[Mono-list] .NET version 1.1 and 2.0

Miguel de Icaza miguel@ximian.com
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).  

	  Broken APIs:
		feature incomplete code.  Setting the method body is
		useless, cant do exceptions without using ILGenerator.

		We can crash SRE with JavaScript/C# with sample programs

	* 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
positives though.

> 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,
> etc.

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