The future of .NET 2.0

[Guest]

Hello,

I've a question about the future of the .NET Framework. What will be the
successor of the .NET 2.0 Framework? WinFX? If it will be WinFX, will it be
much different to the .NET 2.0 and will my applications developed for .NET
2.0 also run with the new WinFX?

I heard that Microsoft will support the .NET Framework in the future more
than other MS programming languages (for example MFC C++).
Are the .NET Framework languages are pogramming languages for the future or
will they be forgotten in the next 10 years for example?

 

[Michael Nemtsev]

Hello DHarry,

D> I've a question about the future of the .NET Framework. What will be
D> the successor of the .NET 2.0 Framework? WinFX? If it will be WinFX,
D> will it be much different to the .NET 2.0 and will my applications
D> developed for .NET 2.0 also run with the new WinFX?

WinFX is a set of technologies, like Avalon, Indigo and etc. It's more library
way ragther that framework.
..NET 2.0 gives them a base.

You apps don't depend on WinFX, winFX just gives u new features.

D> I heard that Microsoft will support the .NET Framework in the future
D> more
D> than other MS programming languages (for example MFC C++).

Everything depends on what are u writing. For now C++/COM has power functionality
even to work with .NET, especially with CLR.
C++/COM will live long, but there is nothing to develop more.
..NET simplify you work and it's not perfect, a lot of things need to be developed
more and more

D> Are the .NET Framework languages are pogramming languages for the
D> future or
D> will they be forgotten in the next 10 years for example?

What do u worry about?

---
WBR,
Michael Nemtsev :: blog: http://spaces.msn.com/laflour

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not
cease to be insipid." (c) Friedrich Nietzsche

 

[Randolpho]

DHarry,

WinFX runs on .NET 2.0, so if MS continues to support WinFX, MS will
continue to support .NET. Also, MS continues to support MFC, even
though it's now the red-headed stepchild to .NET.

Will .NET go away? I doubt it. As evidence, I offer the following.

Have you ever heard of singularity? Check it out:

http://research.microsoft.com/os/singularity/

That's right... Microsoft tried to write an OS in .NET, and from what
I've read, did a fairly decent job of it. .NET isn't going away anytime
soon -- although I wish the name would.

 

[Guest]

I never heard from Singularity before... but wow... it gives me a new opinion
about .NET.

I often read and heard that Microsoft said that ".NET is the future" and
that's the reason I opened this thread.
I never heard before that MS wrote an application in .NET (excluding
"Singularity") But why? Because of security or reverse engeneering? For
example why is MS Office not written in .NET?!
Ok... Singularity... it's a research project, and depending on my knownledge
about the strategies of Microsoft, I don't believe that MS will release
anytime (to unsecure, reverse engeneering, ...)
(...)

The reason I asked for the future of .NET, is that I want to specialise me
on one language for my applications released next.
I'm looking after a secure, new and powerfull language which won't be "out"
in the next years.

Greets from Germany

 

[Patrice]

MSOffice is likely quite a big application and I doubt it would be easy to
rewrite the whole thing in .NET just to be at the same point. Also despite
Singularity (which doesn't use .NET as we know it) .NET is an application
Framework i.e. it would likely make much more sense to write a end user such
as a CRM toll using .NET rather than a DB toll. MSOffice likely lies in
between.

 

[Randolpho]

I believe MS has been writing new applications in .NET -- I believe the
Expression series is written in WinFX, which is based on .NET. However,
they're not about to drop an existing code-base unless they absolutely
have to, so existing applications like Office will remain in C/C++ for
a while.

 

[Patrice]

Looks like I insist on "tools" being tolls...


--

 

[Greg Young]

After putting all of the VB6 programmers through the move to VB.NET, I think
it is safe to say that it will be quite a while until another major move is
made.

The fact that you still have atleast two more full studio/framework
iterations works out well too

My main worry would be about languages such as F# becoming more standard.

Cheers,

Greg

 

[Randolpho]

Looks like I insist on "tools" being tolls...

At least you were consistent.

 

[Guest]

F#?! Do you mean C#?

 

[Greg Young]

No I mean F#! http://research.microsoft.com/projects/ilx/fsharp.aspx

 

[Guest]

My error! I didn't know F# until now

 

[CMM]

Until the Visual Studio IDE is written in .NET, I wouldn't call either MFC
or COM redheaded stepchilds. The VS IDE is one huge COM application.

 

[Randolpho]

Until the Visual Studio IDE is written in .NET, I wouldn't call either MFC

or COM redheaded stepchilds. The VS IDE is one huge COM application.

MFC isn't about to go away, as I mentioned in the same sentence that I
called it a "redheaded stepchild", but I meant "redheaded stepchild" in
the .NET gets all the buzz while MFC is quietly pushed to the sidelines
way. At Visual Studio Connections, for example, there wasn't a single
MFC class available.

Of course... MFC *is* ugly and uber-hideous to look at, so I could have
meant it in the "traditional" way.

 

[CMM]

I agree... but though, again, I'm a fan of .NET..... that the IDE itself is
*not* written in .NET I think speaks volumes. I think it's a shame. I don't
expect heavy duty services like SQL Server or IIS to all of a sudden be
written in .NET (that's just stupid)... but the Visual Studio .NET IDE???
Come on... that's just sad.

Just spend a little time in the DTE Macro environment trying to automate the
IDE and you'll soon stumble on all the COM quirks and weird window names and
just plain archaic GUI infrastructure designs that have plagued MS since
Windows 95.

 

[Mike Grace]

I always thought that VS.NET IDE is writtin in .NET.

 

[CMM]

Nope. AFAIK, its main component MSENV.DLL is completely unmanaged code...
its a big a big COM app.... its toolbars are MS Office commandbars (not .NET
by any means) and all its windows are non-.NET non-"Windows Forms"...
possibly with the exception of the Properties toolbox... which is not a .NET
window itself but does contain a .NET control (the reusable Property
Editor).

 

[Randolpho]

that the IDE itself is *not* written in .NET I think

speaks volumes. I think it's a shame.

Actually, a lot of the IDE *is* written in .NET, but not all of it.
Microsoft has a ton of legacy code from Visual C++ that they'd like to
leverage (forgive the buzzword, please, it actually fits in this case);
you can't expect them to throw it away entirely, can you?

If you want a .NET IDE written *entirely* in .NET, check out
SharpDevelop:

http://icsharpcode.net/

 

[CMM]

What does "a lot" mean? I don't think the huge 8 megabyte MSENV.dll is a
managed assembly (is it?). Some wizards and peripheral stuff doesn't mean
Visual Studio is written in .NET....

.... even if it it's written in Visual C++ ".NET" (which as of VS 2003, it
was not.... not sure about 2005) that doesn't mean that it's actually
"managed" and uses *Windows Forms.* It does NOT.

I could be wrong... but I've seen no evidence that the Visual Studio IDE is
nothing but a Classic fat COM application. Even in the macro evironment,
when you try to start automating the Visual Studio IDE, the IDE windows have
names like VS_COM_Window (or something like that).... that for sure is not a
good sign.

 

[CMM]

Also, to add....Yet, we don't have 10,000 developers at my company, but WE'RE expected to
throw it away? No, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The
..NET *IDE* should be 100% managed IMO.... until then .NET is NOT a "real"
platform in my book (as much as I love it).

P.S. I do love .NET.