases, it will become easier to write and
distribute large commercial applications in .NET, but it is nevertheless
feasible today.

I would say that a much more significant reason is simply that the cost of
completely rewriting the entire codebase of a massive product like Office is
probably way too much to overcome even the benefits of .NET. What is
already starting to happen is that interfacing .NET applications to Office
is being supported via Primary Interop Assemblies. In future releases, I'd
expect managed interfaces to Office functionality will be "baked in" to
Office, and at that point, parts of Office (especially new ones) will begin
to be written as managed code. At some point, a few years down the road
when a complete rework is indicated for business reasons, I suspect that
individual office apps will one by one be rewritten mostly in managed code,
probably a combination of managed C++ and C#. And I suspect there will
always be a smattering of assembler hiding in there.

Microsoft is certainly willing to eat its own dog food, but you must never
forget that it takes time for the marketplace to absorb any new technology,
no matter how motivated people are and how good the technology may be.

--Bob

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:e8**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

I can't speak about babies, but my guess is that you won't see widespread
applications written in .NET until the .NET Framework is "baked in" to the
OS itself (Longhorn). Right now, the .NET Framework is only installed if
WinXP is updated with SP's or if the user manually added it themselves.


Nov 22 '05 #22

P: n/a
Hello together,

alls what I say to this topic is: look at Windows SharePoint Services and
SharePoint Portal Server. These products are full ASP.NET (based on .NetFX
1.1) applications. Look at the Reporting Services for SQL Server 2000 and
last but not least at BizTalk Server 2004! Look the up coming SQL Server
2005, the new Windows Longhorn Shell (Codename MSH) and the Avalon CTP 2004
(for free download from the MS Public Server) based on .NetFX 2.0.

I think, this are a good starting point for .NetFX enabled applications!

"Herr Lucifer" <"\n" wrote:
As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention will be
the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is 2005,
..NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help of his
mum.
However, we see the same native office applications are coming out again,
and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but are
not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use "DOTNET"
in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to run
like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
themselves?


Nov 22 '05 #23

P: n/a
http://blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/archi...02/251254.aspx

If you are talking about re-writing office in managed code, I guess that
will be a few decades away.

--
Junfeng Zhang
http://blogs.msdn.com/junfeng

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

"Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%2******************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention will
be
the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is 2005,
.NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help of
his
mum.
However, we see the same native office applications are coming out again,
and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but
are
not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use
"DOTNET"
in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to
run
like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
themselves?


Nov 22 '05 #24

P: n/a
Junfeng,

If you are talking about re-writing office in managed code, I guess that
will be a few decades away.


You are a real optimist, you believe it stays so long.

Or should we say pessimist because that you think progress will stop.

:-)

Cor
Nov 22 '05 #25

P: n/a
phew, good blog. pure poison. bitter stuff.

now, i am totally confused. i'm just not buying these .net arguments at all.
even the "there's no business case for re-writing components in .NET". Well
wouldn't rewriting some core products improve
visibility/marketability/consensus on .net? hmmm, strange. real strange.

--
Regards
Alvin Bruney
[Shameless Author Plug]
The Microsoft Office Web Components Black Book with .NET
available at www.lulu.com/owc
--------------------------------------------------
"Junfeng Zhang[MSFT]" <ju*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
http://blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/archi...02/251254.aspx

If you are talking about re-writing office in managed code, I guess that
will be a few decades away.

--
Junfeng Zhang
http://blogs.msdn.com/junfeng

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.

"Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%2******************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention will
be
the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is 2005,
.NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help of
his
mum.
However, we see the same native office applications are coming out again,
and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but
are
not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use
"DOTNET"
in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to
run
like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
themselves?



Nov 22 '05 #26

P: n/a

Based on experience -- it takes time to do migrations. We have a fairly
simple web-based app and it has been 2+ years and we're still in progress of
migrating it into .NET. Why, because of scope and resource availability.

Now, granted that MS is has a lot of resource/money but also consider the
exponential complexity as compared of doing a straightforward conversion for
a simple app. Lastly, with such a big company -- what would make sense to
migrate first into a new platform?

Finally, not in defense of MS but the argument above are purely realities in
every business and it takes more than technical know-how to complete such
endeavor.
"Herr Lucifer" <"\n" wrote:
As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention will be
the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is 2005,
..NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help of his
mum.
However, we see the same native office applications are coming out again,
and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but are
not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use "DOTNET"
in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to run
like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
themselves?


Nov 22 '05 #27

P: n/a
not sure. Take Word for example. It is not just port-ship-done. You have
a year or two of testing after the year or so of porting (or what every it
takes). Probably well over 50 million to port it. So then the question is
why? Not just the cost, but the opportunity cost of *not using those same
developers for three years on some new managed product. If you just port
one-for-one, then no reason I can see. It may make sense if you plan a
great deal of change to the product that would require a new code base
anyway (i.e. ASP.NET in IIS7). I think we are now seeing the start of the
flood of managed apps.

--
William Stacey, MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com

"Alvin Bruney [Microsoft MVP]" <www.lulu.com/owc> wrote in message
news:e0**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
phew, good blog. pure poison. bitter stuff.

now, i am totally confused. i'm just not buying these .net arguments at all. even the "there's no business case for re-writing components in .NET". Well wouldn't rewriting some core products improve
visibility/marketability/consensus on .net? hmmm, strange. real strange.

--
Regards
Alvin Bruney
[Shameless Author Plug]
The Microsoft Office Web Components Black Book with .NET
available at www.lulu.com/owc
--------------------------------------------------
"Junfeng Zhang[MSFT]" <ju*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
http://blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/archi...02/251254.aspx

If you are talking about re-writing office in managed code, I guess that
will be a few decades away.

--
Junfeng Zhang
http://blogs.msdn.com/junfeng

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.

"Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%2******************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention will be
the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is 2005, .NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help of his
mum.
However, we see the same native office applications are coming out again, and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but
are
not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use
"DOTNET"
in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to run
like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
themselves?





Nov 22 '05 #28

P: n/a
"Alvin Bruney [Microsoft MVP]" <www.lulu.com/owc> wrote in message
news:e0**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
phew, good blog. pure poison. bitter stuff.
Poison? Bitter? Are you talking about
http://blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/archi...2/251254.aspx? Cause I
didn't see any nastiness there. Merely a point by point refutation of the
assertion that Microsoft isn't writing stuff in .NET.
now, i am totally confused. i'm just not buying these .net arguments at
all. even the "there's no business case for re-writing components in
.NET".
Well wouldn't rewriting some core products improve
visibility/marketability/consensus on .net?
60% of MS revenue comes from Office, which at a total revenue of $38bn,
comes to $22.8bn. Have you ever heard the term "If it ain't broke don't fix
it". Especially when you're gambling with 22 billion dollars a year.

How much do you think just rewriting the Office Suite would cost? I figure
at an absolute minimum you're looking at about a thousand man years per
product in the suite, so around a half billion dollars.
hmmm, strange. real strange.
Not really. I don't think any company on earth would take such a massive
gamble. I personally think it's strange to expect MS to throw away billions
of dollars of existing investment and revenue, and spend billions more in
order to arrive where they already are. And if you think the Office division
should take orders from the .NET area, think again. Not going to happen.

Office will gradually migrate pieces of itself to .NET (as is already
happenning). To expect it to happen in some huge gigantic billion dollar
extravaganze is unrealistic however.
--
Regards
Alvin Bruney
[Shameless Author Plug]
The Microsoft Office Web Components Black Book with .NET
available at www.lulu.com/owc
--------------------------------------------------
"Junfeng Zhang[MSFT]" <ju*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
http://blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/archi...02/251254.aspx

If you are talking about re-writing office in managed code, I guess that
will be a few decades away.

--
Junfeng Zhang
http://blogs.msdn.com/junfeng

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.

"Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%2******************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention
will be
the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is 2005,
.NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help of
his
mum.
However, we see the same native office applications are coming out
again,
and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but
are
not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use
"DOTNET"
in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to
run
like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
themselves?




Nov 22 '05 #29

P: n/a
CMM
Um, besides arguing semantics (badly), you have a basic misunderstanding.
Sure, from the user's point-of-view Yahoo may be an application... but to the
computer the Browser itself is the application. And, that's what the poster
was talking about.

Also, just to add my 2c to your irrelevant post (by adding my own irrelevant
to the original poster post)... the web used as a platform for "applications"
has proven itself many times to be ill-equipped... as has Java... even in the
SOA context which you describe. For instance, this is why people are
scrambling to re-represent XML as binary (gasp!) all over the place.

Apparently, after following around the Java and markup language and script
kiddies dolts for years (as you seem to be), everyone has realized that it's
sheer idiocy to represent a 2 byte number as a 8+ bytes ascii character.

"application is the totality of the useful services, applets.....bla bla"
sounds a lot like the OLE, then COM and CORBA jive from 10 years ago which
never really panned out the way everyone pontificated. The web, SOA, and all
that jive will have its place but it will never (it seems) be able to replace
the true desktop solutions.

"Among Thieves" wrote:
Herr Lucifer wrote:
As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention will
be the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is
2005, .NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some
help of his mum.
However, we see the same native office applications are coming out again,
and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but
are not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use
"DOTNET" in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to
run like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
themselves?


Like most primitives, you think an application is a desktop application.

That is too far from the truth.

You know what the most used application today is?

Yahoo!

Yes, Yahoo!

It's the most used, most useful and most loved /application/ on earth.

It just happens to run on a server, with lightweight client called a
browser.

That is what .Net is used for...building web apps...and there are millions
of them.

Also. .Net and J2EE are used for SOA -- service oriented architecture. The
application is the totality of the useful services, applets, web services
and web applications build with these tools.

That is what an /application/ is in 2005.

So if you're looking for a spreadsheet -- get a time machine and head on
back to 1985.

Nov 22 '05 #30

P: n/a
CMM
I think that was the poster's point.

Back in 1996 MS was toying around with the idea of completely rewriting the
Win32 API and create a true object oriented OS (remember Cairo?). The .NET
Framework IS what Cairo was suppossed to be... minus the Win32 underlying
layer doing all the work though.

I strongly believe that for MS to remain competive in the long run they have
to strip out Win32 (and make it run as an on-the-side virtual machine for
compatibility) exactly the same way Apple did with MacOS. MS can keep the
Kernel (removing deprecated API's from it) but completely ditch Shell32 and
many of the other adjunct components completely. Unfortunately, MS has always
been hellbent on 110% backwards compatibility... which is why Windows suffers
from so many problems today. I mean, DDE is still there!!! (and some apps
including Windows Explorer still use it!!!!!).

"Herr Lucifer" <"\n" wrote:

"alejandro lapeyre" <al**************@jotmail.com> wrote
The .NET is great, but it needs a lot of work to replace the windows api.
Before asking that Office is written in .NET, the ListBox should be
written in .NET!


Replace the API? You're kidding! Dot Net doesn't really do anything on its
own. It only calls the unmanegd APIs (built in Win32) from a managed
environment. Take a look inside the framework yourslef to see what is really
there.
Download and use this disassembler: (Reflector)
"http://www.aisto.com/roeder/dotnet"

Nov 22 '05 #31

P: n/a
CMM
? > Where is the business case for completely destabilizing the Office
codebase with a total rewrite?

To remain competetive and shed the reputation that their software is
insecure because of its extra long teeth. Also to put to rest COM and its
super-slow (even on today's computers!) marshaling, instantiation, and memory
leaks.

