Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the where-do-we-go-from-here dept.
Ashcrow writes "EWeek has posted an article on Microsoft's .NET initiative. It's been three years since we were first introduced to .NET and virtually none of the promised advantages have come true. Is it time for Microsoft to move on?"
I'm quite pleased to have been able to move from ASP to PHP in the past three years - although at least.Net seems better than the options which preceeded it.
I agree, as a Penn State Student I have worked with both.NET and Unix/PHP/Perl/Apache environments. Without a doubt, the latter of the two was far superior in every aspect, INCLUDING EASE OF USE. PHP has got to be the easiest freakin language ever, and Apache trumps IIS with the ability to do the majority of configuring with one file, instead of having to browse through a maze of tabbed windows with options, checkboxes, pop-up boxes, etc.
Without a doubt, the only reasons to use.NET would be if (a), you already have a Microsoft solution and for some reason you want to keep it, or (b), you fall to marketing hype.
Oh yeah, did I forget to mention STABILITY and SECURITY...
-- Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
"
Re:Yes
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Oh yeah, did I forget to mention STABILITY and SECURITY...
Without a doubt, the latter of the two was far superior in every aspect, INCLUDING EASE OF USE. PHP has got to be the easiest freakin language ever
A lot of things are "easier" than ASP.NET/ADO.NET coded using an OOP language. For simple things you're better off using something like PHP or ASP/VBS. Of course when project complexity reaches a certain point you'll start to find real advantages to going with a modern approach that seperates the presentation layer from the business layer. Of course taking this approach can make writing a simple application seem daunting, but in the long run it pays off.
It has a lot to do with simply knowing what sort of application you're going to be writing and picking the proper tool for the job.
Apache trumps IIS with the ability to do the majority of configuring with one file, instead of having to browse through a maze of tabbed windows with options, checkboxes, pop-up boxes, etc.
Totally. 100% agreed. Much easier to administer Apache via it's text configuration IMO.
Re:Yes
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
.NET is not about all those programming languages on which Microsoft put the.NET tag on. Its about writing code and applications that can use components distributed all over the network and written in completely different languages - without having to cope with stuff like CORBA. I like the whole concept a lot and have to admit i was really impressed of the whole thing after i tried not to turn down a good idea just because it came out of the realms of the evil empire. Check the docs on the Microsoft web site about what you can do with.NET before starting another ASP vs. PHP flamebait.
Re:Yes
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
you probably find it better to configure girls through a text file than browsing through an array of boobs, ass, and furburger.
Also, the only company I know personally which did use IIS for something more complicated than static pages went belly-up 2 years ago...
If you look at some countries like Germany or Japan, IIS is already de-facto dead there. In those countries it's already quite hard to find a hoster that will even offer Windows, either you have to go to one of the few and very expensive hosters who offer Windows or you would have to do everything yourself.
In the USA, Microsoft's strategy to make their products as incompatible as possible might help them because there are enough MS-brainwashed people there, but everywhere else, their "designed for incompatibility" strategy is starting to hurt them a lot.
In many countries, a server equals Unix, so choosing.NET is just plain stupid because you won't find a good hoster for it. The same scenario is coming along with cellphones everywhere including the USA: Java runs,.NET doesn't. If you might ever want to do anything with cellphones,.NET isn't an option because Microsoft isn't even able to get a foot into that market.
If you choose.NET, you have significantly limited your possibilities and your flexibility. (Do you really know for sure that you won't do anything outside the MS-world in 10 years?)
With Java on the other hand, you have all your bases covered: Desktops, servers, browsers, PDAs, cellphones, embedded systems.
In the long run, Microsoft's refusal to cooperate with other technologies will hurt them also in the USA. In case you haven't noticed, the computing desktop isn't the hot thing anymore. A lot of new stuff comes out for cellphones, embedded devices and PDAs, which means no.NET, sorry.
With Windows 2003, one can now administer IIS using a text file without having to stop and start the server. And instead of a proprietary file layout, it's pure XML, so is extremely easy to manipulate programmatically. IIS may have other issues, but this is certainly one complaint that they seem to have addressed.
-- Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
Yeah, but platforms aside, I think m$ really alienated their core user base with.net. This should be a lesson to anyone who releases a software product over multiple versions, always implement backwards compatibility.
Being a Winvicate isn't easy, you know. It takes time and money, and I don't think Microsoft really understands how dedicated you have to be to actually defend their actions and business practices, and continue using their second and third rate products.
My hat goes off to those rich enough, and naive enough to keep the.NET bandwagon rolling!
