• Vaygr Bomber (7/7) Jan 27 2004 Microsoft is planning to including message
• C (7/14) Jan 28 2004 I think eventually D is going to have to spit out IL to take advantage o...
• Matthew (10/29) Jan 28 2004 a
• C (10/45) Jan 28 2004 If D was ported to other targets I think that would ensure its success ,...
• Matthew (7/58) Jan 28 2004 It's hard to imagine that, but who knows? I certainly have spent very li...
• Georg Wrede (39/46) Jan 28 2004 Knowing M$, they are going to keep the appearance as if LH would
• davepermen (26/77) Jan 28 2004 it will allow other apps as well (for backward compatibility), but there...
• Achilleas Margaritis (36/118) Jan 28 2004 Not, it will not happen. Windows will not move to a totally managed
• davepermen (28/153) Jan 28 2004 why? you can static compile every .NET app if you want to.
• Achilleas Margaritis (20/32) Jan 29 2004 It depends on the application. For the kind of applications my company
• Achilleas Margaritis (15/22) Jan 28 2004 By the way, the article simply says "we are gonna use message passing"
• davepermen (4/31) Jan 28 2004 i guess they mean that. signals and slots, merely.. something like this.

Vaygr Bomber <Vaygr_member pathlink.com> writes:

Microsoft is planning to including message 
passing to replace COM and DCOM in future Windows 
including Longhorn.

Here is the link:

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5148148.html

Objective C provides some message passing.
Will there be an interface for message passing in D?

"C" <dont respond.com> writes:

I think eventually D is going to have to spit out IL to take advantage of

good place to start.  Unfortunately I don't see this happening without
coprorate support , or a lot more interest in D.

C



"Vaygr Bomber" <Vaygr_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:bv7o3n$254g$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Microsoft is planning to including message
 passing to replace COM and DCOM in future Windows
 including Longhorn.

 Here is the link:

 http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5148148.html

 Objective C provides some message passing.
 Will there be an interface for message passing in D?

"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

"C" <dont respond.com> wrote in message
news:bv7p5n$26sv$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I think eventually D is going to have to spit out IL to take advantage of


a
 good place to start.  Unfortunately I don't see this happening without
 coprorate support , or a lot more interest in D.

There's not going to be corporate support for it, at least not from the
obvious quarters. There are already too many IL generating languages, and
they're only doing so to support an existing large user base for those
languages.

Unfortunately, I think D needs to concentrate on good platform-independent
libraries, and think about D.NET only when there are significant commercial
uses of D.

 C



 "Vaygr Bomber" <Vaygr_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
 news:bv7o3n$254g$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Microsoft is planning to including message
 passing to replace COM and DCOM in future Windows
 including Longhorn.

 Here is the link:

 http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5148148.html

 Objective C provides some message passing.
 Will there be an interface for message passing in D?

"C" <dont respond.com> writes:

If D was ported to other targets I think that would ensure its success , but
with Longhorn and friends what would be the future of D on Windows platforms
?  It sounds rhetorical but its not does anyone know for sure if Longhorn
will support only .net apps ?

C

"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message
news:bv7s8u$2d38$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "C" <dont respond.com> wrote in message
 news:bv7p5n$26sv$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I think eventually D is going to have to spit out IL to take advantage


of



be
 a
 good place to start.  Unfortunately I don't see this happening without
 coprorate support , or a lot more interest in D.

 There's not going to be corporate support for it, at least not from the
 obvious quarters. There are already too many IL generating languages, and
 they're only doing so to support an existing large user base for those
 languages.

 Unfortunately, I think D needs to concentrate on good platform-independent
 libraries, and think about D.NET only when there are significant

commercial
 uses of D.

 C



 "Vaygr Bomber" <Vaygr_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
 news:bv7o3n$254g$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Microsoft is planning to including message
 passing to replace COM and DCOM in future Windows
 including Longhorn.

 Here is the link:

 http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5148148.html

 Objective C provides some message passing.
 Will there be an interface for message passing in D?

"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

 If D was ported to other targets I think that would ensure its success ,

but
 with Longhorn and friends what would be the future of D on Windows

platforms
 ?  It sounds rhetorical but its not does anyone know for sure if Longhorn
 will support only .net apps ?

