Managed snobbery

3/15/2007 8:20:09 AM #

RE: Managed snobbery

Just a little nit here:

   "By implementing an addin as managed code when it doesn't explicitly support a managed API, you're changing the shape of the application. You're forcing that application to take a dependency on .net."

Sure, but I'm *indirectly* forcing the dependency by writing a managed plugin. The Application doesn't care or know better. The app isn't dependent on .NET...just the (very optional) plugin. If the shoe pinches, don't wear it.

Yes, that COM/.NET post from last year WAS ironic (although it wasn't several days trouble, more like several hours) but in the end, both with that app, and with my silly Optimus hacking, the end result solved the problem and continues to work just lovely. Should/could both solutions have been solved in unamanged code? Could? Totally. Should? Eh, that's a religious argument. We pick our religions and all that is asked of us is to be excited about them.

I enjoy managed code, it gets the job done - until it totally doesn't get the job done, then I switch to unmanaged code. The last line of my blog post, and the first quote in yours, as you point out, me being jocular.

I can't speak to WinForms performance, but I surely don't think that we can say that .NET isn't fast because WinForms is slow any more than we can say Java isn't fast because Java UIs are slow. These are conclusions can than certainly can be drawn, but I think that they gloss over some pretty significant implementation details.

All this long comment said, I pretty much agree with you. But, remember you're talking to a guy who's trying to get video to play on a 96x96 OLED, so take everything I say with a huge head-sized grain of salt. I'm clearly insane. ;)

Scott Hanselman | Reply

3/15/2007 9:54:41 AM #

RE: Managed snobbery

Hi Scott. Thanks for the comment. I'm not bashing on .net or managed code - I'm a big fan, use it daily, and have no qualms about performance. What I really meant with the performance comment is that I tend to think of WinForms apps as the modern day equivalent of VB apps - you can just TELL that they're .net.

The fact that you're indirectly forcing the app to take a dependency on .net is exactly the point I was trying to make. Because the app wasn't designed for this, you've just introduced something that COULD have consequences. Facetiously, I pointed out your asp/COM/.net issues (apologies for over-egging the pudding on the extent of the problem). I just want people to be aware that what they are doing isn't free and COULD cause themselves or others totally unexpected issues down the line. E.g. (as I understand it) if you have a couple of .net COM objects, they won't get unloaded until all of the references to all of the objects are gone. Obviously, this COULD be something of note to a long lived app, such as explorer. Just be sure it's appropriate before reaching for .net and interop.

(And I think a plugin to a program to control video on a keyboard is totally appropriate. Barking mad maybe, but appropriate. I just wanted to tackle "managed snobbism")

Other than that, totally agree with you.

Matt Ellis | Reply