Lotus asked the same question about rewriting their apps for Win16 and then
again for Win32 and where are they now?
"Richard Blewett [DevelopMentor]" wrote:
Applications apart from Content Management Server and most of BizTalk 2004?

Where is the business case for completely destabilizing the Office codebase with a total rewrite?

And as others have stated - .NET's been released for 3 years not 5.

Regards

Richard Blewett - DevelopMentor
http://www.dotnetconsult.co.uk/weblog
http://www.dotnetconsult.co.uk

As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention will be
the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is 2005,
.NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help of his
mum.
However, we see the same native office applications are coming out again,
and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but are
not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use "DOTNET"
in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to run
like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
themselves?

Nov 22 '05 #32

P: n/a
CMM
Perhaps you're right... but it just might behoove them to do a "gigantic"
rewrite.... MS is currently having their cake and eating it too and have
taken a serious beating in the reputation department. They can't keep
extolling the virtues of .NET while continuing development on the inherently
less-stable, less secure, Win32 / COM platform. It just doesn't make sense to
me.

"Sean Hederman" wrote:
"Alvin Bruney [Microsoft MVP]" <www.lulu.com/owc> wrote in message
news:e0**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
phew, good blog. pure poison. bitter stuff.


Poison? Bitter? Are you talking about
http://blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/archi...2/251254.aspx? Cause I
didn't see any nastiness there. Merely a point by point refutation of the
assertion that Microsoft isn't writing stuff in .NET.
now, i am totally confused. i'm just not buying these .net arguments at
all. even the "there's no business case for re-writing components in
.NET".
Well wouldn't rewriting some core products improve
visibility/marketability/consensus on .net?


60% of MS revenue comes from Office, which at a total revenue of $38bn,
comes to $22.8bn. Have you ever heard the term "If it ain't broke don't fix
it". Especially when you're gambling with 22 billion dollars a year.

How much do you think just rewriting the Office Suite would cost? I figure
at an absolute minimum you're looking at about a thousand man years per
product in the suite, so around a half billion dollars.
hmmm, strange. real strange.


Not really. I don't think any company on earth would take such a massive
gamble. I personally think it's strange to expect MS to throw away billions
of dollars of existing investment and revenue, and spend billions more in
order to arrive where they already are. And if you think the Office division
should take orders from the .NET area, think again. Not going to happen.

Office will gradually migrate pieces of itself to .NET (as is already
happenning). To expect it to happen in some huge gigantic billion dollar
extravaganze is unrealistic however.
--
Regards
Alvin Bruney
[Shameless Author Plug]
The Microsoft Office Web Components Black Book with .NET
available at www.lulu.com/owc
--------------------------------------------------
"Junfeng Zhang[MSFT]" <ju*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
http://blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/archi...02/251254.aspx

If you are talking about re-writing office in managed code, I guess that
will be a few decades away.

--
Junfeng Zhang
http://blogs.msdn.com/junfeng

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.

"Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%2******************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention
will be
the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is 2005,
.NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help of
his
mum.
However, we see the same native office applications are coming out
again,
and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed code....but
are
not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use
"DOTNET"
in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how to
run
like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
themselves?





Nov 22 '05 #33

P: n/a
Joe
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 02:25:01 -0800, CMM <CM*@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:
many of the other adjunct components completely. Unfortunately, MS has always
been hellbent on 110% backwards compatibility... which is why Windows suffers
from so many problems today.


.... and enjoys a market share somewhat higher than Apple... ;-)

Joe.
Nov 22 '05 #34

P: n/a
"CMM" <CM*@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D0**********************************@microsof t.com...
Unfortunately, MS has always been hellbent on 110% backwards
compatibility... which is why Windows suffers from so many
problems today.


Perhaps. But their concern about backwards compatibility and the same
concern that is shared by the dominant chip makers - Intel and AMD - enusre
that the platform and its slew of applications run on more desktops than
anything else on the planet.

Regards,
Will
Nov 22 '05 #35

P: n/a
CMM
I agree... and I'm not saying it's a totally bad thing. But, I think at some
point MS has to show that they're true innovators and not just evolutionary.
..NET is probably the most ambitious and courageous thing to come from Redmond
since Windows 95. Now we have to wait to see if that courage extends to the
rest of the Windows world.

"William DePalo [MVP VC++]" wrote:
"CMM" <CM*@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D0**********************************@microsof t.com...
Unfortunately, MS has always been hellbent on 110% backwards
compatibility... which is why Windows suffers from so many
problems today.


Perhaps. But their concern about backwards compatibility and the same
concern that is shared by the dominant chip makers - Intel and AMD - enusre
that the platform and its slew of applications run on more desktops than
anything else on the planet.

Regards,
Will

Nov 22 '05 #36

P: n/a
"CMM" <CM*@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:32**********************************@microsof t.com...
Perhaps you're right... but it just might behoove them to do a "gigantic"
rewrite.... MS is currently having their cake and eating it too and have
taken a serious beating in the reputation department. They can't keep
extolling the virtues of .NET while continuing development on the
inherently
less-stable, less secure, Win32 / COM platform. It just doesn't make sense
to
me.
I agree in principle. I think you'll find that completely new products will
tend, more and more, to be written in .NET. As for existing products, I
think you'll find that various of their components will slowly be migrated
to .NET, and they will certainly be enhanced for better .NET support. The
fact of the matter is that applications like Office cannot remain static.
Reskilling all the developers to .NET and identifying areas where .NET can
assist will take time.

In the Office suite, the one section really screaming out for .NET is the
VBA/ActiveX support. It's so insecure right now that it's insane. I wouldn't
be too surprised if in the very near future MS notify their clients that
non-.NET scripting will no longer be supported.

