It was 2001 when I first started developing with Win32 API. Back then, Win32 API was the only way to develop a Windows application. Sure, you could use a variety of different wrappers, including MFC and Borland's OWL. However, the Win32 API was always at the core of the application. This resulted in applications having a very consistent look & feel. Every application looked like it belonged in Windows.

In 2002, a new phenomenon started, called the .NET Framework. The .NET Framework was supposed to be Microsoft's decision to improve developer's lives by replacing C++ with managed code (written in any language). At least that's what I hoped back in 2002. However, from the very beginning it became clear that Microsoft's intent was not to replace Win32 API with .NET but in fact to carry two separate development frameworks, and ultimately to confuse and alienate Windows users and Windows developers.

Let's look at what "mistakes" MS made with .NET that have been causing ongoing pain for Windows developers.

1. Not including .NET in Windows.

Microsoft has an ongoing policy of keeping .NET & Windows separate. For some bizarre reason, Microsoft will not distribute the latest version of .NET with the latest version of Windows. Windows XP SP1 could have included .NET 1.1. It didn't. Windows XP SP2 could have included .NET 2.0. It didn't. .NET should've been a required update from the very beginning. It should've been an inextricable component of Windows, just like IE. Though it's unclear which version of .NET will ship with Windows 7, what is clear is that when a later version is released, Microsoft will make damn sure that users won't even know about it.

2. Not making the Win32 API obsolete.

With Windows Vista, Microsoft could've made all new APIs available only to .NET developers. Why do that? To discourage Win32 API development. To make it clear to developers that .NET is the future. Starting with Vista, Microsoft should've moved all of its innovation into .NET. Instead, they added new features to Win32 API! Features that they didn't add to .NET! In other words, they showed that Win32 API is still the only way to develop Windows applications.

3. Not setting an example.

Microsoft could have migrated all of its apps to .NET. Office 2007 should've been entirely written in .NET. Visual Studio .NET (first version) should've been written in .NET! Microsoft should've set an example, that .NET is the future. Instead, they keep writing apps in MFC or Win32 API. Clearly, MFC and Win32 API is still the future. I challenge you to find any major Microsoft application written in .NET.

4. Reinventing the wheel.

Rather than using native Win32 API controls in .NET WinForms applications, Microsoft instead decided to reinvent the wheel, coding an entire UI toolkit from scratch using managed code. What for? Sun already did that! It's called Java!

The inconsistencies in look & feel in .NET are hideous, but even worse are the inconsistencies in behaviour. .NET 1.1 was notorious for its non-standard controls. It's the reason I developed NetXP. It's the reason why I had to write a gigantic .NET wrapper around Win32 API. .NET itself should've been that wrapper. Here's an exercise: Try popping up a balloon tooltip (a feature of Win32 API in Windows XP) in .NET 1.1.

This is the biggest issue with .NET, and Microsoft still hasn't fixed it. Take the XAML menu for example. It's totally different from the standard WinAPI menu. Even the ClearType looks different in a XAML app! This decision by MS not to enforce OS UI conventions will lead to a wide range of UI variation on Windows, and will ultimately lead developers (and users) away from Windows, and toward Mac or even Linux.

Conclusion - My Message to Microsoft

It's painful to develop apps in Windows API (or MFC) in 2009. You (Microsoft) could've changed that. You had the opportunity, with .NET, to create a new way of programming Windows. You blew it. Until you fix the 4 issues above, I will be programming in Java. Java is everything .NET is and more. Java is cross-platform, free software, and has a wider user base. Why should I limit myself to Windows when the choice I have is between Windows API (a 25-year-old technology) and .NET (a clone of Java that runs only on Windows)?

To those out there who remember Visual Basic, .NET is another Visual Basic. VB was great for RAD (Rapid Application Development). So is .NET. But the problem with VB was that it was non-standard. It didn't wrap the Win32 API well enough. The same is true for .NET. Now, if .NET was going to be cross-platform, I'd understand. But it was never intended to be cross-platform. Microsoft totally blew it with .NET. Developing a Windows application in .NET is as ridiculous as developing a Windows application in Visual Basic.