[Ace26]

Has anybody seen this: Why Microsoft has made developers horrified about coding for Windows 8?

This post has been edited by Ace26: 17 June 2011 - 01:42 AM

[eclipsed4utoo]

Truthfully, I think Microsoft is being utterly retarded about this whole deal. They want to wait until BUILD before saying anything about it? Why wait so long? Just let us know so we can move on. Silverlight(and .Net developers as a whole) should not have to wait 3 months to hear if their talents are going to be useless in the next version of Windows.

Give us more information about Jupiter.

[lordofduct]

Yes because a 1 second phrase of how an application utilizes HTML5 and Javascript means that everyone needs to change all their code to this.

flashback:
Windows Vista and 7 has fully integrated .Net... screw your C++, Java, etc, you need to conform to .Net.

errr, wait, no we didn't. It was just another tool added to the list. The guy didn't say that we had to exclussively use HTML5 and Javascript, he merely mentioned that it could, which is cool.




I think the internet community is being retarded about a 5 minute 'show off' that Microsoft released. Picking apart each individual word and speculating on it creating their own hyperbolic assumptions about where Windows 8 is going. Stop shoving words in one guys mouth who was just showing off some pretty fuckin' pictures to get you excited.

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 17 June 2011 - 06:30 AM

[eclipsed4utoo]

lordofduct, and this statement tells you what...

Quote

Today, we also talked a bit about how developers will build apps for the new system. Windows 8 apps use the power of HTML5, tapping into the native capabilities of Windows using standard Javascript and HTML to deliver new kinds of experiences. These new Windows 8 apps are full-screen and touch-optimized, and they easily integrate with the capabilities of the new Windows user interface. There’s much more to the platform, capabilities and tools than we showed today.

http://www.microsoft...poratenews.aspx

Oh, and Julie Larson-Green is a woman.

[lordofduct]

This still doesn't say 'exclussively HTML and Javascript"... it only says it taps the power of HTML5 and Javascript.

I read that as saying, "we've designed the API to be useful for the more casual coders with experience in Javascript/HTML5, [other technologies work as originally designed as we didn't impart any data about changing those]".

[eclipsed4utoo]

lordofduct, on 17 June 2011 - 09:37 AM, said:

This still doesn't say 'exclussively HTML and Javascript"... it only says it taps the power of HTML5 and Javascript.

I read that as saying, "we've designed the API to be useful for the more casual coders with experience in Javascript/HTML5, [other technologies work as originally designed as we didn't impart any data about changing those]".

Quote

Today, we also talked a bit about how developers will build apps for the new system.

Quote

Windows 8 apps use the power of HTML5

Doesn't look like much of a choice there.

But that's beside the point. Why would Microsoft not mention .Net if it's supported? And with all the backlash since that statement, why not come out and say, ".Net will be supported in Windows 8. More information at BUILD."? It could be that simple. Their handling of this is retarded. Why would you allow the millions of developers in your technology question whether they should stay with it?

[lordofduct]

so this is a semantical interpretation of the phrases

"how developers will build apps"

and

"use the power"

Well, use the power doesn't hold any of these implications.

The 'will' in 'how developers will build apps', could possibly hold this implication. But really are you going to push this crazy idea that MS would abandon the entire .Net framework, C++, Java, and every other popular development tool out there to make people develope in ONLY HTML5/Javascript.

The word 'will' in this context says that to you?

To me it says someone just didn't think their choice of words through the best, and instead were taking a more active speech. It's more likely... Occam's razor.

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 17 June 2011 - 06:49 AM

[eclipsed4utoo]

lordofduct, on 17 June 2011 - 09:47 AM, said:

The 'will' in 'how developers will build apps', could possibly hold this implication. But really are you going to push this crazy idea that MS would abandon the entire .Net framework, C++, Java, and every other popular development tool out there to make people develope in ONLY HTML5/Javascript.

I am not pushing that crazy idea. I am simply saying that Microsoft is being retarded by not saying either way. Could Microsoft allow .Net to be used to run in the "legacy" mode(or whatever they end up calling it), but not allow .Net to build a true Windows 8 application? Sure they could. It is a "new OS", right?

The problem is Microsoft keeping us in the dark. Maybe they didn't intend for that paragraph to be taken the way it did. But once the skepticism started to show, they should have come out and stated either way.

[lordofduct]

Why would there need to be a 'legacy mode'?

Is there a 'legacy mode' in Windows 7 to support WinForms... or does the release of WPF just mean its a new tool to use?

