Re: Discussion: "Why Visual Studion 2005 is better then BDS 2006?"

I.P. Nichols wrote:
"Bryce K. Nielsen" wrote:
WinForms/etc. are a way to avoid vendor lock
down at the library level, or escape it.

I have a hard time with this statement, since using either VCL or WinForms, you're "locking" yourself into that library. MS has been notorious for lack of backwards compatibility (even DotNet 1.0 to 2.0 has some issues) and the horizon looks just as dubious. At least with VCL, the company has stated support for many years to come across multiple platforms...

Since the Mono library has a WinForms implementation that is totally independent of Windows <snip>

Ah, very clever, saying Windows instead of /Microsoft/ there ;-)

The inconvenient fact about Mono is that by definition it is
explicitly tied to and must slavishly follow Microsoft and the
..NET roadmap wherever it goes if it wants to merely /maintain/
its chronic level of "compatibility" - hmm, not /quite/ so
totally independent of MS, methinks :-)

> doesn't it expand the WinForms horizon to include
multiple platforms in it's broadest meaning?

The /broadest/ meaning would surely be if the vendor of the
/original/ framework (.NET, not the lagging clone) implemented
it /themselves/ across multiple OS platforms (including non-MS
ones) and ensured that /all/ of those versions were feature
complete and at least /close/ to 100% compatible with each
other. Of course, there are only two chances of /that/ happening
and slim left town /long/ ago... :-)

As things stand, MS are in a perfect position. Mono gives them
the veneer (and /only/ that) of genuine cross platform capability
for .NET without Redmond having to lift a single finger...yet,
simultaneously, it offers absolutely no threat to their hegemony
whatsoever through its ongoing, tortuous struggle to keep up with
the relentless feature churn - and, even if by some miracle the
Mono team /did/ look like making something worthy of MS concern,
that good old patent submarine is ready with a couple of deadly
torpedos...not that things will ever get that far, of course -
Mono is doomed to only ever offer an insipid, anaemic version of
the real thing.

You have to take your hat off to them, if MS planned things
to pan out this way then they really are strategic geniuses of
the highest order...
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: My rant about the "throw out delphi and re-write it in C#" crowd.
    ... nothing out there that I've seen for WinForms that hasn't already been ... done to death by 3rd party vendors for VCL? ... thought we were talking about being able to port Delphi applications to ... Drop it on a Windows Form. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: 64-bit Windows for AMD 64 is here...
    ... > All that was demonstrated is that VCL.net is less capable than VCL ... than the rather poor WinForms. ... old Win32 API structures in an OO coating. ... I mentioned that one of the strong points of Delphi is is compatibility ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: My rant about the "throw out delphi and re-write it in C#" crowd.
    ... Visual Studio can still load and use those assemblies with no problems. ... using BDS or Visual Studio will depend on which one does it better. ... will probably surpass VCL in Win Forms V3, ... Anders is not 'behind' WinForms per se. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: The New Roadmap
    ... WinForms is not my first choice for .Net UI apps. ... for the VCL since Delphi 1. ... VCL in both places where it makes sense. ... Why would you ever *need* to write a .NET GUI app? ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: In My Dreams
    ... Almost all the IDE innovations you see in MSFT ... >> WinForms is already legacy code, ... > of the VCL. ... > And that talk about Avalon obsoleting WinForms into oblivion is a little ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)