Concepts that Dim Prawn could never grasp

[NotAllThere]

IR35 is unworkable. Oops - wrong dim prawn.

[alreadypacked]

This might up being a very long thread.

[suityou01]

I think the .NET framework is a little more complex than the Win32 API, if better designed (how many damn string types do you need, Win32?!)

Apart from having to call ZeroMemory on every object you wanted to use, I quite liked Win32. It was certainly preferable to working with (D)COM!

The windows api IS windows, lock stock. It is a huuuuuuuuuuuuge topic.
That said, the framework is complicated enough.

[d000hg]

The windows api IS windows, lock stock. It is a huuuuuuuuuuuuge topic.
That said, the framework is complicated enough.

Hmm, I had a book that was a complete reference to every function/enum/struct in the API (maybe not including undocumented ones, can't remember).
By contrast a similar book on .NET would need several volumes if you want to cover WCF, WPF, WWF and all that junk.

Isn't .NET technically the Windwos API, as exposed in a managed way? Is there even such a thing as a C-style API for windows7, or do they actually write large parts of Windows in .NET these days?

[scotspine]

The windows api IS windows, lock stock. It is a huuuuuuuuuuuuge topic.
That said, the framework is complicated enough.

noooooooooooo - the api is the bits of windows that m$ are happy for you to see.

"Isn't .NET technically the Windwos API" - and some...

[Amiga500]

It's an API not an api, life is case-sensitive.

Google 'acronym' arse clowns.

[VectraMan]

I think the .NET framework is a little more complex than the Win32 API, if better designed (how many damn string types do you need, Win32?!)

There's only one string type in the Win32 API, unless you count ANSI and Unicode as two seperate ones, but 99.9% of the time you just build your program one way or the other.

[suityou01]

Hmm, I had a book that was a complete reference to every function/enum/struct in the API (maybe not including undocumented ones, can't remember).
By contrast a similar book on .NET would need several volumes if you want to cover WCF, WPF, WWF and all that junk.

Isn't .NET technically the Windwos API, as exposed in a managed way? Is there even such a thing as a C-style API for windows7, or do they actually write large parts of Windows in .NET these days?

I would gently disagree.

There is for example

One book on NETAPI
One on GDI
One of shell
One on registry.

Threading, mmc, mapi ... the list goes on. The windows api is a vast vast topic.

I agree it's the bits Microsoft want you to see though. And it is API, vm is correct.

[DimPrawn]

Places in Majorca.