On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, George Birbilis wrote:
> > > > And why should we do so? I still don't see what .Net offers
> > > > what FPC can't do better without adding another dependency on
> > > > Microsoft.
> > >
> > > Because there will be no more Win32 API use from Microsoft in the future.
> >
> > Given that in Vista about 40 out of 2000 core libraries are .NET,
> > and that none of the Office suite is written in .NET, I guess
> > that is a far far future. If ever. But that aside:
>
> Vista is the OS and has to maintain backward API compatibility with previous
> Windows etc.
> More and more GUI stuff of the OS will be in .NET though.
>
> I'm speaking of MS new APIs and products.
>
> I don't think Office Live etc. is not written in .NET btw.
>
> > Basically what you are saying is that we need .NET because
> > Microsoft forces everyone to use it on Windows.
>
> Microsoft has notified that they're moving (not jumping) to .NET for various
> reasons (including security - the buffer underrun/overrun etc. are a classic C
> plague for example).
Then don't program C :-)
It's an illusion to think that .NET is inherently more safe.
It's just an additional layer. Let me remind you that an 18 year old
girl from Belgium cracked .NET as soon as it was out, exposing various
security flaws.
> They don't jump to other technologies without a
> transition path, nor abandon older technologies in one day (would be a
> nightmare for their customer support). Don't have same experience with Apple
> and IBM though (was using OpenDoc on Mac and Windows at 1997 and it just died
> off forcing us to rewrite E-Slate [e-slate.cti.gr] in Java)
This is all true, but you are forced nevertheless.
I would like to see what would happen if some car constructor
suddenly decided to switch the clutch and gas pedals in their cars...
I doubt he's sell a lot of cars.
>
> > There is no problem with accepting that, but at least one
> > should be honest about it, and not try to desperately find
> > any pseudo-reasons why .NET is a technically good and sound
> > architecture...
>
> I don't see why one would consider Win32 API a better architecture than .NET.
> My experience is different (I've been programming from 1986-87 or something on
> various languages and platforms including microprogramming and bytecoding by
> hand)
It's better because it can be accessed from any language/toolkit.
For .NET you need a .NET application, with all that implies.
For me that is enough reason to discard it.
But we can discuss about this forever; Our premises are different,
so we cannot ever agree...
Michael.
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