I've heard horror stories about what the Word and IE code looks like
(particularly in the rendering engines). There's two approaches they can
take as far as this is concerned: rewrite and hope to hell it doesn't mess
something up, or carefully carry on adding to the tottering framework for as
long as it'll take it.

In any case, if I was a betting man, I'd wager that Microsoft won't start a
..NET rewite of the Office products until at least after Longhorn ships.
"Sean Hederman" wrote:
"Alvin Bruney [Microsoft MVP]" <www.lulu.com/owc> wrote in message
news:e0**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> phew, good blog. pure poison. bitter stuff.


Poison? Bitter? Are you talking about
http://blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/archi...2/251254.aspx? Cause I
didn't see any nastiness there. Merely a point by point refutation of the
assertion that Microsoft isn't writing stuff in .NET.
> now, i am totally confused. i'm just not buying these .net arguments at
> all. even the "there's no business case for re-writing components in
> .NET".
> Well wouldn't rewriting some core products improve
> visibility/marketability/consensus on .net?


60% of MS revenue comes from Office, which at a total revenue of $38bn,
comes to $22.8bn. Have you ever heard the term "If it ain't broke don't
fix
it". Especially when you're gambling with 22 billion dollars a year.

How much do you think just rewriting the Office Suite would cost? I
figure
at an absolute minimum you're looking at about a thousand man years per
product in the suite, so around a half billion dollars.
> hmmm, strange. real strange.


Not really. I don't think any company on earth would take such a massive
gamble. I personally think it's strange to expect MS to throw away
billions
of dollars of existing investment and revenue, and spend billions more in
order to arrive where they already are. And if you think the Office
division
should take orders from the .NET area, think again. Not going to happen.

Office will gradually migrate pieces of itself to .NET (as is already
happenning). To expect it to happen in some huge gigantic billion dollar
extravaganze is unrealistic however.
> --
> Regards
> Alvin Bruney
> [Shameless Author Plug]
> The Microsoft Office Web Components Black Book with .NET
> available at www.lulu.com/owc
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Junfeng Zhang[MSFT]" <ju*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> http://blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/archi...02/251254.aspx
>>
>> If you are talking about re-writing office in managed code, I guess
>> that
>> will be a few decades away.
>>
>> --
>> Junfeng Zhang
>> http://blogs.msdn.com/junfeng
>>
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights.
>>
>> "Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:%2******************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>> As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention
>>> will be
>>> the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is
>>> 2005,
>>> .NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help
>>> of
>>> his
>>> mum.
>>> However, we see the same native office applications are coming out
>>> again,
>>> and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed
>>> code....but
>>> are
>>> not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use
>>> "DOTNET"
>>> in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
>>> performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how
>>> to
>>> run
>>> like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
>>> themselves?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


Nov 22 '05 #37

P: n/a
CMM
I agree... but would add that once the Framework matures to the point of
being able to do everything the direct API's can do (even if it's just in the
form of "managed" wrappers around the API's), MS would have no reason to not
completely rewrite their apps using the Framework... even the big apps and
even the heavy duty code like rendering engines. I mean, at some point MS had
to "rewrite" Word for DOS right? Why can't they do it again?

"Sean Hederman" wrote:
"CMM" <CM*@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:32**********************************@microsof t.com...
Perhaps you're right... but it just might behoove them to do a "gigantic"
rewrite.... MS is currently having their cake and eating it too and have
taken a serious beating in the reputation department. They can't keep
extolling the virtues of .NET while continuing development on the
inherently
less-stable, less secure, Win32 / COM platform. It just doesn't make sense
to
me.


I agree in principle. I think you'll find that completely new products will
tend, more and more, to be written in .NET. As for existing products, I
think you'll find that various of their components will slowly be migrated
to .NET, and they will certainly be enhanced for better .NET support. The
fact of the matter is that applications like Office cannot remain static.
Reskilling all the developers to .NET and identifying areas where .NET can
assist will take time.

In the Office suite, the one section really screaming out for .NET is the
VBA/ActiveX support. It's so insecure right now that it's insane. I wouldn't
be too surprised if in the very near future MS notify their clients that
non-.NET scripting will no longer be supported.

I've heard horror stories about what the Word and IE code looks like
(particularly in the rendering engines). There's two approaches they can
take as far as this is concerned: rewrite and hope to hell it doesn't mess
something up, or carefully carry on adding to the tottering framework for as
long as it'll take it.

In any case, if I was a betting man, I'd wager that Microsoft won't start a
..NET rewite of the Office products until at least after Longhorn ships.
"Sean Hederman" wrote:
"Alvin Bruney [Microsoft MVP]" <www.lulu.com/owc> wrote in message
news:e0**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> phew, good blog. pure poison. bitter stuff.

Poison? Bitter? Are you talking about
http://blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/archi...2/251254.aspx? Cause I
didn't see any nastiness there. Merely a point by point refutation of the
assertion that Microsoft isn't writing stuff in .NET.

> now, i am totally confused. i'm just not buying these .net arguments at
> all. even the "there's no business case for re-writing components in
> .NET".
> Well wouldn't rewriting some core products improve
> visibility/marketability/consensus on .net?

60% of MS revenue comes from Office, which at a total revenue of $38bn,
comes to $22.8bn. Have you ever heard the term "If it ain't broke don't
fix
it". Especially when you're gambling with 22 billion dollars a year.

How much do you think just rewriting the Office Suite would cost? I
figure
at an absolute minimum you're looking at about a thousand man years per
product in the suite, so around a half billion dollars.

> hmmm, strange. real strange.

Not really. I don't think any company on earth would take such a massive
gamble. I personally think it's strange to expect MS to throw away
billions
of dollars of existing investment and revenue, and spend billions more in
order to arrive where they already are. And if you think the Office
division
should take orders from the .NET area, think again. Not going to happen.

