Slashdot Mirror
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."
I'd say that I see more
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
I assume FBGA is a typo for FPGA. This thing sounds suspiciously similar to one of those standard FPGAs with a built-in ARM7 core.
It actually sounds like quite a nice little embedded system, a kind of grown-up Basic STAMP. I expect that the .net VM is in ROM; on start-up the FPGA is probably bootstrapped from it. I wonder if it would be possible to replace it with a real operating system?
I can't imagine .NET is going to take over the Internet, but ASP.NET is a very nice platform for writing web apps. OK they will probably run on IIS, unless you use Mono, but it is a big step up from the scripting languages approach of basically just printing out the web page.
It gives some nice abstraction to writing web pages, you don't have to worry about hand crafting every bit of HTML that is going out to the browser (although you can if you want or need to), and can deal with the concepts, objects and events.
.NET does little that is new, Java was doing much of it first, but for writing web apps it is pretty simple and powerful and has good development software. We are moving to it at work because it makes us more productive.
Looks like this idea's been around for god knows how long ... So much for innovation, we seem to be going backwards here ?.
This is a plug , but I've been working on aQuidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
Check out the company website, and Google them. I just did and it turns up that this company was founded on Oct10.2k4ce by Mark Phillips. A Google turned up... the company website, the original submission, and a couple other press releases. this is their only product, and they made it in two months.
Microsoft's only connection with them is that Mark Phillips guy, who, when googled investigatively, appears to have founded A Dot Corporation in Apr.2k3ce and they were involved in... SPOT Watch technology and claim microsoft to be a business partner (spotcorporation.com).
So is Mark Phillips using his work with microsoft's SPOT developer team to create something to market under a different name? Both companies list only Mark Phillips as founder and, in fact, confirmed employee, although one site listed A Dot as having 24 employees.
Yeah, so that's funny...
So?
.net...)
Yes, that'll suck for anyone who's currently working with any API it replaces, but that's progress - technology moves on. Besides, the jobs won't disappear overnight, there are still openings for COBOL programmers, for example (there's even a COBOL binding for
I still don't see the big deal. One of the most frequent criticisms I hear on tech sites of Windows is the cruft that's accumulated due to always maintaining backward compatibility. Surely removing that cruft by removing the backward compatibility would be a good thing?
Not that it'll happen very quickly; there's simply far too much software available using the Win32 API to simply drop support. People would either not upgrade, or (worse) move to an alternative platform.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
It boggles my mind, every time someone comes out with a bytecoded language in order to attempt to achieve hardware independence, someone comes along and creates hardware to execute it! Thus defeating the original purpose.
Of course people see the need for hardware acceleration because interpreted or even JIT compiled bytecode languages are always going to be slower than precompiled native binaries.
Say what you want about .NET (I disagree with u completely BTW), but the IDE KICKS Hardcore BUTT! I have yet to see something better the VS .NET 2003 for development. Quite a few people have bought into .NET and if I have a choice between C++ and C#, I pick C# thanks....but then I was born and raised on C and Java anyway....
My Favourite Meme
Jobserve seems to disagree with you:
search for ".net", any job type - 1629
search for "c", any job type - 1499
search for "java", any job type - 3009
search for "c++", any job type - 2300
Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 15.6). Guess I'd better explain then that jobserve.com is a major UK-based jobs web site, catering to a large number of industries. While the jobs advertised are mainly in the UK, they also cover parts of Europe, and have a site dedicated to jobs in Australia. How's that slashcode, better?
It's official. Most of you are morons.
.Net (WTF - extremely "ungooglable" name, BTW) is young and peppy... Wait 5-10 years for it to mature though.
Polymorphic translates : easier to write compilers, harder to JIT it.
Direct CPU mapping has the same difficulty as JVM bytecode, polymorphic instruction set is not a problem compared with the dynamic loading types, inlining, virtual calls, GC etc that the CPU architecture must solve
I was a Sun fanboy until I noticed that Apple were doing better UNIX systems for cheaper. I still like the W1100z and W2100z though :-)