Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Mar 2007 22:27 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 219869
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-07-28
I think the assumptions is based on the fact that .NET will be available on all Windows platforms, and .NET framework will eventually be the framework of choice for Windows applications.
Yeah, that's why .NET is/will be the platform for the vast majority of windows programming.
The assumption is rather optimistic given how long it took for the original win16 to win32 migration
It wasn't that long. Everybody wanted to get away from win16 as soon as possible.
add to that, what are the benefits; if they want multi-platform, there is Java
Most windows developers don't care about multiplatform.
so how can Microsoft justify re-writes of applications (or atleast partial) given the next to no tangiable improvement
They don't re-write unless there is a good enough benefit. Visual Studio is a perfect example. Gradually, parts of it are rewritten in managed code.