Office will gradually migrate pieces of itself to .NET (as is already
happenning). To expect it to happen in some huge gigantic billion dollar
extravaganze is unrealistic however.

> --
> Regards
> Alvin Bruney
> [Shameless Author Plug]
> The Microsoft Office Web Components Black Book with .NET
> available at www.lulu.com/owc
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Junfeng Zhang[MSFT]" <ju*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> http://blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/archi...02/251254.aspx
>>
>> If you are talking about re-writing office in managed code, I guess
>> that
>> will be a few decades away.
>>
>> --
>> Junfeng Zhang
>> http://blogs.msdn.com/junfeng
>>
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights.
>>
>> "Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:%2******************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>> As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention
>>> will be
>>> the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is
>>> 2005,
>>> .NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help
>>> of
>>> his
>>> mum.
>>> However, we see the same native office applications are coming out
>>> again,
>>> and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed
>>> code....but
>>> are
>>> not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use
>>> "DOTNET"
>>> in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
>>> performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how
>>> to
>>> run
>>> like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for
>>> themselves?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


Nov 22 '05 #38

P: n/a
I don't really need a managed Word today. What I need is a complete managed
APIs to get at all features of Word. Don't they have some of that now? As
for scripting, I am sure the first retro will be to play nice with MSH
(which is all managed). But now that I think about it, if all the .Net
wrappers are there, they don't need to do anything special to support MSH.

--
William Stacey, MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com

"CMM" <CM*@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BC**********************************@microsof t.com...
I agree... but would add that once the Framework matures to the point of
being able to do everything the direct API's can do (even if it's just in the form of "managed" wrappers around the API's), MS would have no reason to not completely rewrite their apps using the Framework... even the big apps and
even the heavy duty code like rendering engines. I mean, at some point MS had to "rewrite" Word for DOS right? Why can't they do it again?

"Sean Hederman" wrote:
"CMM" <CM*@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:32**********************************@microsof t.com...
Perhaps you're right... but it just might behoove them to do a "gigantic" rewrite.... MS is currently having their cake and eating it too and have taken a serious beating in the reputation department. They can't keep
extolling the virtues of .NET while continuing development on the
inherently
less-stable, less secure, Win32 / COM platform. It just doesn't make sense to
me.


I agree in principle. I think you'll find that completely new products will tend, more and more, to be written in .NET. As for existing products, I
think you'll find that various of their components will slowly be migrated to .NET, and they will certainly be enhanced for better .NET support. The fact of the matter is that applications like Office cannot remain static. Reskilling all the developers to .NET and identifying areas where .NET can assist will take time.

In the Office suite, the one section really screaming out for .NET is the VBA/ActiveX support. It's so insecure right now that it's insane. I wouldn't be too surprised if in the very near future MS notify their clients that
non-.NET scripting will no longer be supported.

I've heard horror stories about what the Word and IE code looks like
(particularly in the rendering engines). There's two approaches they can
take as far as this is concerned: rewrite and hope to hell it doesn't mess something up, or carefully carry on adding to the tottering framework for as long as it'll take it.

In any case, if I was a betting man, I'd wager that Microsoft won't start a ..NET rewite of the Office products until at least after Longhorn ships.
"Sean Hederman" wrote:

> "Alvin Bruney [Microsoft MVP]" <www.lulu.com/owc> wrote in message
> news:e0**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > phew, good blog. pure poison. bitter stuff.
>
> Poison? Bitter? Are you talking about
> http://blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/archi...2/251254.aspx? Cause I> didn't see any nastiness there. Merely a point by point refutation of the> assertion that Microsoft isn't writing stuff in .NET.
>
> > now, i am totally confused. i'm just not buying these .net arguments at> > all. even the "there's no business case for re-writing components in> > .NET".
> > Well wouldn't rewriting some core products improve
> > visibility/marketability/consensus on .net?
>
> 60% of MS revenue comes from Office, which at a total revenue of $38bn,> comes to $22.8bn. Have you ever heard the term "If it ain't broke don't> fix
> it". Especially when you're gambling with 22 billion dollars a year.
>
> How much do you think just rewriting the Office Suite would cost? I
> figure
> at an absolute minimum you're looking at about a thousand man years per> product in the suite, so around a half billion dollars.
>
> > hmmm, strange. real strange.
>
> Not really. I don't think any company on earth would take such a massive> gamble. I personally think it's strange to expect MS to throw away
> billions
> of dollars of existing investment and revenue, and spend billions more in> order to arrive where they already are. And if you think the Office
> division
> should take orders from the .NET area, think again. Not going to happen.>
> Office will gradually migrate pieces of itself to .NET (as is already
> happenning). To expect it to happen in some huge gigantic billion dollar> extravaganze is unrealistic however.
>
> > --
> > Regards
> > Alvin Bruney
> > [Shameless Author Plug]
> > The Microsoft Office Web Components Black Book with .NET
> > available at www.lulu.com/owc
> > --------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > "Junfeng Zhang[MSFT]" <ju*****@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message> > news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >> http://blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/archi...02/251254.aspx
> >>
> >> If you are talking about re-writing office in managed code, I guess> >> that
> >> will be a few decades away.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Junfeng Zhang
> >> http://blogs.msdn.com/junfeng
> >>
> >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no> >> rights.
> >>
> >> "Herr Lucifer" <"\n"HerrLucifer\n@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:%2******************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >>> As the founder of .NET framework, Microsoft claims that it invention> >>> will be
> >>> the next best platform for programming in a near future. Now it is> >>> 2005,
> >>> .NET is 5 years old, and can talk and walk for himself with some help> >>> of
> >>> his
> >>> mum.
> >>> However, we see the same native office applications are coming out> >>> again,
> >>> and many other tools in SP2 of XP which could be in managed
> >>> code....but
> >>> are
> >>> not. So, as the inventor of .NET , why doesn't Microsoft itself use> >>> "DOTNET"
> >>> in its applications? Is there any concern over the baby's runnung
> >>> performance inside Microsoft itself, or they gonna teach the baby how> >>> to
> >>> run
> >>> like a C kinda guy in future, so that they'll be able to use it for> >>> themselves?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>