It's hard to imagine that, but who knows? I certainly have spent very little
attention on thinking about all that horrid gunk in the future. I'll be a
100% Linux boy if that happens, I think.

 C

 "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message
 news:bv7s8u$2d38$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "C" <dont respond.com> wrote in message
 news:bv7p5n$26sv$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I think eventually D is going to have to spit out IL to take advantage


 of



 be
 a
 good place to start.  Unfortunately I don't see this happening without
 coprorate support , or a lot more interest in D.

 There's not going to be corporate support for it, at least not from the
 obvious quarters. There are already too many IL generating languages,


and
 they're only doing so to support an existing large user base for those
 languages.

 Unfortunately, I think D needs to concentrate on good


platform-independent
 libraries, and think about D.NET only when there are significant

 commercial
 uses of D.

 C



 "Vaygr Bomber" <Vaygr_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
 news:bv7o3n$254g$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Microsoft is planning to including message
 passing to replace COM and DCOM in future Windows
 including Longhorn.

 Here is the link:

 http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5148148.html

 Objective C provides some message passing.
 Will there be an interface for message passing in D?

Georg Wrede <Georg_member pathlink.com> writes:

 does anyone know for sure if Longhorn
 will support only .net apps ?

It's hard to imagine that, but who knows? I certainly have 
spent very little attention on thinking about all that horrid 
gunk in the future. I'll be a 100% Linux boy if that happens, 
I think.

Knowing M$, they are going to keep the appearance as if LH would
be .net-only. This is the only way to make the sw-providers move
in sufficient hordes, since the individual programmers are 
increasingly getting fed-up of having to learn the M$ buzz tech
du jour, only to see M$ skip those after a couple of years.

And the reason is always the same. And will be. But they never
admit it. Only recently have I seen any admitting, even in hind-
sight:

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5148148.html



(Quoting the above link:)

ZDNet:"the company wants to wean them off older Windows 
programming models."

ZDNet: "Moving developers away from the object-oriented 
world is a key element of Microsoft's battle for mindshare 
with the likes of IBM, Sun Microsystems, BEA Systems, Oracle 
and other rivals".

ZDNet: " 'We didn't have (a) true arms-length relationship 
between programs,' [M$ SW architect Don] Box said. 'We were 
putting on an appearance that we did, but the programs had 
far more intimacy with each other than anyone felt 
comfortable with.' "     !!!!Tell me something new!

And the sw-providers, and, sadly, even most developers,
believe that "this time they have to have gotten it right,
otherwise they'd never be on-the-level like this!" Only to
see six months after the release of Longhorn, that it's time
for yet another paradigm. Sigh. And again, for the same reason.

At the end of the day, M$ couldn't afford to skip the old
things that fast, or else there'll be a whole lot of 
"100% Linux boys". 

Plus, try to imagine how much of their own code this would 
break!

They know this right now. But that is
top classified, secret, for your eyes only -- this will destroy
itself in 10 seconds. Oh, and delete this message, if it 
doesn't. There might be a bug in the self-destruct code. This 
is an order! Next time we get sued and there is a search
warrant, this had better not be on your hard disk, or on our
server. (The backups don't work, so that's no problem.)

-----------

Not that I'd have an attitude!     8-O

davepermen <davepermen_member pathlink.com> writes:

it will allow other apps as well (for backward compatibility), but there are two
issues with it:

1) the whole longhorn core will be with a managed interface directly. win32api,
as we know today, will only be supported for backward compatibility, _ABOVE_ the
managed interface.
non-managed applications as well has to grant execution-access, wich means that
all accesses to os-functions need to get granted, checked, and checked if you
have permission, so the switching between the managed and unmanaged parts get
rather slow

2) non-managed applications are risky. they can do anything. they can crash.
they can possibly harm the system. the os has no knowledge of it. thats why
microsoft moves to the managed path. now, if an unmanaged app runs in longhorn,
it can harm the system, or simply crash due some bug. because of that, unmanaged
apps will have special security settings. these will be (i guess) for home-users
(Longhorn Home Edition, or something), a pop-up-information, just as if you
install today non-WHQL drivers. information that the application is "unsave,
possibly dangerous. if it is a legacy app, please run it trough the
backward-compatibilitier" or similar.
for work-pc's (Longhorn Professional Edition, or something), it will by default
be forbidden for non-admins to run those apps, except if they are marked to be
legitime by the admins.

this is without any NDA or so, i have no "real" knowledge. this is what i
gathered from some leaks, and some official information, and simply using the
brain..

hope that gives some idea.

