Monday, June 12, 2006
WinFX to become .Net 3.0
In a move destined to rival that of the decision to release Microsoft Bob, MS Marketing has decided to rebrand WinFX as .Net 3.0. Yes, the components Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF), Windows Workflow Foundation (WF), Windows Communication Foundation (WCF), along with the newly named Windows CardSpace (WCS, formerly known as InfoCard) have all been lumped into the .Net Framework.
To help with the confusion, the Common Language Runtime (CLR) will continue to be 2.0, although it will be included in the framework, as will VB.Net 2.0 and C# 2.0. This brings all sorts of questions about version numbering when the 3.0 versions of CLR/C#/VB are ready to ship, questions which Microsoft is not yet ready to answer.
Don't get me wrong, I love the new toys being shipped in the Framework Formerly Known as FX. I really do. But I just don't think they need to be included in the CORE Framework. Now if I need to create a widely distributed .Net app that simply does not require the new FX features, my users are still going to incur a huge download. Even with broadband 22 meg (todays current framework distribution) is a hefty hunk to download.
I would have greatly preferred MS to have stuck with their original plan and created a .Net Framework Extensions library we could choose to use or not, and kept it all seperate. Frankly it would have made even better sense to have broken the Framework Formerly Known as FX into it's component libraries and let us install or not. I can sort of buy WPF needing to be everywhere, but how many average users are going to need WF or WCF installed on their boxes?
But then again, I could be wrong. Leave a comment and let me know what you think. Oh, and remember Shakespear's line about shooting all the lawyers? Let's put the marketing folks in line next.
To help with the confusion, the Common Language Runtime (CLR) will continue to be 2.0, although it will be included in the framework, as will VB.Net 2.0 and C# 2.0. This brings all sorts of questions about version numbering when the 3.0 versions of CLR/C#/VB are ready to ship, questions which Microsoft is not yet ready to answer.
Don't get me wrong, I love the new toys being shipped in the Framework Formerly Known as FX. I really do. But I just don't think they need to be included in the CORE Framework. Now if I need to create a widely distributed .Net app that simply does not require the new FX features, my users are still going to incur a huge download. Even with broadband 22 meg (todays current framework distribution) is a hefty hunk to download.
I would have greatly preferred MS to have stuck with their original plan and created a .Net Framework Extensions library we could choose to use or not, and kept it all seperate. Frankly it would have made even better sense to have broken the Framework Formerly Known as FX into it's component libraries and let us install or not. I can sort of buy WPF needing to be everywhere, but how many average users are going to need WF or WCF installed on their boxes?
But then again, I could be wrong. Leave a comment and let me know what you think. Oh, and remember Shakespear's line about shooting all the lawyers? Let's put the marketing folks in line next.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Armegeddon! Armegeddon!
Did anyone happen to notice the world didn't end on 6-6-06? I didn't notice it myself until last night. Not that I expected much, after all 6-6-06 only happens every hundred years or so.
The same day the world was supposed to end, my youngest graduated from Kindergarten. Of course I'm the proud papa, both my kids are geniuses. I had snagged a spot on the second row so I could get good shots, and while we were waiting on things to kick off I notice a guy with his kid, and he had the little bluetooth earpiece in his ear. For some reason it bothered me.
Now, I don't know the guy. Maybe he was a doctor or something and needs to be on call at a moments notice. But an awful lot of folks have this exaggerated need for connectivity. Cellphones, blackberries, and other tools keep us on a short leash. But I have to wonder how many folks really need that level of connectivity? How many times have you been talking with someone when their "device" goes off and they effectively put you on hold until they chat with whomever. In effect they are saying that the unknown person at the other end of this gizmo is more important than you, the person standing right there.
I reached down, turned off my cellphone, and left it off the rest of the night. Try it sometime.
Family Time
The same day the world was supposed to end, my youngest graduated from Kindergarten. Of course I'm the proud papa, both my kids are geniuses. I had snagged a spot on the second row so I could get good shots, and while we were waiting on things to kick off I notice a guy with his kid, and he had the little bluetooth earpiece in his ear. For some reason it bothered me.Now, I don't know the guy. Maybe he was a doctor or something and needs to be on call at a moments notice. But an awful lot of folks have this exaggerated need for connectivity. Cellphones, blackberries, and other tools keep us on a short leash. But I have to wonder how many folks really need that level of connectivity? How many times have you been talking with someone when their "device" goes off and they effectively put you on hold until they chat with whomever. In effect they are saying that the unknown person at the other end of this gizmo is more important than you, the person standing right there.
I reached down, turned off my cellphone, and left it off the rest of the night. Try it sometime.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Blogcast?
Over on today's blog posting at Rory Blyth's, he mentions that Carl Franklin wants to do a new short podcast, based on Rory's blogs. Each one would be around 10 minutes or so, and have Rory reading a recent blog plus maybe a few of the wittier comments.
I really like the idea of a Blogcast. Remember you heard that trendy new term here first! Unless of course you just came from reading my comment on Rory's site, in which case you heard it there first, but either way remember it was I who coined the term. I figure I won't be doing much else notable in life so I might as well grab credit for something, even if it's as lame as coining a hot new word.
Anyway, the idea of a short blogcast appeals to me. Often I only have a brief amount of time, and a minishow like this would be perfect. Taking a morning shower would be made more productive when adding some interesting dialog to ponder.
So follow the link to Rory's and encourage him to do the blogcast. It could be the first of a whole new wave, and you can help start it! Sort of like a Tsunami only without all the salt water.
73
I really like the idea of a Blogcast. Remember you heard that trendy new term here first! Unless of course you just came from reading my comment on Rory's site, in which case you heard it there first, but either way remember it was I who coined the term. I figure I won't be doing much else notable in life so I might as well grab credit for something, even if it's as lame as coining a hot new word.
Anyway, the idea of a short blogcast appeals to me. Often I only have a brief amount of time, and a minishow like this would be perfect. Taking a morning shower would be made more productive when adding some interesting dialog to ponder.
So follow the link to Rory's and encourage him to do the blogcast. It could be the first of a whole new wave, and you can help start it! Sort of like a Tsunami only without all the salt water.
73
