Re: [64-bit native compiler] MS ports all server-apps to 64bit
From: Peter Sleuth (psleuth_at_nospam.gmail.com)
Date: 02/23/05
- Next message: Dennis Landi: "Re: Difficult for Borland to compete?!"
- Previous message: Dave Nottage [TeamB]: "Re: [64-bit Delphi] A msg from Hairy (van Tassel)"
- In reply to: marc hoffman: "Re: [64-bit native compiler] MS ports all server-apps to 64bit"
- Next in thread: marc hoffman: "Re: [64-bit native compiler] MS ports all server-apps to 64bit"
- Reply: marc hoffman: "Re: [64-bit native compiler] MS ports all server-apps to 64bit"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 23:12:35 +0100
"marc hoffman" wrote
>> If we should agree that Microsofts marketing regarding .NET is more
>> intensive than their marketing for Win64, how does it comes that
>> Microsoft intensely markets .NET to developers, but internally most
>> server apps are ported to native 64-bit instead of .NET?
>
> Maybe because msdn.com is targeting developers in general, not just server
> developers. Since .NET targets a lot more developers at this time (being
> the preferred/recommended way to develop "plain" applications), it makes a
> whole lot of sense to have more content on .NET then on native 64-bit.
> imho.
And I thought that .NET was particularly interesting to server developers,
no?
One single IL-executable, that runs on all 32-bit x86, EM64T/AMD64 and
Itanium, no need to recompile, because it automatically gets jitted on the
target system?
.NET Framework preinstalled on Windows Server 2003, no?
>> They donīt act on what they preach regarding their server apps
>> (SQLServer, Biztalk Server, Exchange Server)?
>
> Now, where did we make this step? I followed you till here, but now you
> lost be again. Microsoft doesn't say anywhere "oh, if you wanna write a
> high-performing, finely-tuned 64-bit server app, we recommend using .NET.
> we recommend t stay away from native 64-bit". If you find a quote that
> sais anything remotely like that, i'll admit you have apoint. until then,
> you're just misrepresenting.
And I thought .NET was the future of windows development (and windows
includes servers, too, prominently featured in "windows server 2003"). So
.NET is not for server development?
>> Now you might assume that it was just easier to port existing server apps
>> to Win64 instead of rewriting them for .NET, but wait - I thought the
>> upcoming Indigo communication submodule would be Microsofts best approach
>> to all sorts of messaging communication so far. So - why wonīt they use
>> .NET 2.0 and thus Indigo in the next versions of Biztalk Server or
>> Exchange Server (scheduled for 2006-2007)? Donīt you think that Biztalk
>> Server 2006 would benefit from Indigo?
>
> Not only that, i'm sure if it makes sense it /will/ use and support
> Indigo*. But that still doesn't mean that it makes sese to scrap all
> existing code and start from scratch.
So with all the advantages gained from the .NET platform, including Indigo,
it will not make sense to scrap all existing code and start from scratch? So
when does it make sense instead?
> [*i'm blissfully ignorant of BizTalk Server, never having used it or given
> it much thought; so for all i know, this might nmot make any sense at all]
>
>> Based on their marketing, I would assume that most new Microsoft products
>> coming out over the next few years would be .NET apps, but wait - they
>> just announced their server apps will be 64-bit? Strange isnīt it?
>
> No, not at all. See above, and see my other posts. "updated to exiting
> products" != "new products" and "apps" != "server apps".
So we might agree that .NET is for
- new products only
- for non-server apps only?
>> It seems obvious that Microsoft itself doesnīt trust .NET for their
>> server apps such as Biztalk Server or Exchange Server.
>>
>> They wonīt eat their own dog food regarding server apps.
>
> They won't throw away their existing coded base just for the sake of using
> .NET. You keep ignoring the biggest factor again and again: millions of
> lines of working, tested and time-proven code.
here we finally come to the point:
if we as Delphi developers donīt want to throw away millions of lines of
working, tested and time-proven code, then we need DCC64 as much as
Microsoft needed VC++for 64-bit.
Thanks for working this out.
-Peter
- Next message: Dennis Landi: "Re: Difficult for Borland to compete?!"
- Previous message: Dave Nottage [TeamB]: "Re: [64-bit Delphi] A msg from Hairy (van Tassel)"
- In reply to: marc hoffman: "Re: [64-bit native compiler] MS ports all server-apps to 64bit"
- Next in thread: marc hoffman: "Re: [64-bit native compiler] MS ports all server-apps to 64bit"
- Reply: marc hoffman: "Re: [64-bit native compiler] MS ports all server-apps to 64bit"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
