Tell me again why we need both .NET and Windows? Why can't Windows morph into the CLR?

Posted by le dorfier on Stack Overflow See other posts from Stack Overflow or by le dorfier
Published on 2008-12-06T04:41:22Z Indexed on 2012/10/20 5:03 UTC
Read the original article Hit count: 136

Filed under:

The same way DOS morphed into Windows?

We seem to have ended up supporting and developing for three platforms from Microsoft, and I'm not sure where the boundaries are supposed to lie.

Why can't the benefits of the CLR (such as type safety, memory protection, etc.) be built into Windows itself?

Or into the browser? Why an entirely other virtual machine? (How may levels of virtual machine indirection are we dealing with now? We just added Silverlight - and before that Flash - running inside the Browser running inside maybe a VM install...)

I can see raw Windows for servers, but why couldn't there be a CLR for workstations talking directly to the hardware (or at least not the whole Windows legacy ball and chain)?

(ooppp - I've got two questions here. Let's make this - why can't .net be built into Windows? I understand about backward compatibility - but the safety of what's in .NET could be at least optionally in Windows itself, couldn't it? It would just be yet another of many sets of APIs?)

Factoid - I recall that one of the competitor architectures selling against MS-DOS on the IBM PC was UCSD-pascal runtime - a VM.

© Stack Overflow or respective owner

Related posts about clr