www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

D - Messaging

reply Vaygr Bomber <Vaygr_member pathlink.com> writes:
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?
Jan 27 2004
next sibling parent reply "C" <dont respond.com> writes:
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?

Jan 28 2004
parent reply "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:
"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

 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?


Jan 28 2004
parent reply "C" <dont respond.com> writes:
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


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


 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

 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?



Jan 28 2004
next sibling parent reply "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:
 If D was ported to other targets I think that would ensure its success ,

 with Longhorn and friends what would be the future of D on Windows

 ?  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


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


 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,


 they're only doing so to support an existing large user base for those
 languages.

 Unfortunately, I think D needs to concentrate on good


 libraries, and think about D.NET only when there are significant

 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?




Jan 28 2004
parent Georg Wrede <Georg_member pathlink.com> writes:
 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
Jan 28 2004
prev sibling parent reply davepermen <davepermen_member pathlink.com> writes:
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


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


 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

 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?




Jan 28 2004
parent reply "Achilleas Margaritis" <axilmar b-online.gr> writes:
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

 issues with it:

 1) the whole longhorn core will be with a managed interface directly.

 as we know today, will only be supported for backward compatibility,

 managed interface.
 non-managed applications as well has to grant execution-access, wich means

 all accesses to os-functions need to get granted, checked, and checked if

 have permission, so the switching between the managed and unmanaged parts

 rather slow

 2) non-managed applications are risky. they can do anything. they can

 they can possibly harm the system. the os has no knowledge of it. thats

 microsoft moves to the managed path. now, if an unmanaged app runs in

 it can harm the system, or simply crash due some bug. because of that,

 apps will have special security settings. these will be (i guess) for

 (Longhorn Home Edition, or something), a pop-up-information, just as if

 install today non-WHQL drivers. information that the application is

 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

 be forbidden for non-admins to run those apps, except if they are marked

 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

 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 ,


with Longhorn and friends what would be the future of D on Windows


?  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




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




be
 a
 good place to start.  Unfortunately I don't see this happening




 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,



 they're only doing so to support an existing large user base for those
 languages.

 Unfortunately, I think D needs to concentrate on good



 libraries, and think about D.NET only when there are significant

 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?





Jan 28 2004
parent reply "davepermen" <davepermen hotmail.com> writes:
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

 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

 that have been written so far.

 We need a statically compiled language with standard libraries that

 on all the major operating systems and "is write once, compile

 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

 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

 issues with it:

 1) the whole longhorn core will be with a managed interface directly.

 as we know today, will only be supported for backward compatibility,

 managed interface.
 non-managed applications as well has to grant execution-access, wich


 that
 all accesses to os-functions need to get granted, checked, and checked


 you
 have permission, so the switching between the managed and unmanaged


 get
 rather slow

 2) non-managed applications are risky. they can do anything. they can

 they can possibly harm the system. the os has no knowledge of it. thats

 microsoft moves to the managed path. now, if an unmanaged app runs in

 it can harm the system, or simply crash due some bug. because of that,

 apps will have special security settings. these will be (i guess) for

 (Longhorn Home Edition, or something), a pop-up-information, just as if

 install today non-WHQL drivers. information that the application is

 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

 be forbidden for non-admins to run those apps, except if they are marked

 legitime by the admins.

 this is without any NDA or so, i have no "real" knowledge. this is what


 gathered from some leaks, and some official information, and simply


 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


?  It sounds rhetorical but its not does anyone know for sure if



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




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




be
 a
 good place to start.  Unfortunately I don't see this happening




 coprorate support , or a lot more interest in D.

There's not going to be corporate support for it, at least not from




 obvious quarters. There are already too many IL generating languages,



 they're only doing so to support an existing large user base for




 languages.

 Unfortunately, I think D needs to concentrate on good



 libraries, and think about D.NET only when there are significant

 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?






Jan 28 2004
parent "Achilleas Margaritis" <axilmar b-online.gr> writes:
"davepermen" <davepermen hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bv9a8g$1pco$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 why? you can static compile every .NET app if you want to.

 performance is no issue.

It depends on the application. For the kind of applications my company makes, performance is still an issue. And it will be for a long time to come. and even managed apps can have native code in, if
 needed. they will just have to be "WHQL Certified" (or similar), that

 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

 it essencially makes msblast a nonissue, as well as iloveyou, or lovesan,

 anything else. as well as appcrashes, etc.

The problem with viruses is that they have runnable code embedded in them which is executed at one click. If Outlook did not permit VBscript and Jscript code execution, then there would not be a problem. Application crashes happen in managed languages, too. If, for example, try to access a Java object from a NULL pointer, the application will create an exception and crash. Security and algorithmic problems are not a function of the programming language, nor of the execution environment.
 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.

You forget about what they care most: vendor lock-in. For them, progress is tied to their monopoly being maintained. But that is totally different issue, not worthy of being discussed here.
Jan 29 2004
prev sibling parent reply "Achilleas Margaritis" <axilmar b-online.gr> writes:
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?

Jan 28 2004
parent "davepermen" <davepermen hotmail.com> writes:
i guess they mean that. signals and slots, merely.. something like this.

"Achilleas Margaritis" <axilmar b-online.gr> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:bv97o4$1knd$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 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 ?

 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?


Jan 28 2004