Slashdot Mirror


The Longhorn Dream Reborn

gbjbaanb writes "Early this month, Microsoft dropped something of a bombshell on Windows developers: the new Windows 8 touch-friendly immersive style would use a developer platform not based on .NET. Cue howls of outrage from .NET developers everywhere, but here Ars Technica describes what's more likely to have been going on and why Microsoft is finally getting its act together for developers."

18 of 254 comments (clear)

  1. Re:So then, by airfoobar · · Score: 3, Funny

    Toss a few chairs and you'll get over it.

  2. Re:Not quite... by Z34107 · · Score: 5, Informative

    RTFA.

    Windows developers want to be able to build immersive applications, and they don't want to have to use HTML5 and JavaScript to do it. They won't have to. ... Far from being left behind on the legacy desktop - which was the impression that many took from the presentation - native C++ and managed C# will both be first-class, supported ways of developing immersive, touch-first, tablet-friendly Windows 8-style applications.

    --
    DATABASE WOW WOW
  3. Standard modus operandi by mrsam · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If anything, we should be surprised that anyone's surprised. Whether or not TFA's theory is true, one thing is absolutely clear: .NET, like any Microsoft technology, has an expiration date.

    Anyone remember COM, VBX, and other MS-Windows technologies of yesteryear? Or the Visual Basic debacle of more recent vintage. For as long as I can remember, there's been a steady churn of Microsoft technologies, coming and going.

    Microsoft makes a lot of money from selling its development tools, documentation, etc... to its developer base. Microsoft simply runs the whole show. They are in full control, and call all the shots. And they understand perfectly well that if they keep the same technology platform in place, over time, they lose a good chunk of their revenue stream. That's why they have to obsolete their technology platforms, time and time again. They need revenue. It makes perfect sense. If you are a Microsoft Windows developer, one of your primary job functions is to generate revenue to Microsoft. Perhaps not from you, directly; maybe from your company. Whoever pays the bills for Visual Studio, MSDN, and all the other development tools. Maybe it's not you, personally, but it's going to be someone, that's for sure.

    So, perhaps this is the death knell for .NET. Perhaps not. If not this time, maybe next year. But it's inevitable. It's a certainty. If you are a .NET developer, your skills will be obsolete. If you were a COM developer, or a VB6 developer, your skills became obsolete a long time. I see no reason why .NET developers will escape the same fate. It's only a matter of time, but that's ok: all you have to do is invest some time and money to retrain yourself on the replacement Microsoft Windows technology, whatever it's going to be, when its time comes. But, it'll come.

    Originally I came from a Unix background. Many, many moons ago I explored the possibility of boning up on the MS-Windows ways of doing things. But, after a bit of some exploratory peeks and pokes, this became painfully clear to me; that whatever I learned, all of it was going go to waste, in its due time. And that was pretty much the end of my venture into the Windows landscape.

    Well, I'm happy to report that read(2), write(2), and all the other syscalls that make up POSIX, and its derivatives, still work the same as they did decades ago. Everything I have learned, as the sands of time have rolled on and on, I still put to good use today, and I make a pretty good living using them. Nothing has gone to waste. Honestly, this is more than I could say for my peers who practice their craft on MS-Windows. A lot -- not everything but a lot -- they learned decades ago is now completely and totally worthless to them, and to anyone else.

    So, whether Windows 8 is Longhorn reborn, as TFA says, or not, one thing can be said for certain. .NET is dead. It's just a matter of time. Good luck learning its eventual replacement. Of course, you understand that it'll be dead too, some years after that, of course; just keep that in mind, as you make your long term plans.

    1. Re:Standard modus operandi by exomondo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm happy to report that read(2), write(2), and all the other syscalls that make up POSIX, and its derivatives, still work the same as they did decades ago.

      Great, so it's dead too since it hasn't changed for decades? Same as with COM, there's nothing stopping you from using it and it still works the same as it did many years ago. You can still use all the old technologies and they still all work just the same as they used to.

    2. Re:Standard modus operandi by David+Gerard · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Fortunately, free software means that Windows developers can use Win32 approximately forever! On WINE.

      I have a theory: like backups, no-one ever really gets the idea of free software until the lack of it has bitten them in the arse, good and hard.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    3. Re:Standard modus operandi by obarthelemy · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're kinda comparing apples and oranges: on the one hand, MS is trying to provide APIs, libraries features and tools for advanced, maybe even "innovative" features (maybe in misguided ways, but that's not my point), on the other hand, you list almost bare-metal APIs.

      As far as I know, these haven"t changed in Windows much either, but most devs simply don't use them.