In article <bv7v4m$2hpk$1 digitaldaemon.com>, C says...
If D was ported to other targets I think that would ensure its success , but
with Longhorn and friends what would be the future of D on Windows platforms
?  It sounds rhetorical but its not does anyone know for sure if Longhorn
will support only .net apps ?

C

"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message
news:bv7s8u$2d38$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "C" <dont respond.com> wrote in message
 news:bv7p5n$26sv$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I think eventually D is going to have to spit out IL to take advantage


of



be
 a
 good place to start.  Unfortunately I don't see this happening without
 coprorate support , or a lot more interest in D.

 There's not going to be corporate support for it, at least not from the
 obvious quarters. There are already too many IL generating languages, and
 they're only doing so to support an existing large user base for those
 languages.

 Unfortunately, I think D needs to concentrate on good platform-independent
 libraries, and think about D.NET only when there are significant

commercial
 uses of D.

 C



 "Vaygr Bomber" <Vaygr_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
 news:bv7o3n$254g$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Microsoft is planning to including message
 passing to replace COM and DCOM in future Windows
 including Longhorn.

 Here is the link:

 http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5148148.html

 Objective C provides some message passing.
 Will there be an interface for message passing in D?

"Achilleas Margaritis" <axilmar b-online.gr> writes:

Not, it will not happen. Windows will not move to a totally managed
environment. There is a multitude of apps running under Windows that want to
run at max speed, and there is a large market about them (defense,
scientific applications, hard real time etc). And don't forget all the apps
that have been written so far.

We need a statically compiled language with standard libraries that compiles
on all the major operating systems and "is write once, compile everywhere",
allowing for the best engineering practices to flurish.

D is close enough to it.

(by the way, C++ is constantly evolving. Which means, that it is not dying.
So, if there is room for C++, there is clearly room for D as well).

"davepermen" <davepermen_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:bv80q4$2kat$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 it will allow other apps as well (for backward compatibility), but there

are two
 issues with it:

 1) the whole longhorn core will be with a managed interface directly.

win32api,
 as we know today, will only be supported for backward compatibility,

_ABOVE_ the
 managed interface.
 non-managed applications as well has to grant execution-access, wich means

that
 all accesses to os-functions need to get granted, checked, and checked if

you
 have permission, so the switching between the managed and unmanaged parts

get
 rather slow

 2) non-managed applications are risky. they can do anything. they can

crash.
 they can possibly harm the system. the os has no knowledge of it. thats

why
 microsoft moves to the managed path. now, if an unmanaged app runs in

longhorn,
 it can harm the system, or simply crash due some bug. because of that,

unmanaged
 apps will have special security settings. these will be (i guess) for

home-users
 (Longhorn Home Edition, or something), a pop-up-information, just as if

you
 install today non-WHQL drivers. information that the application is

"unsave,
 possibly dangerous. if it is a legacy app, please run it trough the
 backward-compatibilitier" or similar.
 for work-pc's (Longhorn Professional Edition, or something), it will by

default
 be forbidden for non-admins to run those apps, except if they are marked

to be
 legitime by the admins.

 this is without any NDA or so, i have no "real" knowledge. this is what i
 gathered from some leaks, and some official information, and simply using

the
 brain..

 hope that gives some idea.

 In article <bv7v4m$2hpk$1 digitaldaemon.com>, C says...
If D was ported to other targets I think that would ensure its success ,


but
with Longhorn and friends what would be the future of D on Windows


platforms
?  It sounds rhetorical but its not does anyone know for sure if Longhorn
will support only .net apps ?

C

"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message
news:bv7s8u$2d38$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "C" <dont respond.com> wrote in message
 news:bv7p5n$26sv$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I think eventually D is going to have to spit out IL to take




advantage
of





would
be
 a
 good place to start.  Unfortunately I don't see this happening




without
 coprorate support , or a lot more interest in D.

