Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Apr 2008 19:00 UTC, submitted by Adam S
General Development Ars' Peter Bright wrote an article today entitled "From Win32 to Cocoa: a Windows user's conversion to Mac OS X", in which he explains why he believes "Windows is dying, Windows applications suck, and Microsoft is too blinkered to fix any of it". These are rather harsh words, but there is a definitive element of truth in it. The article is part one in a three-part series.
E-mail Print r 4   · Read More · 48 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 310831
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Win32
by evangs on Tue 22nd Apr 2008 06:02 UTC in reply to "Win32"
Member since:

Win32 has been on the way out for the last 8 years. It's still here, and it will be here for a long time to come.

.NET will never truly replace Win32 especially when writing drivers, low level applications and small utilities and really large programs. Can you imagine what customers will say if your app suddenly demanded 3x more memory, started up slower and still provided the same features?

.NET has its place, but Win32 will never disappear.

edit: It'll evolve to win64 of course ;)

Edited 2008-04-22 06:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Win32
by Karitku on Tue 22nd Apr 2008 09:03 in reply to "RE: Win32"
Karitku Member since:

And whats so bad that Windows support several official APIs to create programs, nothing. Keep mind that unlike Apple, Microsoft has huge corporates as clients and they demand support for long time. You can't just trash something because some 20 year old kid thinks it's not cool anymore. It's always fun to see arguing on Microsoft, they really are company that can't do right, cut support on something and you have Gartner telling that Microsoft is doomed, leave something and we get "blöööggeers" crying how this and that destroys security and blaa blaa.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Win32
by evangs on Tue 22nd Apr 2008 18:41 in reply to "RE[2]: Win32"
evangs Member since:

And whats so bad that Windows support several official APIs to create programs, nothing.

You obviously do not understand the frustrations that Win32 programmers have. If you want to create native code using Microsoft's tools, you're stuck with C++. If you're going to be using C++, you have a choice of raw Win32, MFC, or ATL/WTL.

Programming in raw Win32 is a joke as the API is far too verbose and requires a little too much micromanagement. Most people opt to either write their own wrappers or make use of existing wrappers like MFC or ATL/WTL.

MFC is not that elegant and it tries to shove the DocView architecture down your throat. There's a reason why WTL/ATL is quite popular these days (despite WTL having next to no documentation -.-). When you look at the MSDN documentation, you'll see very few new articles about developing unmanaged applications. The majority of the COM+/MFC/Win32 articles date from about 2000. Since 2000, there has been a significant effort to push .NET as the development framework of choice.

.NET is actually quite nice. Which is a real pity, since many people would like to use the framework but cannot afford the overhead of the .NET runtime. This leads to irritation among unmanaged code developers. Microsoft is clearly spending a lot of time and effort improving .NET and managed code development. As a result, the frameworks for developing unmanaged code get left on the shelf and are starting to show their age. If only we had something better coming from Microsoft!

On the other hand, Qt is quite a nice framework. However, it's a bit much for to pay about £600 a seat for Visual Studio, and then have to pay another £600 annually per seat for Qt. In an organization of about 200 developers, that costs quite a fortune. Nevertheless, if Microsoft ever drops support for Win32/64, you can bet a lot of projects will be rewritten. And it's not going to be in .NET ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Win32
by segedunum on Tue 22nd Apr 2008 12:07 in reply to "RE: Win32"
segedunum Member since:

Can you imagine what customers will say if your app suddenly demanded 3x more memory, started up slower and still provided the same features?

You've just worked out why the uptake of .Net, and especially things like VB.Net by classic VB developers, has been exceptionally poor, and why even now, a lot of applications are written with Win32 and COM.

There is zero competitive advantage and certainly no return on investment in rewriting an application with a shiny new API. However, that's what the lunatics writing for MSDN magazine believe you're going to do, as well as Apple when they make another hardware or API shift.

Edited 2008-04-22 12:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Win32
by kittynipples on Tue 22nd Apr 2008 13:23 in reply to "RE[2]: Win32"
kittynipples Member since:

Umm, isn't .Net simply a managed runtime that sits on top of Win32? I seriously doubt Win32 is going away any time soon, if at all.

Reply Parent Score: 1