Nov 22 '05 #39

P: n/a
They'll do it when the pain of not doing it exceeds the pain of doing it.
That's the point at which anything gets done, by anyone ;-)

Seriously, I believe that every code base needs a thorough (and probably
complete) rewrite every 5 to 10 years, even in the absence of a major
platform change -- just to blow out the lint and gain the benefit of
hindsight and experience and bring things more into sync with all the other
technologies that the software has to interface with. Office is approaching
that point anyway. Currently, MSFT's public stance is that it's perfectly
good code and they aren't going to "throw it away" but I'm sure that
sometime in the next few years that various forces will overcome the
inertias at work here and suddenly all you'll hear about is the sleek new
Office v13 or 14 that is all managed code.

In the meantime I don't believe that the lack of a publicly acknowledged
crash Manhattan Project to port Office to .NET says anything at all one way
or the other about whether MSFT "believes" in .NET or is willing to eat its
own dogfood. With Office they are in fact eating their own dogfood today
anyway, even if it's yesterday's dogfood. At about the point that Office is
finally redone in .NET we will no doubt be having a similar debate about why
they haven't rewritten it in Super-Avalon-Plus or whatever is supposed to
save the world of 2010. So I am just going to take it as it comes and not
read too much into the tea leaves. It always takes quite a bit of time for
the marketplace to fully absorb any new technology, and we are always in a
transition state. It's not a perfect world.

--Bob

"CMM" <CM*@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BC**********************************@microsof t.com...
I agree... but would add that once the Framework matures to the point of
being able to do everything the direct API's can do (even if it's just in
the
form of "managed" wrappers around the API's), MS would have no reason to
not
completely rewrite their apps using the Framework... even the big apps and
even the heavy duty code like rendering engines. I mean, at some point MS
had
to "rewrite" Word for DOS right? Why can't they do it again?

Nov 22 '05 #40

P: n/a
I think there are a lot of reasons. Here are a couple.

Real programmers that earn a living with their craft can't simply drop
everything and relearn a completely new way of doing what they have been
doing for years. Especially when the new way is a lot less efficient,
needlessly complicated, cluttered and verbose. I'm guessing it takes a lot
more time and effort to get the same results for the majority of users. And
then it is more difficult to distribute since the end user needs the .Net
framework installed prior.

I started object oriented programming with Visual Basic 2 and before that on
big DEC and IBM computers before PCs. It took me a year before I was
comfortable with Windows object oriented programming but at least the basics
were the same as traditional programming. This is NOT the case with .Net.
Gone is everything remotely familiar. It took quite a few years and service
packs for Visual Studio to get where it is now. Finally, now that we are
proficient with Visual Studio 6, and can write and redistribute a program
without too many problems, programmers are being asked to learn a completely
new way of doing the same thing, with completely new syntax, a ton of goofy
new constructs and serious constraints to deployment -- like having to have
..NET installed on the end-user PC prior. Gone is being able to change things
on the fly in immediate mode -- probably the nicest and most productive
feature in Visual Basic. There are probably no serious apps in .Net because
..Net programming is not nearly as efficient as programming in Visual Studio
6. It is very cumbersome and immature. In my opinion, .Net is a giant leap
BACKWARDS compared to Visual Studio 6.
Nov 22 '05 #41

P: n/a
CMM
Having started with 16bit VB3 and having a C background before that, I can
empathize with you... but I completely disagree with almost everything you
state about .NET. VB6 experts (I am an expert) got almost everything
"advanced" thing done via hacks (subclassing, imitating threads). All that
stuff. Whenever I have to go back to VB6 to fix an old program I'm completely
lost. .NET is definately not a step backwards- the sorely missed
Edit-and-Continue notwithstanding.

Besides all the fantastic OOP stuff (which you won't miss unless you
understand how that stuff might benefit you) here are some things I have
grown to love about .NET.

1) The Hit-you-over-the-head Syntax Error message has been replaced with the
red squigglies. I LOVE that!
2) ALL my compile errors are shown in the Output and Task window... unlike
VB.Classic where you hit RUN, Bang- error, you the fix offending code, hit
RUN, error, fix error, .....
3) Subclassing is a joy to do. In fact, WndProc is built right in and easily
overridable.
4) "Subclassing" via Inheritance is joy. If a control doesn't do or look
exactly like you want it... inherit from it and just override the method you
want to change (OnPaint, OnMouseMove, whatever).
5) Data-binding was considered bad form and lazy... mainly because it didn't
work well in old VB. In .NET Data-binding is a joy to use... and extremely
powerful (once you understand the mysterious BindingContext stuff and such).
6) While I miss the classic B.A.S.I.C. drawing statements (more for
nostalgic reasons than anything else) the Drawing functions in .NET and sheer
perfection. You can literally create a brand new control yourself in pure
..NET code.
7) The IDE is fantastic and eons better than the VB6 IDE.

You don't like the the deeply nested object model and namespaces... Oh well.
Get a book. Learn how to use the Object Browser and MSDN.

P.S. We do however need Edit and Continue... badly... and true code
interpretation in Immediate Window during design mode would be nice too (I
should be able to type ? 2+2 in the Immediate Window during Design mode).

"Scott Pristel" wrote:
I think there are a lot of reasons. Here are a couple.