Is there a 'legacy mode' in Windows 7 to support C++ and Java... or does the integration of .Net being distributed directly in the OS mean its just a new tool there for you the develop to use?



You know when a 'legacy mode' is needed? When the explicitly say things like "some older 32-bit applications will not be directly supported in 64-bit Win7 and you may want to use VirtualPC to emulate them more accurately". Or when they say that "VB6 runtime is not directly supported anymore, there is still a legacy runtime to allow VB6 apps to run".

An added integration to directly support a new technology does not insinuate that all other technologies have been left in the dust.

Ohhh, MS should come out and say something. Don't worry, they probably are. Not directly, they're going to be showing off all sorts of new stuff about Win8, and in it it mostly likely will show you why you were wrong. But they can't just directly say it, 1) added PR is EXPENSIVE and 2) the base who did think this quite easily could get offended because it's essentially MS calling everyone who made this hyperbolic assumption a bunch of morons.

I mean holy crap, Win8 is still a while off. They're showing you little tid-bits of sweet candy. Get over the fact that they didn't release the ENTIRE tech release notes. Now I'm not going to assume anything about what is or isn't in the technology when it comes out, they probably don't know as they're still working on it, but I'm not going to take this stupid paragraph and contort it to mean they've completely abandoned their ENTIRE developer base. Who the fuck in their right mind would do that?

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 17 June 2011 - 07:12 AM

[Ace26]

eclipsed4utoo, on 17 June 2011 - 04:01 PM, said:

I am not pushing that crazy idea. I am simply saying that Microsoft is being retarded by not saying either way. Could Microsoft allow .Net to be used to run in the "legacy" mode(or whatever they end up calling it), but not allow .Net to build a true Windows 8 application? Sure they could. It is a "new OS", right?

The problem is Microsoft keeping us in the dark. Maybe they didn't intend for that paragraph to be taken the way it did. But once the skepticism started to show, they should have come out and stated either way.

Legacy mode? I very much doubt that. .NET has been one of the best things yet that has happened to Microsoft since the turn of the new century and to now after about 11 years relegate it to legacy mode will be like shooting themselves in the foot; and I think they know better than that.

I think they are just trying to make Windows 8 OS attractive to all and sundry who would want to build an app or two for it. Infact, I see this as a huge marketing strategy to make the Windows platform appealing to even developers who would previously not glance the "Windows" way, there by swelling the ranks of Windows developers (with .NET developers inclusive).

As for .NET developers, Microsoft will probably include new classes, constructs and stuffs in their next .NET framework release that will target the "new" OS.

In all I think the future seems brighter for the Windows OS.

This post has been edited by Ace26: 17 June 2011 - 07:34 AM

[eclipsed4utoo]

lordofduct, on 17 June 2011 - 10:09 AM, said:

Why would there need to be a 'legacy mode'?

Is there a 'legacy mode' in Windows 7 to support WinForms... or does the release of WPF just mean its a new tool to use?

Is there a 'legacy mode' in Windows 7 to support C++ and Java... or does the integration of .Net being distributed directly in the OS mean its just a new tool there for you the develop to use?

Windows 8 isn't Windows 7. I am referring to Windows 7 Mode. Now you could say that Windows 7 also has a Windows XP mode. But again, Windows 7 and Windows 8 are completely different OSes.

Quote

Ohhh, MS should come out and say something. Don't worry, they probably are. Not directly, they're going to be showing off all sorts of new stuff about Win8, and in it it mostly likely will show you why you were wrong. But they can't just directly say it, 1) added PR is EXPENSIVE and 2) the base who did think this quite easily could get offended because it's essentially MS calling everyone who made this hyperbolic assumption a bunch of morons.

Show me that I am wrong? What would I be wrong about? Maybe you aren't actually READING my posts. I have never once said, "Microsoft is dropping .Net from Windows 8.". I simply question Microsoft's statement and subsequent tight-lipping. So therefore, I have nothing to be "wrong" about.

PR is expensive? How expensive is it for the Soma Somasegar to make a quick blog post saying that .Net will be available on Windows 8?

When Bob Magula gave his infamous "shifting strategies" for Silverlight, it didn't take Microsoft long to come out and clarify that statement. Why not do the same for this one?

Ace26, on 17 June 2011 - 10:27 AM, said:

eclipsed4utoo, on 17 June 2011 - 04:01 PM, said:

I am not pushing that crazy idea. I am simply saying that Microsoft is being retarded by not saying either way. Could Microsoft allow .Net to be used to run in the "legacy" mode(or whatever they end up calling it), but not allow .Net to build a true Windows 8 application? Sure they could. It is a "new OS", right?

