Re: What can .Net do for me?


"Pete Goodwin" <pgoodwin.nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:42a99c8d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> How is .NET a benefit over WIN32 API? In some areas, any OO API is
> better than the mess that is WIN32 (DirectX for example). But some areas
> are too simple - your copying a file is an example.

So, you think the SHFileOperation command is easier than the File.Copy()
function in .NET? Since you haven't used .NET, how did you reach this
conclusion?

> > Now, many languages (including Delphi) have hidden much of the
complexity of
> > the Windows API from you. Good for them. However, under .NET much of the
> > complexity is simply removed (or hidden within the OS) instead of hidden
by
> > specific development languages (or not).
>
> So what's your point? In Delphi, I use a class library called VCL; in
> .NET I use another one called WinForms? They 'hide' the 'complexity' of
> the underlying API.

My point is that the OS is easier to use.

> How so? How is it easier? Because it's OOP? Other libraries do
> system-to-system communications just as effectively, OOP or not.

It's my opinion that a self-describing Web Service is easier to implement
than, say, a proprietary fixed-length data streamed socket interface. I
think that passing parameters via a Web Service call is easier than
packing/parsing data streams, but that may just be me.

> With the cost of a 20MByte runtime. You didn't forget that detail did
> you? We don't have yet an OS that has that built in right now.

WinXP Professional. I suppose you could argue that it's not technically part
of the OS, it just comes "pre-installed", but you'd be arguing semantics.

> As for multi-programming-language support, Digital (aka DEC) had that
> right from the start. Because Microsoft only had one or two languages,
> they kept the file formats secret - hence the multiple mess we have now.
> COM was supposed to address that, but somehow it didn't. Now, we have
> .NET, and here we go again!
>
> I wonder how many times vendors have to rewrite their components before
> they get fed up? First ActiveX or .COM, then VCL now .NET!

ActiveX and COM were MS specific technologies. VCL is Borland specific. The
CLX was also Borland specific. Have you used any .NET components written in,
say VB, from within a C# application? If you have, you can see the
difference between using COM and .NET. If you haven't, then you should try
it before you make these types of comparisons.

Borland appears to be following the MS lead on .NET. I guess you haven't
noticed.

> > Look, you are more than welcome to use Win32, OpenVMS, or whatever you
want.
> > I'm not saying any of those are bad. I'm simply saying that .NET
provides
> > productivity enhancements at what will eventually be at the OS level.
It's a
> > major rework of how applications interact with the OS that emphasizes
OOP
> > and language independance. Try to look 5 years into the future, if you
can.
>
> But you haven't state any 'productivity enhancements' as yet, other than
> OOP at the system level, which is no real benefit since everything I do
> is OOP with VCL.

I have stated productivity enhancements, you are just unable to comprehend
them. Component vendors certainly consider writing to one target platform
more productive than writing to 3 or 4. Calling OS functions is simpler and
more intuitive. Creating system-to-system comms takes literally minutes
instead of days or weeks or months. It's entirely possible that the types of
apps you write are not suitable for nor enhanced by .NET, but it's pretty
narrow minded to assume that everyone writes the same types of applications
that you do.

> As for 'looking five years ahead', your implication is to look to the
> future. However, the success of .NET/Longhorn is by no means certain -
> Microsoft seem to be pruning here and there. Who knows what is to
> come... do you?

The success of .NET is not certain? No, all other programming languages are
not going away, and certainly not overnight. But I feel it's pretty certain
that .NET will be the platform of choice for Windows programming in the next
5 years. Two of the biggest compiler makers are on board (MS and Borland),
what more proof do you need?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What can .Net do for me?
    ... >> object-oriented API. ... If you're not writing OOP apps then you'll probably ... WIN32 is here *now*. ... > "If you don't use the Windows API directly then you'll probably never ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: Is VS2008 a good environment?
    ... Windows provides you an API called Win32 for usermode applications. ... your programming in kind of OOP style. ... Making a shim between "static" function and a proper member function is very ...
    (microsoft.public.win32.programmer.ui)
  • Re: What can .Net do for me?
    ... API - an object-oriented API. ... You are more than welcome to code for Win32 ... framework is designed as an OOP framework instead of a collection of methods. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: If it works, this might be interesting
    ... Software is written to the Linux API. ... more than many scheme VMs or other functional languages. ... For a compiler or other command-line tool, ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: More on Shatter
    ... pronouncements that the problem is "inherent to the Win32 API" and "unfixable". ... dozen of these timers active at once. ... Operators of critical servers could leave the filtering ...
    (Vuln-Dev)