 There's not going to be corporate support for it, at least not from the
 obvious quarters. There are already too many IL generating languages,



and
 they're only doing so to support an existing large user base for those
 languages.

 Unfortunately, I think D needs to concentrate on good



platform-independent
 libraries, and think about D.NET only when there are significant

commercial
 uses of D.

 C



 "Vaygr Bomber" <Vaygr_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
 news:bv7o3n$254g$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Microsoft is planning to including message
 passing to replace COM and DCOM in future Windows
 including Longhorn.

 Here is the link:

 http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5148148.html

 Objective C provides some message passing.
 Will there be an interface for message passing in D?

"davepermen" <davepermen hotmail.com> writes:

why? you can static compile every .NET app if you want to.

performance is no issue. and even managed apps can have native code in, if
needed. they will just have to be "WHQL Certified" (or similar), that means,
you will, at installation time, have to accept this application to run on
your system.

admins can allow every app to run. they can allow native apps because of
this, too. users can't chose anymore. _THATS_ what makes the system stable.
it essencially makes msblast a nonissue, as well as iloveyou, or lovesan, or
anything else. as well as appcrashes, etc.

ms is working on this since years. don't you think the first "cries of
cirtics" aren't handled properly? they know the problems that can arise
bether than any of us, and they will take care, and even do so now.


"Achilleas Margaritis" <axilmar b-online.gr> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:bv973p$1jj1$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Not, it will not happen. Windows will not move to a totally managed
 environment. There is a multitude of apps running under Windows that want

to
 run at max speed, and there is a large market about them (defense,
 scientific applications, hard real time etc). And don't forget all the

apps
 that have been written so far.

 We need a statically compiled language with standard libraries that

compiles
 on all the major operating systems and "is write once, compile

everywhere",
 allowing for the best engineering practices to flurish.

 D is close enough to it.

 (by the way, C++ is constantly evolving. Which means, that it is not

dying.
 So, if there is room for C++, there is clearly room for D as well).

 "davepermen" <davepermen_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
 news:bv80q4$2kat$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 it will allow other apps as well (for backward compatibility), but there

 are two
 issues with it:

 1) the whole longhorn core will be with a managed interface directly.

 win32api,
 as we know today, will only be supported for backward compatibility,

 _ABOVE_ the
 managed interface.
 non-managed applications as well has to grant execution-access, wich


means
 that
 all accesses to os-functions need to get granted, checked, and checked


if
 you
 have permission, so the switching between the managed and unmanaged


parts
 get
 rather slow

 2) non-managed applications are risky. they can do anything. they can

 crash.
 they can possibly harm the system. the os has no knowledge of it. thats

 why
 microsoft moves to the managed path. now, if an unmanaged app runs in

 longhorn,
 it can harm the system, or simply crash due some bug. because of that,

 unmanaged
 apps will have special security settings. these will be (i guess) for

 home-users
 (Longhorn Home Edition, or something), a pop-up-information, just as if

 you
 install today non-WHQL drivers. information that the application is

 "unsave,
 possibly dangerous. if it is a legacy app, please run it trough the
 backward-compatibilitier" or similar.
 for work-pc's (Longhorn Professional Edition, or something), it will by

 default
 be forbidden for non-admins to run those apps, except if they are marked

 to be
 legitime by the admins.

 this is without any NDA or so, i have no "real" knowledge. this is what


i
 gathered from some leaks, and some official information, and simply


using
 the
 brain..

 hope that gives some idea.

 In article <bv7v4m$2hpk$1 digitaldaemon.com>, C says...
If D was ported to other targets I think that would ensure its success



,
 but
with Longhorn and friends what would be the future of D on Windows


 platforms
?  It sounds rhetorical but its not does anyone know for sure if



Longhorn
will support only .net apps ?

C

"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message
news:bv7s8u$2d38$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "C" <dont respond.com> wrote in message
 news:bv7p5n$26sv$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I think eventually D is going to have to spit out IL to take




 advantage
of





 would
be
 a
 good place to start.  Unfortunately I don't see this happening




 without
 coprorate support , or a lot more interest in D.