I think this depends entirely on the coder. I have used lots of Apache/PHP and lots of IIS ASP/ASP.NET and there are pros and cons to both. Obviously Apache/PHP, being free, is very cost effective but they fall somewhat short on some of the advanced features businesses need for enterprise apps. The tools in PHP for seperating code from content are pretty immature. Also, if they they change the xml dom functions one more time Im going to screem. (and they are in version 5) This is unacceptable. As far as IIS goes... it's alot easier to administer a web server from a gui if you're not an expert which 99% takes care of 99% of the people administering web servers. It's just easier to use a gui - not faster but certainly easier. Please don't come back with, "well if you're not an expert you shouldn't touch it yadda yadda." That said... IIS has to runs on Windows which is a train wreck for a server. Don't get me started on security either. Apache on Linux/Unix is leaner and meaner and certainly more secure. That said, Windows 2003 server goes a long way to fixing many of those issues even if it feels a little thick.
Moral of the story - there are pros and cons to both..NET is actually really nice to program in and I like using C# alot (and I've used them all). It's not revolutionary or anything - it's java for windows basically. So... easy with the broad paint brush strokes, killer. PHP lacks some features that enterprises need... and the ones that are there aren't very well documented or change constantly which is a no no.
The fact that it's a marketing bullet point means nothing. When I talk to people actively using it and it making sense and working for them, I'll believe it.
Actually,.NET deals with components in multiple languages on the same system. It has classes that deal with SOAP, but they are just a library.
CORBA is a sweet, sweet solution. Most people who don't like it haven't actually used it. I was able to teach C++ students how to code CORBA apps in less than an hour. It's really pretty sweet. You only have to mess with the complicated stuff when you do complicated things. Otherwise, it's totally transparent.
Are you talking about SOAP. Is SOAP = to.NET? I agree that SOAP and for that matter XML-RPC can be useful in certain circumstances. However XML based protocols take up a lot of bandwidth and I think the basic idea can be abused. You don't want to design something assuming you have flexibilty. You want to have flexibilty when you need it. "Having components distributed distibuted all over the network in all diffent languages" might be cool to one person and a support nightmare to another(and we already learned this with CORBA). However I will agree that SOAP seems useful under certain circumstances. If company A buys out company B. SOAP might be a quick way to tie some of this together.
It's just easier to use a gui - not faster but certainly easier.
Maybe for you it is, personally I find a nice clean xml config file way easier to deal with.
I remember one incident trying to get iis to serve up a file. I had to alter the "security" settings in no less than 3 different iis menus befor the frickin thing would serve it up.
The menus are like a maze that one must climb through. The feature that you want could be anywhere in that maze. With XML and a decent editor you can just do a find.
they fall somewhat short on some of the advanced features businesses need for enterprise apps
Or perhaps just think they need after a bunch of marketing mumbojumbo. There are pretty big sites on the net that use Apachr/PHP, Bravenet.com comes to mind, you could probably find others at netcraft.com I don't use this setup personally, but I see a quite a few large sites that do, and they seem to be making money.
it's java for windows basically
I will never understand why people would write in a "java for windows" when they can write in a Java for all operating systems. C# seems to me like a less sophisticated version of Java that has the added drawback of locking you in to a single platform.
As far as IIS goes... it's alot easier to administer a web server from a gui if you're not an expert which 99% takes care of 99% of the people administering web servers. It's just easier to use a gui - not faster but certainly easier. Please don't come back with, "well if you're not an expert you shouldn't touch it yadda yadda." That said... IIS has to runs on Windows which is a train wreck for a server. Don't get me started on security either.
I'm going to come back with this anyway. You have siad that "Windows... is a train wreck for a server", and that the security is bad too. But you are saying it is okay for someone who doesn't know what they are doing to use the pointy-clicky tools to administer the server? They'll get r00ted inside of a week.
I'm not saying GUI tools are bad -- I wouldn't mind some good GUI tools to configurate the more annoying Linux configuration such as SysV init and network interfaces, but if you have to use a GUI tool to run the server because you don't understand what you are doing, you HAVE no business running it.
Very few companies maintain backwards compatibility for extended periods of time. It is not financially beneficial for them to do so.
The focus is typically to push folks to move up to new technologies, dropping legacy systems, then rinse and repeat.
To make a statement about folks 'rich enough and naive enough to keep the.NET bandwagon rolling' is simply uninformed and very biased.
My company evaluated.NET and J2EE for building a new enterprise wide system.
When it came down to it either technology, as well as many before them, could do the job. Since we are a mixed Win/Unix shop, we decided year one to use ASP.NET on our web servers.
