I often hear, "We don't know if the server hosting your program will have the .NET Framework installed," or "The end users do not have .NET installed on their desktops so we need something that will run without .NET."
Now don't get me wrong. I love .NET. It's a great framework, but there is something to be said for native Windows applications. And there are still many cases where a native Windows application should be written instead of a .NET equivalent. For instance, I feel .NET applications are ideal for in-house development typically found in corporations, and I feel commercial applications are typically better served as a native Windows application. Of course there are always exceptions to my general thinking, hence the recent resurgence seen at White Peak Software in customer requests for custom native Windows applications.
Don't believe me? Think everything running on the Windows platform should be managed code? Well, individuals at Microsoft know that native Windows applications are staying around for a while. When the IE Lead Project Manager Christopher Vaughan was recently asked if components of the new IE7 would be implemented in managed code his response was, "No, IE7 remains purely native code throughout. I think as we develop future versions of IE you'll see a larger focus on managed code, most likely to enable great plug-ins of that type for our platform. One thing people shouldn't expect is that IE8 be re-written in managed code. For a variety of reasons, native code is where we'll stay for a while." posted by Kirby | 21-Jun-2006 1:45 PM | comments (1)
Agreed 100%. A simple problem can explain this. A 12K Windows based simple application requires a 23MB of .NET Framework 1.1 for deployment which I find as utter non sense. I have certainly looked for more and more options for Native Windows Applications.
posted by Faraz Ahmed | February 8 02:09 AMAdd Your Comment
