Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 2nd Jun 2008 09:36 UTC
Ars has just published part three in their series "From Win32 to Cocoa", in which Peter Bright explains why he thinks "Windows is dying, Windows applications suck, and Microsoft is too blinkered to fix any of it." Part one dealt with the history of both development platforms, part two dived into .Net, different types of programmers, and Windows Vista, and part three details the development platform and tools Apple has to offer, and in what ways they are superior or inferior to Windows'.
Thread beginning with comment 316640
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.
Member since:2006-02-05
Err... No, end-user applications are virtually never written in .Net. Just corporate stuff - the same kind of stuff that might otherwise be written in Java.
The vast amount of software written for windows used to be done in VB, not C++, or VB for the front end and C++ as COM objects. Since the shift to .net, everything that used to be done in vb, and most of what used to be done in C++ is now being done in .net. If you are talking about software pushing hardware to the limits (games, cg software, etc), yes, typically it is still done in C++. Other then that it is almost totally .net (with some notable exceptions).
You also seem to have this problem with dates.
10 years ago was 1998 - Microsoft were still trying to get away with using a modified, non-standard version of Java.
10 years ago was 1998 - Microsoft were still trying to get away with using a modified, non-standard version of Java.
I was not developing professionally on windows at the time (was a Java guy), but I have been using .net since the first beta, closer to 2000, which was 8 years ago, so it feels like a decade ;-)
The first release of the .Net framework was in 2002 - a mere 6 years ago. It wasn't usable for anything much until version 2, released in 2006. Realistically, developers could have started writing end-user apps in 2006. That's only two years ago.
Like I said, I have been writing windows stuff with .net for closer to 8 years now. Granted, they were trivial things, but still.
As for WPF, that's only available in .Net 3.0 (early 2007), and only got support from Microsoft's tools in .Net 3.5 (late 2007). Any applications written with that won't even have come close to being released yet.
3.0 was a bit before vista, which was mid 2006. There were some early tools for WPF, but the first real designers only really became available early 2007 (as an out of band CTP release).
The problem with WPF is not the tooling, it is the vast armies of Winforms developers who don't know how to code a UI with anything but a visual designer. The studio tooling for WPF is (imo) some of the best work they have done so far, which is saying something because MS does great designers. However, you need to actually know WPF to use it properly.
Clearly, you're not a software developer. Not on Windows anyway.
I've been writing software for close to 15 years now, professionally for about 8, professionally on windows for about 3.
Member since:2006-02-12
Err... No, end-user applications are virtually never written in .Net. Just corporate stuff - the same kind of stuff that might otherwise be written in Java.
Oh, really? The ATI/AMD control panel comes to mind. It is quite the consumer application and has nothing to do with corporate activities other than the fact that it was produced by a corporation and is distributed by the same. And this is hardly the only example.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-01-01
Err... No, end-user applications are virtually never written in .Net. Just corporate stuff - the same kind of stuff that might otherwise be written in Java.
The software used to flash the N800 and N810 in Windows is written in DotNet and *requires* the DotNet 2 framework.
Member since:2005-08-11
"The first release of the .Net framework was in 2002 - a mere 6 years ago. It wasn't usable for anything much until version 2, released in 2006. Realistically, developers could have started writing end-user apps in 2006"
The .NET framework was very usable out of the gate, I developed tonnes of stuff with it using Visual Studio 2002, I also used 1.5, which came out with 2003, and version 2, which came out in 2005, not 2006.
Just because you think something is not useful, doesn't mean that others don't. Clearly you aren't a software developer, at least not on Windows anyway.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2007-09-08
Err... No, end-user applications are virtually never written in .Net. Just corporate stuff - the same kind of stuff that might otherwise be written in Java.
You also seem to have this problem with dates.
10 years ago was 1998 - Microsoft were still trying to get away with using a modified, non-standard version of Java.
The first release of the .Net framework was in 2002 - a mere 6 years ago. It wasn't usable for anything much until version 2, released in 2006. Realistically, developers could have started writing end-user apps in 2006. That's only two years ago.
As for WPF, that's only available in .Net 3.0 (early 2007), and only got support from Microsoft's tools in .Net 3.5 (late 2007). Any applications written with that won't even have come close to being released yet.
Clearly, you're not a software developer. Not on Windows anyway.