The decision to use.NET was based upon our current hardware for our web servers as well as our existing comfort level with MS tools and languages/libraries.
In the end, the typical arguements for using J2EE had little to no impact for us.
--begin rant--
I really do tire of seeing 'm$', 'micro$oft' et al
Really..is there anyone out there that believes that corporations purely exist to provide services out of the goodness of their hearts?
If not, may I propose the following new company slang names...
$un Ci$co GNU/Linu$ $lashdot
--end rant--
First time I've actually posted on/. - so be gentle:p
No, no, no. You didn't complete the metaphor. The proper metaphor is: He finds is easier to browse through a naked array of boobs, ass, and furburger, than to try to do it through windows;-)
-chris
-- San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
I'm glad you shared with us your relevant experience. Let me recap - you have none, correct? And the fact that you got moderated up shows how bad the current moderation system is. .Net can get the job done as well as any of the other products mentioned - PHP/Perl and where is Java/JSP? The subject is whether or not Microsoft should move on from.Net or not. What would be the reason? Because they failed to materialize all the marketting hype? Be real. What tech product in the last 50 years has met all it's marketting hype? Let's put Java at the top of the list to analyse, where even Sun is now admitting that 'write once, run everywhere' was never really going to happen. The real problem as far as I am concerned is that the anti-Microsoft movement was strong enough to halt development of rich end user environments and instead steer the entire industry to a fancy dumb terminal aka http. Applications could be a lot further along now, but instead we have hideous IDEs and debugging environments to deal with. Name one app with the significance of Lotus 1-2-3, Lotus notes, WordPerfect/Word or dBase that has emerged from this web app crap. That is the real dead horse from which it is time to move on.
-- slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
The menus are like a maze that one must climb through. The feature that you want could be anywhere in that maze. With XML and a decent editor you can just do a find.
You are in a maze of twisty menus, all alike...
-- I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
Actually, the £ is a stylised "L" so that should be APP£E.
Rich
Re:Yes
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Seriously, you can seperate the presentation layer from the content in most any language. Eh, but you don't get karma without tossing buzzwords hither and yon.
Yeah, but it sounded good though, didn't it? heh... I love the way people here at/. point out things like this.
You're mostly talking about building newer systems. Which is nice. Everyone should be able to build new systems on a regular basis. Think about the benefits that would have for the economy.
But it is the idea that your IT investment is disposable that is the problem, and that is where I take issue.
The reality of the situation is that COM has an installed user base in the billions (not millions) with computers over two years old running everywhere, simply ignoring the last ten years of technology in the hopes that every NT through Me user will suddenly upgrade their systems because you say so is simply irresponsible.
It's just easier to use a gui - not faster but certainly easier.
Maybe for you it is, personally I find a nice clean xml config file way easier to deal with.
Good, then that should be one less complaint you have against IIS in Windows Server 2003. Supposedly Microsoft is going a lot more towards this type of configurability in Win2003.
I don't think the $ bit has to do strictly with companies making a profit, but refers to companies that try to make an incredible profit at the expense of discarding even the pretense of ethics.
-- Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
Re:Yes
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Glad to meet you. IIS 6 and ASP.NET work wonders for me. In the past five months, I've ported fifteen IIS 5 ASP applications to IIS 6 ASP.NET with nary a hiccup. (I've built two along the way as well.)
My suggestion? Learn XML. Cringly says that one day it'll be the future.
There are situations in which PHP's easiness actually make it more difficult to use, but generally ASP using VBScript suffers even worse. I remember the difficulty I had trying to explain to a friend at my last job that VBScript sacrificed power and therefore ease of use for more accomplished programmers in favor of an easy learning curve and simplicity for beginners. I don't think he ever quite understood that VBScript is actually easier to learn, because he repeatedly suffered from what it lacks.
There are times when I miss some options I had with ASP/would have with.Net (mainly OOP), but there were more times I missed what I would have had with PHP when working with ASP. Still, the biggest problem is that.Net, as with virtually everything Micro$oft, does an inadequate and troublesome job of implementation even with what it gets right. The well-publicized flaws of.Net should suffice to show that it needs to be replaced/refurbished and that this time M$ needs to have a tight, talented core of coders focus on it rather than a huge assemblage of folk working willy-nilly rushing to completion with inadequate coordination. It's amazing that Open Source projects seem to maintain better coordination and more tightly inegrated code than M$ (no slight intended toward OSS - my point is one of respect).
