[AccessD] OT: How Microsoft Lost the API War

<<<
> I'm going to be disgrunted if they don't provide a
> new unmanaged interface for
> their Avalon system
>>>
Josh,

They can't do what they did with VB6/VBA developers - have a look:

http://www.codeguru.com/columns/Kate/article.php/c11083/
<quote>
a.. The best way to prepare for WPF is to begin with Windows Forms controls
now.
a.. WPF won't replace Windows Forms completely for quite a few release
cycles.
a.. The work that has gone into allowing Windows Forms to integrate with MFC
means that WPF and MFC will integrate well from the first WPF release, and
the release-cycle lag that occurred with Windows Forms 1.x won't occur.
</quote>

http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/whidbey/mfc2005/default.aspx
<quote>
Looking beyond Visual Studio 2005, C++ developers should expect deepened
integration between MFC and the .NET framework. After the release of Windows
Longhorn, Microsoft intends to add MFC support for key Longhorn APIs and
features. Microsoft also intends to support the Avalon user interface
framework in MFC, providing MFC developers with a bridge to the future of
platform user interface design. In essence, as the platform evolves,
developers can look forward to seeing MFC updated to leverage the latest
managed and native APIs and frameworks.
MFC developers have access to more frameworks than any other type of
developer on the platform. As such, MFC developers are free to leverage the
best from all worlds as it makes business and technological sense to do so.
Microsoft fully expects to support this capability into the foreseeable
future.

</quote>


http://blog.voidnish.com/?p=86
<quote>
Concluding, MFC is not dead now nor is it going to die any time soon; .NET
is not going to kill MFC, rather it's going to complement it; and MFC
applications will not only work on Longhorn, but MFC is being
updated/enhanced to support the Avalon framework. So if you are using MFC
now, continue using it with confidence and pride, and next time you see this
question asked in some forum, feel free to redirect the poster to this blog
entry.
</quote>

Shamil

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Josh McFarlane" <darsant at gmail.com>
To: "Access Developers discussion and problem solving"
<accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 2:27 AM
Subject: Re: [AccessD] OT: How Microsoft Lost the API War


> On 12/9/05, Shamil Salakhetdinov <shamil at users.mns.ru> wrote:
> > looks like an exaggeration here.
>
> I don't know, he makes alot of sense in many of his arguments.
>
> > But VB6 incompatibility with VB.NET is a bad move IMO, which would have
been
> > avoided with not that much efforts.
>
> Definately. The move away from backwards compatibility scares me.
>
> > And the technology race lead(?) by MS looks really crazy(expensive) from
> > here for many years now...
> >
> > The "safe" combinations of programming languages a' la MS(i.e. if you
still
> > decide to keep up going with MS like I do because I don't  have/I don't
see
> > any other opportunities) looks like pure C++ programming, with ATL/WTL
> > and .NET wrappers and ASP.NET...
>
> It sort of worries me, because the MFC application I develop today
> could be changed and completely useless when Avalon comes along. I
> happen to dislike .NET due to some core reasons. While Microsoft has
> made strides in being more conforming to standards in C++, I'm going
> to be disgrunted if they don't provide a new unmanaged interface for
> their Avalon system, but I may be forced to grin and bear it in the
> end.
>
> > P.S. Easy to say not easy to do, as well as easy to blame not easy to
make
> > it better - that's is clear - this my e-mail is not a "blame attempt" -
it's
> > an invitation to talk how to make things better(less expensive, more
> > effective, backward compatible) in IT if possible at all....
>
> Easiest way I've found so far: Don't fix what's not broken. I think
> that will be a big losing point for them. If I make a non-Win
> application in C++, I know it will work until the end of time if done
> correctly to spec.  Making a GUI application now, I'm severely
> hesitant to invest any time in any advanced GUI features, as they may
> be destroyed 6 months down the line, so instead I focus on what
> matters, the backend.
>
> --
> Josh McFarlane
>
> "Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding."
> -Albert Einstein
> -- 
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com