Real programmers that earn a living with their craft can't simply drop
everything and relearn a completely new way of doing what they have been
doing for years. Especially when the new way is a lot less efficient,
needlessly complicated, cluttered and verbose. I'm guessing it takes a lot
more time and effort to get the same results for the majority of users. And
then it is more difficult to distribute since the end user needs the .Net
framework installed prior.

I started object oriented programming with Visual Basic 2 and before that on
big DEC and IBM computers before PCs. It took me a year before I was
comfortable with Windows object oriented programming but at least the basics
were the same as traditional programming. This is NOT the case with .Net.
Gone is everything remotely familiar. It took quite a few years and service
packs for Visual Studio to get where it is now. Finally, now that we are
proficient with Visual Studio 6, and can write and redistribute a program
without too many problems, programmers are being asked to learn a completely
new way of doing the same thing, with completely new syntax, a ton of goofy
new constructs and serious constraints to deployment -- like having to have
.NET installed on the end-user PC prior. Gone is being able to change things
on the fly in immediate mode -- probably the nicest and most productive
feature in Visual Basic. There are probably no serious apps in .Net because
.Net programming is not nearly as efficient as programming in Visual Studio
6. It is very cumbersome and immature. In my opinion, .Net is a giant leap
BACKWARDS compared to Visual Studio 6.

Nov 22 '05 #42

P: n/a
CMM
I just thought of this after reading your post:
Before they can (or should) rewrite office, maybe they should practice by
completely making the .NET IDE as an all "managed" application rather than
the COM application that it is today (as much as I love the .NET IDE).

"Bob Grommes" wrote:
They'll do it when the pain of not doing it exceeds the pain of doing it.
That's the point at which anything gets done, by anyone ;-)

Seriously, I believe that every code base needs a thorough (and probably
complete) rewrite every 5 to 10 years, even in the absence of a major
platform change -- just to blow out the lint and gain the benefit of
hindsight and experience and bring things more into sync with all the other
technologies that the software has to interface with. Office is approaching
that point anyway. Currently, MSFT's public stance is that it's perfectly
good code and they aren't going to "throw it away" but I'm sure that
sometime in the next few years that various forces will overcome the
inertias at work here and suddenly all you'll hear about is the sleek new
Office v13 or 14 that is all managed code.

In the meantime I don't believe that the lack of a publicly acknowledged
crash Manhattan Project to port Office to .NET says anything at all one way
or the other about whether MSFT "believes" in .NET or is willing to eat its
own dogfood. With Office they are in fact eating their own dogfood today
anyway, even if it's yesterday's dogfood. At about the point that Office is
finally redone in .NET we will no doubt be having a similar debate about why
they haven't rewritten it in Super-Avalon-Plus or whatever is supposed to
save the world of 2010. So I am just going to take it as it comes and not
read too much into the tea leaves. It always takes quite a bit of time for
the marketplace to fully absorb any new technology, and we are always in a
transition state. It's not a perfect world.

--Bob

"CMM" <CM*@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BC**********************************@microsof t.com...
I agree... but would add that once the Framework matures to the point of
being able to do everything the direct API's can do (even if it's just in
the
form of "managed" wrappers around the API's), MS would have no reason to
not
completely rewrite their apps using the Framework... even the big apps and
even the heavy duty code like rendering engines. I mean, at some point MS
had
to "rewrite" Word for DOS right? Why can't they do it again?


Nov 22 '05 #43

P: n/a
in
CMM wrote:
I just thought of this after reading your post:
Before they can (or should) rewrite office, maybe they should practice by
completely making the .NET IDE as an all "managed" application rather than
the COM application that it is today (as much as I love the .NET IDE).
That sounds like a lot of work for not much gain.

The future of .NET is not big apps, it's the SOA.

Perhaps even the IDE should be an SOA...a set of very small components,
like say, a notepad, that can call a /syntax/ web service.

Or a messaging system for sending debug information back and forth to a
little service app with a popup window.

In other words, build a brand new type of system for creating code that
reflects the SOA nature of .net

"Bob Grommes" wrote:

They'll do it when the pain of not doing it exceeds the pain of doing it.
That's the point at which anything gets done, by anyone ;-)

Seriously, I believe that every code base needs a thorough (and probably
complete) rewrite every 5 to 10 years, even in the absence of a major
platform change -- just to blow out the lint and gain the benefit of
hindsight and experience and bring things more into sync with all the other
technologies that the software has to interface with. Office is approaching
that point anyway. Currently, MSFT's public stance is that it's perfectly
good code and they aren't going to "throw it away" but I'm sure that
sometime in the next few years that various forces will overcome the
inertias at work here and suddenly all you'll hear about is the sleek new
Office v13 or 14 that is all managed code.

In the meantime I don't believe that the lack of a publicly acknowledged
crash Manhattan Project to port Office to .NET says anything at all one way
or the other about whether MSFT "believes" in .NET or is willing to eat its
own dogfood. With Office they are in fact eating their own dogfood today
anyway, even if it's yesterday's dogfood. At about the point that Office is
finally redone in .NET we will no doubt be having a similar debate about why
they haven't rewritten it in Super-Avalon-Plus or whatever is supposed to
save the world of 2010. So I am just going to take it as it comes and not
read too much into the tea leaves. It always takes quite a bit of time for
the marketplace to fully absorb any new technology, and we are always in a
transition state. It's not a perfect world.

--Bob

"CMM" <CM*@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BC**********************************@micros oft.com...
I agree... but would add that once the Framework matures to the point of
being able to do everything the direct API's can do (even if it's just in
the
form of "managed" wrappers around the API's), MS would have no reason to
not
completely rewrite their apps using the Framework... even the big apps and
even the heavy duty code like rendering engines. I mean, at some point MS
had
to "rewrite" Word for DOS right? Why can't they do it again?