 There's not going to be corporate support for it, at least not from




the
 obvious quarters. There are already too many IL generating languages,



 and
 they're only doing so to support an existing large user base for




those
 languages.

 Unfortunately, I think D needs to concentrate on good



 platform-independent
 libraries, and think about D.NET only when there are significant

commercial
 uses of D.

 C



 "Vaygr Bomber" <Vaygr_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
 news:bv7o3n$254g$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Microsoft is planning to including message
 passing to replace COM and DCOM in future Windows
 including Longhorn.

 Here is the link:

 http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5148148.html

 Objective C provides some message passing.
 Will there be an interface for message passing in D?

"Achilleas Margaritis" <axilmar b-online.gr> writes:

"davepermen" <davepermen hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bv9a8g$1pco$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 why? you can static compile every .NET app if you want to.

 performance is no issue.

It depends on the application. For the kind of applications my company
makes, performance is still an issue. And it will be for a long time to
come.

and even managed apps can have native code in, if
 needed. they will just have to be "WHQL Certified" (or similar), that

means,
 you will, at installation time, have to accept this application to run on
 your system.

 admins can allow every app to run. they can allow native apps because of
 this, too. users can't chose anymore. _THATS_ what makes the system

stable.
 it essencially makes msblast a nonissue, as well as iloveyou, or lovesan,

or
 anything else. as well as appcrashes, etc.

The problem with viruses is that they have runnable code embedded in them
which is executed at one click. If Outlook did not permit VBscript and
Jscript code execution, then there would not be a problem.

Application crashes happen in managed languages, too. If, for example, try
to access a Java object from a NULL pointer, the application will create an
exception and crash.

Security and algorithmic problems are not a function of the programming
language, nor of the execution environment.

 ms is working on this since years. don't you think the first "cries of
 cirtics" aren't handled properly? they know the problems that can arise
 bether than any of us, and they will take care, and even do so now.

You forget about what they care most: vendor lock-in. For them, progress is
tied to their monopoly being maintained. But that is totally different
issue, not worthy of being discussed here.

"Achilleas Margaritis" <axilmar b-online.gr> writes:

By the way, the article simply says "we are gonna use message passing"
instead of "handling communication between objects". The message passing
technique is used in the defense industry for as long as I remember myself
working in it: an app is separated in different processes and they
communicate through message passing. What does have COM to do with it ? COM
is just a mechanism that hides the message passing. Under it, message
passing happens.

Unless they meant that programming languages will have message passing
instead. So, a message could be sent to an object and the object will call
one of its methods if there is a registered handler for it...much like
message dispatching works in MFC/BFC/WxWindows but in a completely
transparent way that the language defines...

That's a useful programming technique. Maybe D can use it.

"Vaygr Bomber" <Vaygr_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:bv7o3n$254g$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Microsoft is planning to including message
 passing to replace COM and DCOM in future Windows
 including Longhorn.

 Here is the link:

 http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5148148.html

 Objective C provides some message passing.
 Will there be an interface for message passing in D?

"davepermen" <davepermen hotmail.com> writes:

i guess they mean that. signals and slots, merely.. something like this.

"Achilleas Margaritis" <axilmar b-online.gr> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:bv97o4$1knd$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 By the way, the article simply says "we are gonna use message passing"
 instead of "handling communication between objects". The message passing
 technique is used in the defense industry for as long as I remember myself
 working in it: an app is separated in different processes and they
 communicate through message passing. What does have COM to do with it ?

COM
 is just a mechanism that hides the message passing. Under it, message
 passing happens.

 Unless they meant that programming languages will have message passing
 instead. So, a message could be sent to an object and the object will call
 one of its methods if there is a registered handler for it...much like
 message dispatching works in MFC/BFC/WxWindows but in a completely
 transparent way that the language defines...

 That's a useful programming technique. Maybe D can use it.

 "Vaygr Bomber" <Vaygr_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
 news:bv7o3n$254g$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Microsoft is planning to including message
 passing to replace COM and DCOM in future Windows
 including Longhorn.

 Here is the link:

 http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5148148.html

 Objective C provides some message passing.
 Will there be an interface for message passing in D?