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?

I think eventually D is going to have to spit out IL to take advantage of .net.  Portable.net has a treecc and a C# compiler written, this would be a 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?
>
>

"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 .net.  Portable.net has a treecc and a C# compiler written, this 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?
> >
> >
>
>

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
> > .net.  Portable.net has a treecc and a C# compiler written, this 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?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

> 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
> > > .net.  Portable.net has a treecc and a C# compiler written, this 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?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

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
>> > .net.  Portable.net has a treecc and a C# compiler written, this 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?
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

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
> >> > .net.  Portable.net has a treecc and a C# compiler written, this
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?
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

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?
>
>

>> 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

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
> > >> > .net.  Portable.net has a treecc and a C# compiler written, this
> 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?
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>