      I'm fully aware that COBOL isn't dead either... It's just not where most of the jobs/money/action is, though I'm sure quite a few people are quite happy working in that space.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    4. Re:Standard modus operandi by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have a client that has been dragging their feet about leaving their VB6 codebase running on an Access DB and migrating to .NET on MS SQL. Last week one of them saw the Microsoft announcement about 'HTML5 & JavaScript' and now they're afraid transitioning to .NET will be a dead end. Now they want to wait to see how Windows 8 will run their VB6/Access code. They have a lot of time invested in Office 2003 macros & Access code modules, but their DB is nearing the 2GB Access limit and their programmer is retiring in 6 - 12 months. They'll be running XP, Office 2003 & VB6 until they have no other options.

    5. Re:Standard modus operandi by Jahava · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Microsoft makes a lot of money from selling its development tools, documentation, etc... to its developer base. Microsoft simply runs the whole show. They are in full control, and call all the shots. And they understand perfectly well that if they keep the same technology platform in place, over time, they lose a good chunk of their revenue stream. That's why they have to obsolete their technology platforms, time and time again. They need revenue. It makes perfect sense. If you are a Microsoft Windows developer, one of your primary job functions is to generate revenue to Microsoft. Perhaps not from you, directly; maybe from your company. Whoever pays the bills for Visual Studio, MSDN, and all the other development tools. Maybe it's not you, personally, but it's going to be someone, that's for sure.

      So your argument is that Microsoft intentionally periodically obsoletes languages in order to make money? Am I reading this correctly?

      You do understand that:

      • Pretty much every commercial MS developer already has an MSDN license, which (minimally) gives them access to the latest development languages, SDKs, and tools.
      • Developing a new language that is at least as compelling as a current one is an expensive and non-trivial feat.
      • Obsoleting a language costs Microsoft a ton of money in rewriting their own software to create new APIs and then use them.
      • Each API and system rewrite introduces new bugs, costing Microsoft even more money identifying, patching, and being held accountable for.
      • One of the oldest MS-supported development languages, C++, has not been obsoleted.
      • One of the major issues with MS development is the legacy APIs that bias towards C++ functionality.

      I think your theory has some holes. Now, Microsoft has definitely obsoleted languages - Visual Basic for one (and good riddance) - but they did that because the language had shortcomings. I'd detail them but we have a nice article that already does that. The .NET framework and language stack, C# in particular, is on the same general level as Java: it is a language that more or less suits the needs of every platform developer. Why the hell would they want to obsolete that?

      No, languages aren't the issue with MS development, nor are they the theme of the article; frameworks are. A perfectly good language can be horrendous to use if it is unable to properly interact with its host environment to accomplish what it needs to accomplish. In this case (once again FTFA) C++ could interact worlds better with Windows than .NET could, and so .NET use suffered. This was an implementation failure on Microsoft's part. The article stipulates that Windows 8 intends to bring .NET back on-par with C++ as a development language, which (if true) means that it will be stronger than ever.

      It's also worth mentioning that in terms of accumulated skills and experience, learning a new language is trivial compared to truly learning a new framework. How you interact with the system and cause it to give you the resources and services that you want in the manner in which you want them is the heart of all modern systems programming, regardless of language. If Microsoft emphasizes .NET in their APIs, then .NET will be a viable Windows development platform; if not, then who knows? None of that reflects on the language itself, but rather on its appeal over other languages.

      Now, eventually every language will be obsoleted ... probably? I suppose we haven't been through that many generations of languages to know for sure, but that seems to be the case so far. There are various reasons languages die ... they suck, better ones come out, nobody likes them, no frameworks support them, or their target developer group gives up on it. .NET's main backer is cu

    6. Re:Standard modus operandi by bmajik · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I am a Microsoft employee in DevDiv.

      (PS: Buy Visual Studio LightSwitch when it comes out! It rocks!)

      I will not comment on the accuracy of what is in the ars article, other than to say: I know the answers to some of the questions they are worried about, and the answers do not worry me and shouldn't worry you either (unless you're a competing non-MS technology, perhaps :))

      Regarding your post: I don't see how you'd conclude that .net is going anywhere from the article you supposedly read.

      First and foremost, you would need to be specific about what you mean by ".net" for your statement to even make sense. Are you claiming that C#, the language, is on an EOL path? Or the .NET runtime will no longer be a supported way of writing userland apps?

      Your claim that we intentionally obsolete developer technologies as some sort of money making scheme is hillarious. Have you worked in the commercial software industry before? Let me explain how it works.

      1) we spend a ginormous amount of money paying engineers to make something that we hope developers use.
      2) we figure out if its something we can even charge money for, or if we need to give it away so more people will develop for our huge money making platforms (Windows, SQL, Office, Sharepoint)
      3) when we have something we can give away / sell for a pittance, we start doing so
      4) this is when we might actually start getting money for our efforts.

      Now then, if our strategy was to make money at any cost, you'd think that we'd fire all of the engineers and keep selling licenses at the same price indefinitely.