Nov 22 '05 #44

P: n/a
"CMM" <CM*@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9B**********************************@microsof t.com...
I just thought of this after reading your post:
Before they can (or should) rewrite office, maybe they should practice by
completely making the .NET IDE as an all "managed" application rather than
the COM application that it is today (as much as I love the .NET IDE).


I would just settle for it being stable and bug-free. Then I wouldn't care
if it were written in COBOL.

--Bob
Nov 22 '05 #45

P: n/a
CMM
Um yeah right! Like I really want my IDE to be SLOWER. You're kidding right?

Case-in-point, I'm reading this post through MSDN's *online* newsgroups
reader (most likely not very workable in anything but IE)... which is
impressive, but is like 1% of what any desktop newsreader is (OE, Free Agent,
whatever).

The idea of SOA is great but no one really understands it and it will
eventually find its more modest place. XML, UML, DNA, CORBA, and Sun's
"The-Network-Is-The-Computer" all were big "all-encompassing" notions that
have always and will always fall short of its great big promises.

"in" wrote:
CMM wrote:
I just thought of this after reading your post:
Before they can (or should) rewrite office, maybe they should practice by
completely making the .NET IDE as an all "managed" application rather than
the COM application that it is today (as much as I love the .NET IDE).


That sounds like a lot of work for not much gain.

The future of .NET is not big apps, it's the SOA.

Perhaps even the IDE should be an SOA...a set of very small components,
like say, a notepad, that can call a /syntax/ web service.

Or a messaging system for sending debug information back and forth to a
little service app with a popup window.

In other words, build a brand new type of system for creating code that
reflects the SOA nature of .net

"Bob Grommes" wrote:

They'll do it when the pain of not doing it exceeds the pain of doing it.
That's the point at which anything gets done, by anyone ;-)

Seriously, I believe that every code base needs a thorough (and probably
complete) rewrite every 5 to 10 years, even in the absence of a major
platform change -- just to blow out the lint and gain the benefit of
hindsight and experience and bring things more into sync with all the other
technologies that the software has to interface with. Office is approaching
that point anyway. Currently, MSFT's public stance is that it's perfectly
good code and they aren't going to "throw it away" but I'm sure that
sometime in the next few years that various forces will overcome the
inertias at work here and suddenly all you'll hear about is the sleek new
Office v13 or 14 that is all managed code.

In the meantime I don't believe that the lack of a publicly acknowledged
crash Manhattan Project to port Office to .NET says anything at all one way
or the other about whether MSFT "believes" in .NET or is willing to eat its
own dogfood. With Office they are in fact eating their own dogfood today
anyway, even if it's yesterday's dogfood. At about the point that Office is
finally redone in .NET we will no doubt be having a similar debate about why
they haven't rewritten it in Super-Avalon-Plus or whatever is supposed to
save the world of 2010. So I am just going to take it as it comes and not
read too much into the tea leaves. It always takes quite a bit of time for
the marketplace to fully absorb any new technology, and we are always in a
transition state. It's not a perfect world.

--Bob

"CMM" <CM*@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BC**********************************@micros oft.com...

I agree... but would add that once the Framework matures to the point of
being able to do everything the direct API's can do (even if it's just in
the
form of "managed" wrappers around the API's), MS would have no reason to
not
completely rewrite their apps using the Framework... even the big apps and
even the heavy duty code like rendering engines. I mean, at some point MS
had
to "rewrite" Word for DOS right? Why can't they do it again?

Nov 22 '05 #46

P: n/a
> Then I wouldn't care
if it were written in COBOL.


Now your talking :-)

--
William Stacey, MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com

Nov 22 '05 #47

P: n/a
"CMM" <CM*@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:83**********************************@microsof t.com...
5) Data-binding was considered bad form and lazy... mainly because it
didn't
work well in old VB. In .NET Data-binding is a joy to use... and extremely
powerful (once you understand the mysterious BindingContext stuff and
such).


I still have an aversion to data binding thanks to my VB3-VB6 experiences.
I've sworn to myself to investigate it in Whidbey and use it...
Nov 22 '05 #48

P: n/a
CMM
The "I dont wanna be *too* RAD" philosophy still survives today despite the
fact that things like Typed Datasets are quite useful and time-saving. I've
completely abandoned doing the tedious and frustrating ORM type stuff because
of them.

Even in 1.1 Data binding works well. The BindingManagers/BindingContext
stuff is a little tricky (when doing Master/Details stuff) but once you
completely understand how it works (it's not that hard... though maybe
unintuitive at first) it becomes a breeze and a huge time saver.

Even using the DataAdapter Wizard in the middle tier (yes, the middle tier)
works great (by hosting the adapter(s) in components) to save yourself from
writing all those ooodles and oodles of cmd.Parameters.Add("@xxx...) and
TableMappings code. No, I don't use the SQLCommandBuilder. But, the
DataAdapter Wizard is quite different... a Code Generator much like the
Windows Form Designers... and it saves MUCH TIME.

IMHO, of course.

"Sean Hederman" wrote:
"CMM" <CM*@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:83**********************************@microsof t.com...
5) Data-binding was considered bad form and lazy... mainly because it
didn't
work well in old VB. In .NET Data-binding is a joy to use... and extremely
powerful (once you understand the mysterious BindingContext stuff and
such).


I still have an aversion to data binding thanks to my VB3-VB6 experiences.
I've sworn to myself to investigate it in Whidbey and use it...

Nov 22 '05 #49

P: n/a
Joe
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 18:21:03 -0800, CMM <CM*@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:
Case-in-point, I'm reading this post through MSDN's *online* newsgroups
reader (most likely not very workable in anything but IE)... which is
impressive, but is like 1% of what any desktop newsreader is (OE, Free Agent,
whatever).


.... and it can't even post your comments _after_ the quoted part, like
any capable newsreader ;-)

Joe.
Nov 22 '05 #50

146 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.