No code is too old for .NET!

What do you do when you want to innovate on top of 1.4M lines of 20-year old C code?  Code so ancient that your Chief Architect describes it as “so crufty and esoteric that we couldn't even understand it sufficiently in a single release cycle”

Why, you integrate it with .NET!

Comments (7)

  1. Stephane Rodriguez says:

    Linking to a marketing document that explicitely says "The overall performance of the .NET Framework is fantastic! We find that it can run in all environments, even with the minimum required memory." makes you lose any kind of credibility. Period.

  2. Jeremy says:

    The quote is not from a marketing guy, it’s from the Chief Architect of Riverdeep, and he’s describing the experience he and his team of developers had using .NET with PrintShop version 20.

    It would be great to hear your own personal experience using the .NET framework, or what you think of the performance of PrintShop v20, but I think you have to assume that the chief architect of the product is giving an accurate representation of his experience.

  3. Stephane Rodriguez says:

    Jeremy, there was a comment by someone else in this thread. I saw it yesterday, and now it’s gone. What’s that? Are you by any chance deleting comments? If yes, why blog at all then?

    "The quote is not from a marketing guy, it’s from the Chief Architect of Riverdeep, and he’s describing the experience he and his team of developers had using .NET with PrintShop version 20."

    Who cares the guy is not from the marketing dept? The paper, from begin to end is a marketing paper, filled with gratuitous claims. I have noted the one about the memory footprint, but the one about interoperability is just as ridiculous. The truth is that interop is a nightmare, and only prevents a pure .NET ecosystem from happening, which has a lot of side effects when it comes to deployment time. I guess that you guys are well aware of that. You can deny those, but if you open your eyes, you’ll see that after two years of .NET marketing, there isn’t a single major .NET app out there.

  4. Jeremy says:

    Hi Stephan, on my blog I reserve the right to delete comments that are spam or contain offensive language. I will not delete comments otherwise, whether they agree with or not. What’s the policy on your blog?

    I reiterate my earlier statement: when the Chief Architect and a Senior Software Engineer at a successfull software company share their first-hand experience writing to .NET, I think that’s worth listening to. You make comments about memory footprint and interop, but you don’t tell us what your experience has been — what projects have you worked on where the framework didn’t meet your needs or performance goals? I agree that we need to continue to work on .NET, and think we made a great step forward with the 1.1 release, and have another great step with 1.2.

    Regarding a major .NET app: Isn’t PrintShop a major app? How about How about Xerox’s enterprise printer management software? Or Dell’s OpenManage IT Assistant? Or HP’s Image Zone image management software that they ship with every camera and printer they sell? Case studies (yes, marketing documents) of all these and more are at

  5. Stephane Rodriguez says:

    My mistake, .NET is not being marketed since two years ago, it actually began in 1997, the year of the Sun’s Java trial, the same year the MS Java VM 3.0 came out (with all the java com bridge and BCL bells and whistles, things that are now part of the .NET platform). So it’s seven years, not two.

  6. Jeremy says:

    BradA is getting some additional links to .NET apps on his blog,

    If memory serves, the CLR and .NET frameworks were first available for client applications with the release of VS.NET in spring of 2001. For a few months prior to that, sites using ASP.NET could go into producting using a special pre-release Go Live license. I can’t recall any sense in which .NET was marketed or available for commercial development in 1997. I wouldn’t count the JVM as part of the .NET effort.

  7. Jonathan says:

    After reading:

    I don’t immediately believe that quotes in microsoft press documents were written by the person(s) they’re attributed too.

    Credibility is a precious thing.

Skip to main content