The problem is Microsoft keeping us in the dark. Maybe they didn't intend for that paragraph to be taken the way it did. But once the skepticism started to show, they should have come out and stated either way.

Legacy mode? I very much doubt that. .NET has been the best thing that has happened to Microsoft since the turn of the new century and to now after about 11 years relegate it to legacy mode will be like shooting themselves in the foot; and I think they know better than that.

I was referring to Windows 7 Mode.

[lordofduct]

Quote

...
I have never once said, "Microsoft is dropping .Net from Windows 8."
...

Quote

...
How expensive is it for the Soma Somasegar to make a quick blog post saying that .Net will be available on Windows 8?
...

You're not saying MS is dropping .Net, you're just saying you want MS to confirm that they aren't dropping .Net?

... o_O

Oh and actually a PR move like that WOULD be expensive. To make that statement you're essentially admitting that the language you chose in an earlier PR release was a bad choice of words. So in correcting a bad choice of words, you have to be extra careful your new choice of words aren't something that could be twisted like the original choice of words were that got you into this situation. This also comes with a lot of ripple effects, public perception (both business and consumer), it's not a PR nightmare or nothing... but it's not just one guy in a room taking 30 seconds to write a blog post.

As for their reason for not doing it yet. I don't know why, if I had to speculate though... they don't think it worth their time probably.


Anyways, that's all I have to say on the subject.

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 17 June 2011 - 07:39 AM

[xclite]

When there's already massive public perception that the language you used before was unclear, you don't run the risk of putting yourself out there by correcting it. You've already paid the price.

[eclipsed4utoo]

lordofduct, on 17 June 2011 - 10:35 AM, said:

Quote

...
I have never once said, "Microsoft is dropping .Net from Windows 8."
...

Quote

...
How expensive is it for the Soma Somasegar to make a quick blog post saying that .Net will be available on Windows 8?
...

You're not saying MS is dropping .Net, you're just saying you want MS to confirm that they aren't dropping .Net?

... o_O

Oh and actually a PR move like that WOULD be expensive. To make that statement you're essentially admitting that the language you chose in an earlier PR release was a bad choice of words. So in correcting a bad choice of words, you have to be extra careful your new choice of words aren't something that could be twisted like the original choice of words were that got you into this situation. This also comes with a lot of ripple effects, public perception (both business and consumer), it's not a PR nightmare or nothing... but it's not just one guy in a room taking 30 seconds to write a blog post.

As for their reason for not doing it yet. I don't know why, if I had to speculate though... they don't think it worth their time probably.

I want Microsoft to CLARIFY their strategy.

So you're telling me, this statement would be harmful?

Quote

Recently, we showcased the new Windows 8. During the discussion, Julie Larson-Green mentioned that HTML5 and Javascript would be used for Windows 8 applications. It seems that this statement has been taken out of context. HTML5 and Javascript will not be the only development languages supported for Windows 8 applications. So to clarify, .Net, C, C++, and other development languages/frameworks will be supported. More information about supported development languages will come at BUILD.

That took me a minute to write. It clarifies the statement about supported languages, and also keeps the hype for BUILD.

Bob Muglia wrote a book to clarify his Silverlight statements from PDC last year. I think it's safe to say that there are more .Net developers than there were Silverlight developers.

[baavgai]

The HTML + Javascript thing isn't new. I recall writing a gadget for Windows 7. Same tech.

What is new is the HTML5 part. This makes sense, since even though they've been taken to court for it, Windows products tend to have some IE browser guts in the core. The new base browser would add HTML5 support, so...

With HTML5, of course, you can do all the GUI stuff you'd want on a desktop. Add some nice Microsoft specific hooks and it's easy to see why this kind of development would be tempting.

Windows still supports ugly ActiveX stuff deep down; it's not like they ever let anything go. I have some HTA files that still work fine in Windows 7, even though they haven't pushed that one for some time. Wait, that sounds a lot like the Gadgets, which sounds like Windows 8 toys. See, never dead.

I'm sure Silverlight developers are defensive. It's a nice idea, but hardly the Flash killer it was supposed to be. Nor is it as simple as claimed. As something that lives in the browser, it expects a lot from the desktop. The wide spread adoption and market acceptance haven't happened, with seemingly more stories of why developers dropped it than why they went with it. There are only a handful of sites that have allowed to the technology to retain some street cred; notably Netflix.