1. Operating systems for the configuration software: DOS, Windows, Linux
Configuration software running under DOS has gradually faded from the market due to the rapid development of technology. The most representative product of that era was WonderWare's InTouch product.
With its massive market share, Windows dominates the vast majority of configuration software operating platforms. Naturally, there are numerous configuration software vendors both domestically and internationally, each with its own strengths. The widespread availability of training for Windows operating systems, along with their ease of learning and use, makes them highly favored by configuration software users. Configuration software developers also prefer to develop their software on Windows, primarily due to lower costs, a larger pool of developers and users, and lower training costs compared to Linux. This is because these developers and users have already mastered the basics of Windows through other means, relieving configuration software developers of the headaches associated with operating system issues; at least users can resolve some problems themselves.
Configuration software running on Linux does exist, and some domestic companies are developing it. Online searches reveal configuration software available for Red Hat Linux (a non-embedded operating system) and some Embedded Linux distributions. However, promoting Linux-based configuration software is not a quick process. Its true potential lies in gaining widespread adoption in PCs and cultivating a large user base familiar with Linux. If Linux's market share remains low, Linux-based configuration software will have to endure this challenging period. Of course, if Linux were to disappear altogether, Linux-based configuration software would be obsolete. The adage "If the skin is gone, what will the hair cling to?" applies to Windows as well.
2. Development platforms used by configuration software vendors: MFC, .NET, Windows API
Having read the above information about the operating system platform on which the configuration software runs, I think you can guess. Since my knowledge is limited—I've never been abroad, I've never developed under Linux, and I have no industry experience—I'll share my perspective on the Windows development platform below.
Anyone with even a little Windows development experience knows that there are essentially two ways to develop applications on Windows: using the Windows API and using application frameworks. The Windows API is the oldest and most direct programming method, but it's naturally more complex than application frameworks. Application frameworks are simply categorizing and presenting the vast number of functions in the Windows API in a more visually appealing way.
Leaving aside other companies' application frameworks (such as Pascal, PowerScript, Java, etc.), let's focus on Microsoft's application frameworks: MFC and .NET, which I know a little about. MFC appeared earlier, while .NET appeared later; this is due to historical reasons, which we won't delve into. Each framework has its own strengths and advantages.
Next, I'll talk about the development status of domestic configuration software, which I'm relatively familiar with.
Most domestic configuration software companies that were established earlier have MFC versions of configuration software, and some also have .NET versions; those that were established later may directly get involved in the development of .NET versions of configuration software.
The languages or scripts supported by each configuration software are: C-like language, VBScript, and JScript.
Most configuration software developed using MFC supports C-like languages; other configuration software also supports VBScript and JScript.
To some extent, any scripting language or script can achieve a wide range of functionalities as long as it encapsulates a sufficiently rich set of Windows APIs. Of course, interpreted versus compiled execution also determines the efficiency of the script or language. Various configuration software programs are constantly evolving, making qualitative analysis less meaningful and will not be discussed further here. As the saying goes, ignorance is bliss.
