Myth of .Net Purity

there is an increasing amount of discussion around the topic of ".NET Purity" in development circles. When selling an application, the question often arises, "Is your application 100 percent .NET?" Or, "How much of your application is .NET?" There is an implied qualitative judgment behind these questions, and it's usually pejorative.

straight from the blog of Scott Hanselman

The Myth of .NET Purity, Reloaded

An updated version of my Myth of .NET Purity rant is up on MSDN. recommend you show it to your boss if you're being force to justify why your solution isn't 100% .NET.

Summary: Does a solution written for Microsoft .NET have to be 100% .NET? Scott Hanselman looks at how hybrid managed-unmanaged solutions are really the norm.

Here's a few choice quotes, IMHO:

---

I've heard it said by many a CTO in many a technical briefing that,
"We're planning to port our whole system to .NET." Why spend 18 months converting your application, so you can arrive at the endpoint you're already at?

---

The .NET Framework Library itself isn't "pure .NET," as it uses every opportunity to take full advantage of the underlying platform primitives.

---

If Microsoft were to truly virtualize the machine, they would have marginalized their investment in the Windows platform.