[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... > Huh, so it's ugly to provide: > > 1) Runtime code generation using abstract syntax trees, including cross > language > translation > > 2) Visual programming > > 3) Automatic parallelism > > 4) Automatic persistence > > ??
?? is exactly what I felt when I went to the netfx3.com website. First, why do the web-pages not display properly in Firefox under Mac OS-X? Secondly, why is it so hard to find out that Microsoft has re-invented flow charts? Thirdly, where's the beef? I found a screenshot showing how one can make a flow chart that will use WinFX, but nothing that talked about abstract syntax trees, cross-language translation, automatic parallelism (does that mean code that runs on parallel processors or clusters or just lots of instances of the same code?), nor automatic persistence. I'll take your word that they're all there, someplace, but why does Microsoft make it so hard to find it? Are they supporting an industry of instructors to teach about programming the Microsoft way just like they have traditionally supported an industry of 3rd party vendors who supply the feature the OS should have but doesn't? As a security guy, I find it fascinating that Microsoft is introducing another ubiquitous set of libraries. Not only does it support their goal of making everything part of the OS to bolster that anti-trust defense, but it adds yet another thing that has to be secure to prevent intrusions. Given their track record, I doubt these new libraries will have any less vulnerabilities than the existing libraries. I realize that I will never again be able to analyze every machine instruction in a code to be sure it cannot be exploited. But I don't see the point in adding more and more shims that are out of the control of the system owner between the user and the computer. > If it helps, here's a politically correct version: It didn't. The mono version of Windows Workflow Foundations is just as obscure as the Microsoft version. > It sounds to me like a great platform for simulation and modelling. I doubt it. WinFX is intended to run at human speed, so the developers will have no incentive to make it efficient. My prediction - WinFX libraries will be bloated and slow but no-one will notice unless they do something like simulation, where the virtual clock needs to run faster than the wall-clock. > Meanwhile, the facist-Python-formatted code can run here: Now here's something I can agree on - Python is to programming languages like French bureaucracy is to government. -- Ray Parks [EMAIL PROTECTED] IDART Project Lead Voice:505-844-4024 IORTA Department Mobile:505-238-9359 http://www.sandia.gov/scada Fax:505-844-9641 http://www.sandia.gov/idart Pager:800-690-5288 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
