[Mono-list] .NET version 1.1 and 2.0
Miguel de Icaza
16 Jul 2002 16:18:21 -0400
> These statements are ultra-vague. Maybe Miguel could elaborate on those
> quotes with more specifics when he gets a chance? A few examples of the "bad
> design" perhaps.
Sure, my complete email to Mary Jo contained more details, of the top of
my head, because these are the ones I am most involved with:
* System.Reflection[.Emit] is missing API calls to generate CIL
executables (mod_req types, looking mod_reqs).
feature incomplete code. Setting the method body is
useless, cant do exceptions without using ILGenerator.
* System.Winforms: You can read the thread from the last few
* ADO.NET: The database guys should chime in with their
comments, I am not a DB person, and I am passing along what
people who have built these systems before told me.
* Many classes are poorly documented.
Paolo has posted a longer summary to the DOTNET list.
You can look at our API-docs.txt in the class libraries for more bugs in
their apis. Or grep for `LAMESPEC' in the sources, some are false
> Also, as far as the database (ADO.NET) classes go they're, not part of the
> ECMA class libraries. Therefore they're Microsoft proprietary class
> libraries. Anyone trying to emulate their functionality is doing so at their
> own risk, right? Same goes for windows forms, asp.net, enterprise services,
The fact that they are Microsoft-built does not make them any less
broken. And indeed, the article is about .NET, and not about the ECMA