      But as you've noted, our engineering staff moves on to new things and eventually the old things get phased out.

      We don't start working on new platforms because we need to figure out how to get more money out of existing customers. We work on new platforms because we think they'll be better than the old ones; that customers will like them more; that they'll provide more value to everyone. There are all kinds of features and products we'd LIKE to put out there in the real world but they all cost us more money to do. And as you've noted, everything we release causes someone to get upset if we want to stop supporting years later. For every one of these developer technologies we ship, we end up supporting it for years after we're not selling it (and thus not getting new revenue). Our support life cycle is a hell of a lot longer than Apples, or any of the for-pay Linux distros, for instance.

      Finally, regarding what a huge revenue stream deveopers tools are for us... I've never come across anyone in Windows or Office who is worried their project is going to be killed and their staff moved onto a _real_ money making project like the F# compiler :)

      Sure, DevDiv does great revenue compared to a lot of entire companies. But look who we're competing against. I'm not sure we've ever sold 300 million seats ever, counting everything we do. Windows does that _every release_.

      (nothing against the F# compiler guys. I just picked something :))

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    7. Re:Standard modus operandi by Spad · · Score: 3, Funny

      The 2Gb Access Database limit is nature's way of telling you that you should never have used Access for anything in the first place.

  4. Re:So then, by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They're not dropping Silverlight or .NET. Try to pay attention. Nobody with any sense ever thought they were going to, but the usual suspects took every opportunity to make a "Durr hurr, Microsoft screwing over developers" thing out of it when there was no indication whatsoever this would happen.

    Nobody sane wants to develop large applications in fucking native JS and HTML5, and Microsoft knows that.

  5. PulseAudio - indeed by unity100 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    im somewhat of an audophile, and despite i have been using windows xp with extra software like srs audio sandbox (cryztalizes and clears sounds) and a good sound card (original x-fi x-treme music, from the production batch which got the good chips) with crystallizer and so on, on top of an altec lansing fx6021 speaker set (in-concert array microdrives totaling 12, crystal clear) for a long time,

    i was dumbstruck with the audio quality pulseaudio + x-fi x-treme music + audacious media player with crystallizer plugin gave, when i switched to linux.

    now im switching to linux every time i want to listen to music in high quality.

  6. Re:So then, by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Funny

    You mean that rumor I heard about Steve Ballmer turning tricks in Bellingham are false?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  7. Re:Not quite... by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, because they looked at Windows 8. And because anybody who's not, literally, mentally defective knows Microsoft isn't going to abandon .NET. You have to be a little smarter (say, 105 IQ) to know they're not going to abandon Silverlight, so I'll cut you a little slack there.

    The idea is ridiculous. You seriously think people are going to write complex end user and enterprise apps in JS/HTML5? Seriously?

  8. Re:Not quite... by segedunum · · Score: 3, Informative

    Unfortunately the article doesn't explain how they arrived at that conclusion other than it being their own opinion and possibly their own wish. That whole Longhorn WinFX finally coming to reality thing is another opinion piece. We heard many similar stories for Cairo many moons ago and that whole object oriented operating system rubbish around Windows 2000.

  9. RTFA by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article says windows is getting a new API, WinRT, which is a modern version of Win32. .NET and C++ development will both be updated for WinRT and have the same capability as each other so you can work in the environment you choose. Silverlight is supported, updated and renamed (codenamed?) Jupiter. Some other new things were added. In summary, .NET developers, you're getting new functionality. C++ developers, you're getting new functionality. Plus it will be easier than ever to go back and forth between the two because, underlying it all, is a new unified API.

  10. Re:So then, by c0lo · · Score: 3, Funny

    what happened to "developers developers developers" ?

    They moved into the "O-cloud-O cloud-O cloud"

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  11. Re:Microsoft fanfiction. by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Informative

    There are official MS OS Anime personifications, and there have been for quite some time.

    I see that although you are not new to the net, you are new to this topic, so I'll link you to one list of the OS-tans. I'm sure you'll have no problem finding the other less NSFW places yourself to see more and better quality pics/fics, if you are so inclined...

    There is indeed slash fiction. I read one not too long ago about XP-tan having an affair with Windows7-tan, Vista-tan was quite upset (her abandonment issues surfacing yet again); The always compassionate Linux-tan tried to console her, but it made the needy OSX Leopard-tan very jealous (apparently consoling a rival is a grave transgression on her home planet).

    There are OS-kuns (males) as well... My girlfriend told me of the new yaoi slash she was reading where OSX-Kun fell in love with the heroic and savage XP-kun who had rescued him from the lair of the evil scientist Dr. Mac-Defender. In the heat of their passion OSX-kun had unknowingly infected XP-kun with a virus; Thus, both OS-kuns were soon on their way to see the comically bungling Dr. Norton-kun.

    Fear not my friends, Rule 34 can not be denied.