I would dislike using.Net both because I don't care for the tools and because, again, the flaws seem to overwhelm the advantages. the weaknesses of the entire platform are also discouraging - I wouldn't care to use all that Windows has to "offer" as a system and server platform. However - my dislike for M$ is strong enough that I am (shame on me) not at all disappointed that M$ hasn't introduced a set of tools strong enough to make me want to use them.
There are situations in which PHP's easiness actually make it more difficult to use, but generally ASP using VBScript suffers even worse. I remember the difficulty I had trying to explain to a friend at my last job that VBScript sacrificed power and therefore ease of use for more accomplished programmers in favor of an easy learning curve and simplicity for beginners. I don't think he ever quite understood that VBScript is actually easier to learn, because he repeatedly suffered from what it lacks.
Of course, ASP/VBS is one of those things that are extremely easy to get started with, but when things get complex you end up with a huge mess. It's a weakly typed language, you have to resort to COM objects for any meaningful separation of presentation and logic, and it's strictly procedural.
There are times when I miss some options I had with ASP/would have with.Net (mainly OOP), but there were more times I missed what I would have had with PHP when working with ASP.
So what would you miss if you were to switch from PHP to ASP.NET/C# or ASP.NET/VB.NET?
Still, the biggest problem is that.Net, as with virtually everything Micro$oft, does an inadequate and troublesome job of implementation even with what it gets right. The well-publicized flaws of.Net should suffice to show that it needs to be replaced/refurbished and that this time M$ needs to have a tight, talented core of coders focus on it rather than a huge assemblage of folk working willy-nilly rushing to completion with inadequate coordination.
I'm curious about these flaws. What are they?
I would dislike using.Net both because I don't care for the tools and because, again, the flaws seem to overwhelm the advantages.
I will never understand why people would write in a "java for windows" when they can write in a Java for all operating systems. C# seems to me like a less sophisticated version of Java that has the added drawback of locking you in to a single platform.
I think I can answer this in a few parts.
Java is a better language than C++. It was written without having to support the baggage of an earlier language (although it does borrow some of its syntax, but not at the expense of clarity). It has garbage collection, which actually works pretty darned good for a lot of classes of applications. All of the above are applicable to C#.
So why C# instead Java? Well if you're not concerned with being locked into a single platform (which has the lions share of the market locked up) you get all of the advantages of Java with quite a few extras thrown in.
Applications which look like Native Win32 apps. Sorry, Java looks like ass.
Applications that just seem faster. Sorry, Java just makes my new box feel like an 8088.
A great set of development tools and a huge body of excellent documentation.
The ability to pre-compile applications, negating speed disadvantages of the JIT compiler.
So why C# instead Java? Well if you're not concerned with being locked into a single platform (which has the lions share of the market locked up) you get all of the advantages of Java with quite a few extras thrown in.
Lion's share of what market? Last time I checked, most people were using neither.Net nor Java on their web/application servers, its more likely to be PHP or Perl. Tell me again why I should base my choice of platform on what other people are using.
Applications which look like Native Win32 apps. Sorry, Java looks like ass.
Java's awt toolkit uses NATIVE components for rendering. Java's swing toolkit is 100% skinable so if it looks like shit, talk to the developer of the app.
Applications that just seem faster. Sorry, Java just makes my new box feel like an 8088.
So I guess you don't bother with device drivers either. All that hardware abstraction just makes apps "feel" slower. Jitted Java is no slower than C++ if it is written properly.
A great set of development tools and a huge body of excellent documentation.
Isn't it crazy how there are no sources of information on Java. I guess C# has it all over Java on this one. I guess the FREE development environments like, eclipse or netbeans or jcreator or Sun ONE Studio just don't provide anything useful to a developer, except may a choice in their ide. You can always buy a Java IDE from Borland or Oracle, or a thousand other companies.
The ability to pre-compile applications, negating speed disadvantages of the JIT compiler.
Like I said,.Net is Java with the added drawback of locking you into a single platform.
Re:Yes
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
and Apache trumps IIS with the ability to do the majority of configuring with one file, instead of having to browse through a maze of tabbed windows with options, checkboxes, pop-up boxes, etc.
Now that I don't agree with. Having to memorize an endless supply of the commands and the format of those commands to put in a text file is alot harder then having ur choices for you listed in front of you with you choosing what options a particular site uses. And if you don't understand what one option means, click on the help button and you'll find its meaning quickly enough. There's a reason why students tend to score higher on multiple choice tests then traditional tests that just asks you a question and then gives a blank for you to fill the answer in. It's how the mind works where if it sees something familiar, it can remember it more easier on what it means and how it works.
