Python/Wx dot net

[Pettersen, Bjorn S]

> From: HankC [mailto:hankc at nospam.com] 
> 
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 00:45:17 -0700, "Carl Waldbieser"
> <waldbie at attglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> >To me, it seems like it would be a very extreme position for 
> >Microsoft to disallow native code on their future operating 
> >systems.  find myself asking, "what would be the point?"  
> >If someone wanted to write a program that they couldn't write 
> >using managed code, they couldn't use Windows.  
[...]
> Carl, thanks for your comments - they're actually a little reassuring.
> Not really to argue, but just to comment on the points above:
> 
> extreme position - yes indeed, but I can see it happening if it would
> increase the control/power of MS.

Sounds almost like the next Stephen King novel... Purely logically, can
you explain why they wouldn't just re-allocate resources to the newer
(and arguably better) technology? (Why would they risk bad pr from any
public statement when they can ignore it into oblivion? -- anyone
remember J#, rememer when it compiled to Java byte codes?  [it still
does? (I have no idea... people are still using Java? <wink>)].

Windows has never really been the poster-child for
"rewrite-from-scratch-using-new-superior-idea" in the development
department (all of ODBC, DAO, ADO, and now ADO.NET are still alive and
well). The needed idealism is rather one of the foundations of
open-source (and LISP programmers <grin>). Besides, Microsoft has too
many LARGE customers to do something like that -- i.e. try telling
someone like ms.com [no that isn't microsoft ;-] that their internal
apps will not run on the newest Windows? (ROFL, ah, that made my day :-)

> the point? - Well, two quick ones: 1) controlling a framework that is
> written to by a huge number of developers gives them a huge amount of
> power;

they didn't need .NET for that, did they?

> 2) if Windows runs managed code only the security of the
> platform would increase substantially.

I'm anxious to hear how Microsoft has managed to convince you they can
substantially increase security... (regardless of technology)?

> they couldn't use Windows -  I think as .net matures there will be
> very few apps that won't be capable of running as managed code.
> Drivers and other low level stuff may be excepted with an MS
> certification or something.

ok.., so I've got about 950K LOC of c++ that supports the applications I
care about. I also have customers who want bugs fixed and features
added, management who wants new product lines that will make us the next
million, sales, tech support, and let's say a dozen developers to handle
it... What's your business case for giving developers 2-5 weeks to learn
the "over 50,000 methods" in .NET, then rewriting, testing, finding
workarounds for new compiler and .NET bugs, (most likely) rewrite a
proprietary testing framework, write new internal documentation,
schedule releases, create transition plans, emergency roll-back plans,
etc., etc. (and we're a very small part of a not 'terribly' big
company).

(..hmm, my 1394 card is MS certified... wonder how it has managed to
"blue"-screen XP Pro four times... ;-/)

> integration - Yeah, but it's still early, you would have to expect
> integration at this point.  I also understand that there will be no
> thunking layer to run 32 bit native code from 64 bit managed code so
> writing to Win64 will require either a 64bit compiler or managed code
> exclusively.

Seems like they learned from the Win16 transition. You should be very
HAPPY! <grin>. 

> I know some of those points are a little far fetched - I'm just
> feeling a little bleak about the future lately :-)

Any better? 

-- bjorn