Many (including me) argue that .NET is what Java should have been. Ignore the Microsoft issue here, as we''re just talking about the technology. Wouldn''t you rather have a choice in languages than be forced to use one? And .NET is not intrinsically tied to any particular platform or OS. Even if legitimate non-Windows versions of the .NET framework aren''t released, there are projects underway to bring .NET to other platforms already. So that eliminates the cross-platform issue.

I just can''t get used to that garbage collection thing. I wish I could be in control of it, or that it were an auto-release-pool class like in the NeXT and Cocoa APIs that you can apply where necessary.

If I''m not wrong, .NET is actually another way to program for windows just like WIN32.

Merlin9x9 is right on this.

.net isn''t just another way to program for Windows like Win32 because its structured completely different. In theory, any operating system can really support .net because all .net languages compile down to a sort of bytecode based on XML. It works alot like the way java does, except you can use your language of choice to program with, but it all compiles down to the same bytecode.

Also if I understand right, DirectX 9 will still support Visual Studio 6.0 and its languages. The two big advances that DirectX 9 will include is support for the .net framework and the addition of a high level shader language, in all likelihood very similar if not the same to nVidia''s Cg (C for graphics).

"Beyond that, SDL is an easier API to use than DirectX (DirectX is notorious for requiring obscene amounts of set-up code, structure filling, etc.)."

heh, even though SDL is just wrapping directx on the win32 platform.
z0rowolf, ms would be stupid, no retarded to not support c and c++ for development. some game development companies actually use intel or other compilers. also bytecode no matter how optimized will always be slowwe then native code. also being a vm, it requires the vm to be installed. if i am not mistaken i dont think it fairs too well with the win9x kernal.

directx can always be developed (in fact ms must allow it due to directx com design) in c++, c, asm, delphi, and other language that supports COM interfaces.

no matter what you say about MS, you cant say they are stupid. you dont become one of the largest OS distributors by being stpuid ya know.

quote:

---

heh, even though SDL is just wrapping directx on the win32 platform.

---

It's easier exactly because it wraps parts of DirectX on Win32. With it, you don't have to worry about the complex initialization and finalization DirectX often requires, nor do you have to learn any different APIs if you decide to have some balls and develop for a non-Windows platform.

quote:

---

directx can always be developed (in fact ms must allow it due to directx com design) in c++, c, asm, delphi, and other language that supports COM interfaces.

---

Nobody here is trying to say that using .NET is a replacement for DirectX and native Win32 code. All we're saying is that it's quite possible to do high-performance (not not highest) graphics on the .NET platform using OpenGL. Other API bindings are sure to be available in the near future, such as DirectX. So, while I don't forsee Carmack shifting over to .NET anytime soon, if the strengths of .NET are appealing to you for project x, then it's equally appealing to know that you won't have to roll your own multimedia libraries for project x (I emphasize the "project" thing since in software development, one size does NOT fit all).

Another really cool thing about .NET beyond the language choice is that you can write in pure ".NET assembly," or MSIL as it's actually called. How cool is that?!

A lot of languages exist that are similar to Cg, the most notable of which—in my opinion—is 3Dlabs' proposed OpenGL 2.0 shader language. They're essentially the same (considering that they're both C based and do the same things), and many people argue that the existence of Cg is more political in purpose than technological. And I agree.

quote:

---

you dont become one of the largest OS distributors by being stpuid ya know

---

No, but you do become that large by creating an OS on the [overall] cheapest, most open personal computer system where consumers have no significant other choice in operating systems except for DOS. This is how things were at the time of Windows' rise to popularity, and it would have been surprising if Microsoft hadn't secured all of that market share. Microsoft isn't stupid in business, but they are often stupid (or simply careless) with technology. Most of their software and technologies are acquired or stolen from other parties, not initially created by Microsoft. And as far as OSes go, Windows has only become high-quality as of Windows 2000. When you consider how few people even realize that Windows isn't the only operating system, it's easy to understand how it was able to coast for so long without significant technological improvements.

My $0.02.


[edited by - merlin9x9 on July 22, 2002 12:25:56 PM]

quote:

---

Original post by a person
if i am not mistaken i dont think it fairs too well with the win9x kernal.

---

the 9x kernal should be shot in the head and put in a hole soemwhere an forgot about.
Win95 is no longer supported by DX, give it a year to 18months and Win98/ME will go the same way.

*nods*
The thing that really pisses me off is when people compare Windows to other operating systems, and they base their arguments on Windows 9x instead of, say, Windows 2000. Or, worse yet, they assume that Windows 2000 has the same problems as Windows 9x. When people think of Windows, they should only think of the NT line, especially when comparing. Period.