Not really; XHTML and CSS are both presentation. Content would be data, such as an RSS feed or other data source. You can change basic colors and fonts, etc., by separating out the styles, but you still have images, layout, etc. being coded in XHTML. They're both presentation. You really need to be coding on the back-end to merge content with presentation, if they are truly separated.
Re:Yes
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
My suggestion? Learn INI. Cringley is wrong. A series of name-value pairs can be much more clearly and efficiently defined as:
Re:So much...
by
mjmalone
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Microsoft says they are "betting the company" every time they come out with a new technology. The last article I read on longhorn they said they were betting the company on the new filesystem (which, IMHO is just an attempt at integrating MS SQL to squash some more competition).
Re:So much...
by
PhysicsExpert
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The main problem with.Net is that it ties you to a specific OS which makes it a pain from a business economics point of view
Here at the lab for example we run a lot of mission critical syatems written in Java. Although these systems are ultra reliable they are slow and as such we are severely hampered by the hardware we can afford.
A few months ago we got a.Net system to trial and we migrated some of the apps over to it for evaluation. The results showed that.Net was so much faster than java and the support for multi threaded processes far superior. From a technical point of view we wanted to switch but the university wouldn't let us. Switching to.NET would mean swapping from NT to XP and they just wouldn't meet that level of cost.
If someone would port.NET to linux it wuld become a viable option but until then I think will only ever be a niche product.
It's worth at least looking at Mono - I understand some people are using it successfully to replace Java apps with.NET ones.
Re:So much...
by
Randolpho
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The main problem with.Net is that it ties you to a specific OS which makes it a pain from a business economics point of view
Um.... MS is currently developing the.Net framework for *nix, at least according to this article (2nd to last paragraph), but until it's finished, there's the DotGNU Project, or Mono to tide you over.
-- "Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised." -Marilyn Manson
This is a very well known problem of NT and 2000. I have not tested XP yet. The memory management does not work with heavily multi-threaded applications. Have you tried your application on a Unix box? I would suggest a MacOSX box you will be surprised by the result.
Re:So much...
by
Mr_Silver
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The main problem with.Net is that it ties you to a specific OS which makes it a pain from a business economics point of view
The main problem with Office and Exchange is that they also tie you to a specific OS. Yet they seem to have done rather well.
I'm sure.Net has many failings, but only being tied to one OS' is probably not the vast majority of companies lists. There are plenty of places out there that are happily MS-centric.
-- Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Re:So much...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Umm, that article is from April 1, 2002...
Re:So much...
by
HeadDown
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Try GCJ on your java sources. It does impose some restrictions, but it is capable of creating native binaries from Java source. At the XWT project we cross-compile Java source to Win32 and Linux binaries (both from Linux). The native binaries are markedly faster than the Java bytecode version.
That said, there's a lot you can do to tune your JVM for your particular setup. Browse around java.sun.com and www.java.net for tips.
I take it from your post that you can't run the.Net framework on NT. But that's only one of the problems you're going to run into with NT4. For example, I don't think Microsoft is providing any more patches for NT4, is it? So no new security holes are going to be patched. This would even be bad in a *nix, but on a Windows box it's horrendous.
You're going to have to come up with some kind of solution for those boxen. You aren't going to be able to hang onto NT4 forever...
My humble suggestion:
Get ahold of a copy of a Linux, burn a bunch of CDs, and install it on all the boxen. Then, install your Java apps temporarily, while you recode them in C++ or C (for speed). That'll be far faster than.Net OR Java.
-- "Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised." -Marilyn Manson
Re:So much...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The client side and the server side are different animals.
I have yet to see a large company that is "happily MS-centric" on the server side. Even those who use Windows on the server side invariably have a variety of platforms that their server side applications run on.
A few months ago we got a.Net system to trial and we migrated some of the apps over to it for evaluation. The results showed that.Net was so much faster than java and the support for multi threaded processes far superior. From a technical point of view we wanted to switch but the university wouldn't let us. Switching to.NET would mean swapping from NT to XP and they just wouldn't meet that level of cost.
That is your problem right there. We have a bunch of Java apps running on Solaris which scales FAR, FAR better then ANY MS windows OS can hope for. The VM under ms windows gets really bad after a certain point with trying to manage too many processes or threads. Moving the app from ms windows 2k to solaris fixed the problem. We also moved to Linux and had the same scalabilty as Solaris with a nice little speed boost. You could move those apps right to Linux without all the high costs of OS licenses or Sparc hardware. If you can run NT on it, you can run Linux and get a nice speed/performance boost, thansk to Tux. Also, what JDK/JRE are you using? The 1.4.X versions have a nice increase in performance especially under Linux.
