A .Net CPU

An anonymous reader writes "Windows for devices has an article about the .Net CPU. The chip is programmed with a subset of the CLR and runs the same software as the SPOT smart watches. Among other things, "[t]he computer module is implemented in the format of a 32-pin "DIP" (dual inline package) chip, allowing the module to conveniently plug into a standard 32-pin DIP socket. In addition, the ".netcpu CPU Module" integrates 4MB of nonvolatile Flash memory (interfaced via an SPI interface on the SoC). It also provides 24 general purpose digital I/O lines, which are multiplexed with other functions including 8 VTU ports, a USB port, two serial ports, and SPI and I2C interfaces." More information about the product can be found at the .netcpu company website."

Comments

Re:Scary (saracasm)

[the angry liberal]

Sorry, Microsoft-- just because you want something to be true doesn't mean that it is.

Perhaps if you put your troll's club down long enough to take a look at sourceforge, you would notice most of the newer open source applications for Windows are being developed in .NET.

It won't take over the Internet, but it has been well accepted and is easy to use.

I wonder though, with all this FUD, if anyone can produce real numbers showing which is in more demand in the workplace: Linux developers vs .NET developers. I'm not talking about which is more 31337, I am talking about which one will find more steady income and have less trouble when they need to change jobs.

Re:Scary (saracasm)

[benjymous]

Personally as someone who's long developed Windows Win32/MFC code (in C++) and is now moving to C# .NET stuff, I'm finding .NET an absolute doddle.

let's face it - MFC and Win32 are old and have been cobbled together, seemingly at random over the lifespan of the whole Windows family, meaning nothing feels like it's ever really been designed

One function returns a colour, another function needs a colour. Oh dear, one uses some kind of int, the other a struct (oh and another some kind of class) - lets bog down our code with lots of conversion functions - Most of the time the sensible obvious approach to a task is the wrong one.

So far in .NET, whenever I've wanted to do something, I've looked at the classes, thought "How would it be sensible to do this", and 9 times out of 10 it works perfectly

Re:So

[Taladar]

It is an entirely different situation.

They can't just kill backwards compatibility now since it is the one big reason to stay with Windows. Most businesses are evaluating other OS now and if the change to a new Windows version requires rewriting all your programs (I know they will probably implement a compatibility layer but we know how well that worked in the past) then they might just as well rewrite them on Linux (or some other OS that 'lacks' MS Security Features (TM) ).