PowerBASIC and .NET architecture

[Philippe Monteil]

Here are a few extracts of the:

Microsoft .NET Framework Unites Programming Languages For Web-Based Future
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/f...Tframework.asp

article introducing .NET from a software development point of view.

.NET is mainly about building software based on Web services, that is language
independent, reusable, platform independent components glued together by SOAP,
a lightweight RPC based on ubiquitous and open standards (http/XML).

<<
the .NET Framework automatically turns every application into a reusable, interoperable Web service.
Web-based "services" can be used to build tomorrow’s software applications, much as "components"
are used to build them today.
>>

<<
Language interoperability will allow developers to build applications from parts written
in any programming language. Furthermore, they’ll be able to take advantage of the Internet
and intranet and access Web services over networks. Montgomery says developers will build
and sell these Web services, creating a huge resource for others to draw from. Tomorrow’s
applications will be powerful and easy to build.
>>

The already released and free SOAP toolkit (available from MS's site) makes possible
to expose at once a COM component as a web service and thefore make it invocable from
a Java applicatiob runing on a Linux box for example. Our FREE JA 'Object Edition' makes
possible to build such COM components in PB/DLL.

The SOAP toolkit also contains a 'ROPE' COM component making possible to view a remote
Web Service as an Automation component. Our JA 'CE' 2.0 for PB/DLL makes possible to access such
Automation components and therefore Web services through ROPE.

Philippe Monteil
JAZZAge Software


------------------

[Mike Doty]

As info only: Java compiler (server side and expensive.)
http://www.towerj.com




------------------

[Mark Newman]

Interesting thoughts, all. But to get back on track, how could PB
fit in to this new platform, either as a partner or as an independent?
Should PB even try, or is the price of joining the Dark Side too high?


------------------
Mark Newman

[Scott Turchin]

Here's their press release on it.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/f...6-26csharp.asp


Now everyone knows me pretty well, and that my "College degree" that is about to land me a very nice paying job is an MCSE...


But my personal opinion is that this is just like the vision they had of running MS Word or other applications from a server on the internet.

Are we doing that yet? No...

Java is too ummm.....what's the word, "Bound" to being used on various OS's, and I sincerely doubt MS is going to change the world overnight, their credibility is already being questioned and people are just sitting back waiting to see what happens wiht their company...

Is C-Sharp a good idea? You bet...
I love working with ActiveX over java, it's easier to troubleshoot, it's easier to use, it has less overhead that JAVA does (I really hate java actually)...

But still, "Everyone's using java", try to change that overnight...this C# better have something REALLY impressive in it for people to spend resource redeveloping code to try it out.

Basically what I perceive this C# to be is an XML interface to interface with ActiveX objects, I think it's a GREAT idea...I just don't envision the world dropping what they are doing to start using it...

That's my onion..

Scott

------------------
Scott
mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>

[Mark Newman]

Originally posted by Jason Bock:
...
And yes, there are rumors (i.e. no confirmation of this at all) that this new stuff will be availabe on other platforms. Now that would be very cool.

At the PDC MS did announce that a third-party company would be porting .NET
over to Unix platforms: http://www.mainsoft.com/press/pr-vstudio.html

No word on the Mac.

------------------
Mark Newman

[This message has been edited by Mark Newman (edited July 21, 2000).]

What about standard applications that are hosted and run on
servers via the ASP products. Do small, fast applications have
an advantage there?


Now Java is recognizable as C++ and now MS's C# just outright
claims to be C++. C# is just going after whatever it is that Java
does on the web...

------------------

Ian,

.NET seems to be a lot of hype about something that is old news.

It seems very premature for PB to start "Betting the Farm" on a loser.

I strongly disagree. The concepts may be "old news," but this is the direction MS is going in. If anything, in my opinion you're betting the farm if you don't integrate into the .NET. Now I realize that's a pretty dangerous statement - it can be interpreted as, "oh, boy, here we go, lock in the developers into something new." All I'm saying is that this is the way of Windows development. For good or for worse.

BTW the IL and CLR have nothing to do with scripting performance. With all of the problems that MS have, the last thing they need to do is make C++ code as slow as VBScript. It all has to do with integration of languages. Microsoft created COM and stated, "Use any language you want, just use our platform." Sun came along and said, "Use any platform you want, just write and/or re-write your code in Java." Now MS comes back and says, "Use whatever language you want, just write to our .NET architecture." And yes, there are rumors (i.e. no confirmation of this at all) that this new stuff will be availabe on other platforms. Now that would be very cool.

Also, are you stating that either the .NET architecture is a "loser" or MS is a "loser" or both? I'm not a lover of MS, but I feel they're finally doing something right. It may be painful, they may go out of business, Sun may take over the world, but I personally don't see the changes as bad.

Regards,

Jason



------------------

[Ian Cairns]

.NET seems to be a lot of hype about something that is old news.
Portability across OS's means interpreted scripting languages to me.
Sit down and measure how long it takes MS Word (TM) to load up on
your "Local" computer, then calculate how much longer it would take
using the net. And don't forget to figure in bandwidth!

It seems very premature for PB to start "Betting the Farm" on a loser.
My 2 pesos worth,

------------------
[email protected]

[Mark Newman]

Brent,

Sure would be nice, eh?

But even if PB wanted to join up, I seriously doubt that MS would
allow PB to sit next to VB; IIRC the list of languages in VS.NET were
all unique, that is no competing versions of the same language.
One C++, one Cobol, one Basic, etc. (correct me if I'm wrong).

I wonder if the PB compiler could be used as the "unmanaged"
mode of VB? The current VB & PB base langauges are pretty similar,
so there might be a way to do that...so, how about it,
Bob Z. & Bill G.?



------------------
Mark Newman

Mark,

I like your observation on C++. It is currently the only language that is part of .NET that can compile to managed and unmanaged code. You do this with the new attributes feature. What this allows is for C++ programmers to develop software the same way they always have but when they need the services that bare contained in MFC they now have the option of using the CLR. They can also use this feature of C++ to inline highly optomized C++ or assembler code in a CLR project. Wouldn't it be interesting if PB was the second language that had that option.

Brent...

------------------

Hello all,

I'm very glad to see this being discussed. When you get your head around the .NET initiative it's VERY interesting stuff. Here's a great link that branches off to many other links so that everyone interested in this can get up to speed.
http://discuss.develop.com/archives/...&F=&S=&P=19570

Brent...

------------------

[Mark Newman]

Just off the top of my (pointy) head, I wonder if PB could be included
in VS Net in the same way C++ will be, that is with a choice to run
in "managed" mode using the CLR or run in "unmanaged" mode using the
API.

Of course, whether it's technically reasonable or a wise business
move from PB's point of view is another matter.

Still, it's a neat idea to think about...


------------------
Mark Newman

While I realize that the folks at PowerBASIC are pretty tight-lipped about future version of their tools, I am curious as to the future of PowerBASIC giving MS's new .NET architecture. Seems like there are many new changes coming about and, although there are ways to make exported function calls in DLLs in the .NET architecture, it really favors an OO approach.

Believe me, I'm not trying to open up the whole OO can of worms that's been beaten to death here many times before . But for a while, I was interested in when PB was going to support COM(+). Now it looks like it's gone way beyond that to the intermediate language and common runtimes. That appears to require major changes to PB to do Windows-based development.

Anybody have any thoughts on where MS is going?

Regards,

Jason Bock

------------------