Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Wed 20th Feb 2002 18:45 UTC
A lot of people have trouble understanding what .NET really is and what its goals are. Mostly because Microsoft has done a good job of confusing everybody using terms that are not self-explanatory or with terms that mean more that one thing. This editorial will present my thoughts on .NET, what it really is, what its motivations and goals are, and why it is the next "big thing." Should we embrace it or fear it? Both, I daresay.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
>> with .NET server and XP, you can expose COM+ objects via SOAP without any code changes.
Which is ideal for widely distributed applications, but the performance impact within an internal system is too high.
>> In comparing the same objects in VB6, VC(ATL), and C#.NET, I found that VC was noticable faster and scaled better than C#, and C# was roughly equal to VB6.
Perhaps I should have signed off with "your mileage may vary". As with anything related to performance there are too many variables to directly relate one set of performance figures with another. Regardless of specifics I think it's still fair to say that the CLR outperforms Java, which is important so as to sell this technology to developers. Obviously I'm drawing no distinction between the massive differences between .NET and Java and their respective aims (cross-language versus cross-platform).
>> I still feel that there is no compelling reason for Apple to develop a .NET implementation in house though.
I completely agree. Why should Apple jump onto a potentially unstable bandwagon? If Microsoft want .NET on OS X then let them do the hard work, as they did when they ported MFC to Mac OS.