@bcooley:
>"i don't know anything about the internal politics of MS, but I actually do think that the internal teams would probably have preferred to use C# for both Windows components and Office."
What? If the internal teams would have preferred C#, they would have used C#. They've never used .NET. Not for Office, which is very-very close to a LOB application, in which area .NET became an enormous success outside MS, not for the offline client of Windows Mail, not for Live Messenger, not for WordPad... nothing. You can't seriously believe that the reason behind this is the tiny performance overhead.
Yes, there are people in the Windows teams who would prefer .NET, but the key people, who actually decide which technology to use, are severely biased against .NET. They never contributed anything for .NET, rather the opposite, suppressed it where they could. Generally, a stronger .NET orientation within MS means stronger positions for leaders who were focused on it, and thus relatively weaker positions for leaders focusing on different areas (you could very well say, sometimes focusing AGAINST .NET).
The reason behind this temporary "C++ Renaissance" is that these people with anti-.NET interest, succeeded to convince the upper management with their current goals.
>”Well, that's too bad for Microsoft's .NET I guess. I wonder how having to move the Windows 8 platform to C++ and javascript will help managability and extensibility?”
You’re joking, right? Why do you think those people –currently bitching about any performance overhead all the time- pushed through Javascript as a core platform into Windows? Why do you think .NET was and will always be a taboo for them, but not Javascript? Sure it has nothing to do with the fact that it’s something THEY introduced into Windows, and its success doesn’t have the threat of putting different divisions/people at higher positions in the eyes of the management.
Again, performance is just the current boogeyman they can use against .NET. Once it’s fixed, they WILL find something else (and to use Javascript over C#, they’ll find other reasons well before that).
I am not saying performance shouldn’t be focused on more, (although C# should definitely keep code quality as its primary aspect). I’m just saying that in reality, performance has little to do with what’s happening today inside Microsoft. Still, better performance would mean smaller vulnerable surface for C#, so they should indeed put some more effort into it now. Just keep in mind that it’s senseless to sacrifice too much for this area, because even if it’s solved, >95% of people who are bashing C# for its performance now, will definitely find something else they can keep on bashing C# for.
>"i don't know anything about the internal politics of MS, but I actually do think that the internal teams would probably have preferred to use C# for both Windows components and Office."
What? If the internal teams would have preferred C#, they would have used C#. They've never used .NET. Not for Office, which is very-very close to a LOB application, in which area .NET became an enormous success outside MS, not for the offline client of Windows Mail, not for Live Messenger, not for WordPad... nothing. You can't seriously believe that the reason behind this is the tiny performance overhead.
Yes, there are people in the Windows teams who would prefer .NET, but the key people, who actually decide which technology to use, are severely biased against .NET. They never contributed anything for .NET, rather the opposite, suppressed it where they could. Generally, a stronger .NET orientation within MS means stronger positions for leaders who were focused on it, and thus relatively weaker positions for leaders focusing on different areas (you could very well say, sometimes focusing AGAINST .NET).
The reason behind this temporary "C++ Renaissance" is that these people with anti-.NET interest, succeeded to convince the upper management with their current goals.
>”Well, that's too bad for Microsoft's .NET I guess. I wonder how having to move the Windows 8 platform to C++ and javascript will help managability and extensibility?”
You’re joking, right? Why do you think those people –currently bitching about any performance overhead all the time- pushed through Javascript as a core platform into Windows? Why do you think .NET was and will always be a taboo for them, but not Javascript? Sure it has nothing to do with the fact that it’s something THEY introduced into Windows, and its success doesn’t have the threat of putting different divisions/people at higher positions in the eyes of the management.
Again, performance is just the current boogeyman they can use against .NET. Once it’s fixed, they WILL find something else (and to use Javascript over C#, they’ll find other reasons well before that).
I am not saying performance shouldn’t be focused on more, (although C# should definitely keep code quality as its primary aspect). I’m just saying that in reality, performance has little to do with what’s happening today inside Microsoft. Still, better performance would mean smaller vulnerable surface for C#, so they should indeed put some more effort into it now. Just keep in mind that it’s senseless to sacrifice too much for this area, because even if it’s solved, >95% of people who are bashing C# for its performance now, will definitely find something else they can keep on bashing C# for.
posted by niall