-- If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
It is Ximain and GNU that are making mono and dotGNU. Not MS. MS has a beta quality Unix version of it's.net. I will bet you the house that the MS Unix version of.Net will ALWAYS be behind the MS Windows version of.net and NOT function under Linux. MS wants this to be a stepping stone to get Unix stuff moved to MS OSes. It will never be as featurfull as the ms windows version. Your only bet for.net under a unix/linux platform is with mono and dotGNU. MS has not realeased the WinForms, ASP.Net and ADO.Net stuff as ECMA standards. Those three functions will/are the most used parts of.Net. Agian, MS is not doing something here to help "further innovate". Their versions are crafted to tie you to their platform. Mono also runs under ms windows and has implementations of both ADO.NET and ASP.NET. They work with Linux/x86, Linux/PPC, S390, StrongARM and have SPARC in progress. For.Net to be a great os and platform agnostic solution, we need people like Ximian driving it and not a monopoly like MS. Microsoft's version will only serve to further their empire and lock you in.
-- If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
The main problem with Office and Exchange is that they also tie you to a specific OS. Yet they seem to have done rather well.
However, by leverging the ability to force what comes preinstalled on a new PC, and bundeling MS Office for only a few dollars more with a new system. As opposed to having to purchase an office package like WordPerfect. Microsoft was able to take over the PC Offfice application arena.
With the volume of web servers that can run Apache/PHP/My SQL for free on the low end, or competing against products like Apahce/Java/Oracle on the high end, along with not giving away.NET for an extra 2 dollars per new PC, they have not been able to hijack the "web services" market.
First, let me state that I realize that MS is not making mono or dotGNU. It's rather obvious from my post, I thought: "... but until it's finished, here's [something] to tide you over."
As for.NET on *nix being less good than Windows, I think that's likely to be both true and not. MS is in the business of selling software, not just OSs. Note that they still offer, for example, MS Office on the Mac. Implementing.NET on *nix will allow them to move into a market previously untapped, while allowing them to stick with an platform that they're planning to move most of their software to.
That said, Windows will still be the platform they introduce new stuff to first. In short... better to move people to your platform, but if you can't, at least try to sell software on the other platforms.
-- "Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised." -Marilyn Manson
Re:So much...
by
TheRaven64
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Check the date on that article. MS have released a basic.NET runtime for FreeBSD (although it doesn't support forms or some of the optimised memory allocation stuff). Corel were supposed to be porting the whole of the.NET runtime to FreeBSD, but then didn't. Last time I spoke to one of the Mono developers he said that it was unlikely that they would ever fully support.NET under *NIX, since some of the paradigms used do not mesh well with X, and the overhead of adding another abstraction layer would make it unusable.
ROFL. I can just imagine putting the business case for migrating an existing Java application to Mono.
Yes I'd like to pay to reimplement this already functional, secure and stable application on Mono. Mono will give me fewer features, worse stability, dismal performance and limited support.
On completing this migration, my company will get to hold hands with a select band of deluded neophytes who daily give thanks that they haven't been sued by Microsoft.
The main problem with.Net is that it ties you to a specific OS...
hmm... not quite
...makes it a pain from a business economics point of view
right on the money!
From the technology standpoint.Net sounds very good to most corporations who are already using M$ for their in-house apps. The problem is the money. All those thousands of lines of VB and ASP code (which cost thousands of dollars to plan, implement, debug, and deploy) have to be re-written into VB.NET and ASP.NET. That's a lot of money.
Sure, VS.NET comes with wizards that will migrate your VB app into VB.NET, and there are whitepapers that explains how to have your ASP pages run under ASP.NET, but for truly taking advantage of.Net's features, you have to re-write, and companies are not ready to pay for that yet.
Re:So much...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Bawhaha... No. I don't think you've used GCJ at all.
I've used GCJ a lot and all it does is create huge-ass executables that do not run faster than any decent JIT. Plus it can't compile just anything (certain stuff from the Java runtime is not available or won't compile in GCJ).
I think part of the speed problem is just due to the bloat GCJ introduces.
Yup. And when it is finished, DotGNU and Mono will be sued out of existance, and anyone who was stupid enough to start using them will have to pick up the MS solution. MS has patents on the CLR, which you can bet it'll use offensively as soon as it looks like DotGNU or Mono could be a threat to its dominance of the market.
I highly doubt they would implement.Net on Unix. Platform lock-in is what has kept them on top all this time. All a nix implementation would do is take a lot of _very_ expensive server and CAL sales away from them, and encourage competition, neither of which interest Microsoft in the least.
-- Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
I'm impressed with the progress of Mono. They have gotten the C# compiler to the point where they can compile the compiler without relying on the MS.NET C# compiler. The runtime is functional, and contains everything that you can find in the.NET runtime.
The difference is in the libraries that flesh out the rest of the.NET framework, most notably the windows.forms class. Most of the library DLL's can be run from Mono just as well as.NET. The certain classes that do have a reliance on the windows API (windows.forms and other closed classes) are being re-implemented on top of GTK / GTK+.
All it takes is patience. Mono will be identical to.Net, eventually. I hope no one goes around saying that the libraries are required for the runtime, because they truly are not.
BTW, ASP.NET is a humongous step up for anyone who was an ASP developer. Sometimes it is way too difficult to convince company heads to go with a solution that doesn't cost money. They typically ask about support, and then ask why other companies still use MS products. I'm one of the only guys in my company's IT department that has experience with UNIX, everyone else was weaned from the typewriter onto Windows. Shit, even one of the programmers here barely knows how to type, prefers the point and click interface of Delphi, and brags about how much easier that is than.NET.
For anyone caught in the MS environment, using MS SQL Server, along with IIS....NET is more than ideal. Everything has been made much simpler, especially the part where I can develop something in C#, and let someone else who is afraid of braces use that class in VB.NET. The integration of ADO.NET and SQL Server, the improved handling of ASP.NET stuff by IIS, and the ease of creating something useful and reusable makes.Net great on Windows.
Looking upon Unix, I start to think that.Net might just be a good place to start to tie things together there too.
-- You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
But that begs the question: Why does Microsoft sell MS Office for the Mac? I mean... if they don't believe in selling software on other platforms because they only want to lock everyone into their own, why is it that they sell software on other platforms?
Furthermore, why don't they lock 3rd party software out of their own OS? I mean, if they want everyone to be *only* MS, all they have to do is remove the ability for 3rd parties to run software on a MS OS unless they pay a hefty licensing fee, a la Nintendo.
-- "Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised." -Marilyn Manson
Um.... MS is currently developing the.Net framework for *nix, at least according to this
article (2nd to last paragraph), but until it's finished, there's the DotGNU Project, or Mono to tide you over.
Yes, they have a CLR ported over to FreeBSD, but Microsoft is using their "shared source" license which prohibits commercial use. If you read carefully the very article you posted, according to eweek (and me:-) ) most people will have to wait for mono if they want to use.Net on *nix, rather than the pitiful excuse for multiplatform support Microsoft currently offers.
Did you tune the VM at all? I find this a bit difficult to believe. I run all sorts of rather complex, high traffic web apps with Java and I have never found a performance issue that couldn't be solved with a bit of application or VM tuning. If you are using default garbage collection on a large app you WILL have performance issues. Here's a good article on GC tuning
Or you could always compile your app into a platform specific binary, although, personally, I would rather just buy another server.
You can choose different thread models when using Sun's VM on Solaris, maybe that would help. I would also check out RedHat 9 which has the kernel 2.5 threading support back ported to a 2.4 kernel. You might also check out the Blackdown VM, which is compiled a little more agressivly than Sun's, also it has some Linux specifc stuff that may be applicable if you use that platform. Also maybe try IBM's VM, I used to use that back in the 1.3 days and it was noticably faster than Sun's 1.3 with default settings.
I'm happily using Internet Explorer on my Ultra5 running Solaris box. Of course, Microsoft has stopped developing it after the browser war was won, but I guess they thought it would be a stupid idea to let Netscape take all of the Unix market back then. In many ways, the Java/.NET thing doesn't look that different from the IE/NS one.
MS has had to preserve Apple for the primary reason that Apple has to remain viable to provide at least some argument that they don't have a complete monopoly on the desktop. The various games with software support and their investments in Apple have all been to this end.
They don't lock out 3rd party software because they can't fill every need. However, they have a history of either rendering competing products subtly incompatible, making theirs appear faster through use of undocumented API's, and happily using other nasty tactics to take over any market they decide to dominate.
The problem with licensing is that it has not worked for any computer OS manufacturer. They can push pretty far, but if they push too hard, consumers may start looking longingly at Apple, who is opening more every month. They key is keeping the desktop monopoly, a few extra bucks is not worth losing that.
-- Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
MS does not think this way. The only reason MS Office is on Mac's is because they had a lucrative contract with Apple. MS does not offer software on *nix, and they will not. They simply do not consider selling anything. Their two cash cows are their OS and their office suite. All their other software offerings are nothing compared to those two. Even if you add all the other software sales up, they don't come close to their two cash cows. MS has been trying hard to take over the server platform and especially the data center and they have not done well. They are not going to throw that away to sell a few copies of office or whatever on another OS. So sorry, MS's software will not be platform agnostic ever.
-- If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
microsoft's operating system business has begun to die. 2004 will be the year where they suffer the most. by 2010, the majority of desktop computers will run off a non-ms operating system.
I think that will happen before 2010. 2006-7 we'll have a very significant portion already I would think (like 40%ish). By 2008 there should be more than 50%, and then by 2010 it will be the vast majority of desktop computers that won't be running windows.
Unless, that is, something unexpected happens... but that never happens, does it? *g*
You mean like linux junkies that try to cram linux down everyone's throat as the be-all, end-all solution to everything? Sorry, people aren't buying it.
Re:Well...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
that image on those t-shirts was not created by you and therefore you do not own the copyright. i am contacting cafepress immediatly and hopefully your account will be terminated by this afternoon.
Re:Well...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's not exactly the throat that Linux aims towards cramming.
try to cram linux down everyone's throat as the be-all, end-all solution to everything
ahhh, Linux. The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems....
-- We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
Re:Well...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
5, Insightful? WTF are you smoking?
*bashes MS, waits for Karma to roll in*
Sheep.
X
Re:Well...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hey, at least you have a choice with Linux. With MS, there's no choice, you're going to get crammed.
Now to be fair, maybe you're OK with having a company's will imposed upon you but most people here are not. It's not entirely your fault though since I used to lock people like you in their lockers and they eventually accepted my will without saying a peep. Obviously those early experiments in behavioral conditioning have backfired.
ahhh, Linux. The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems....
It was more funny when Homer said it about beer.
And having it crammed down my throat was more palatable, too.
--
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Re:Well...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
ClubStew: You raise an interesting point, but the masses have mod points, and unfortunately you have been stricken. Don't worry though, some asshole will talk about how MS is jamming stuff down their throat on a completely non-related topic, and you can try again then. Just don't expect much to change . . .
Re:Well...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That's not business, or it's not business as defined during the height of capitalism. Business is supplying what your customer wants. In the late 20th century, marketing and advertising (not the same thing!) became sciences of attempting to make your customer want your product. Arguably, that's still business.
MS, however, go a step further. They try to make it impossible NOT to "buy" (actually "license") their product, usually as a preload on a machine. That's not really "business", thats monopoly-building. MS have also recently become rather politically active. That's not business, either, for sane values of business not equal to the mobster definition "anything a sufficiently wealthy entity does". Business has no place in politics (As mussolini said, business+politics=fascism).
Why does everyone insist that trying to make a profit is equivalent with having no ethics or social responsibility? They are not opposites - one simply constrains the other.
Businesses SHOULD aim to make money - lots of money. However, if they do not restrain themselves by ethics or social responsibility, we should restrain ourselves from using their products ever.
Well, if they didn't do that it would mean that they don't take their own developments very serious. So, if they drop.net it certainly should mean that you should think twice before going for their next "best" thing as they might drop that idea too. Unlike in the past MS can not force this down everyone's throat anymore and that's probably why it is not the success that they hoped for.
just a powerful windows scripting environment
by
the_2nd_coming
·
· Score: 0, Funny
as well as a new API for compiled applications. big deal. all I can say is...woo hoo they finaly found something that can replace Basic!!!
--
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Seems to me
by
Timesprout
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
that most of the.Net technology is still there in some shape of form but its the Marketing strategy that has failed miserably
-- Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth What truth? There is no dupe
" that most of the.Net technology is still there in some shape of form but its the Marketing strategy that has failed miserably"
You've got is backwards..Net is a marketing strategy - they're still figuring it out. The technology will happen if they do figure it out. Else, it'll die out like Hailstorm.
-- If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Eh, the part of.NET that they hyped (centralized services) may or may not happen, it certainly failed to happen in the spectacular way that MS wanted in the first place (witness the end of hailstorm) but the ideas may still happen. Just look at the article on the economics of distributed computing, it had a whole section on how web services may be able to allow people to win the advantage of having megahosts do the computing work instead of having it done in house.
I think the issue is MS tried to revolutionize an industry that didn't want to be revolutionized. In the end I think many of the ideas of.NET will see fruitation (not necessarily through the work of MS) but its something that has to come slowly, people weren't ready to flip the switch and move all of thier computing to some central location owned by some big name that they had to trust. As the price points start to outweigh the fears I think we will see a move to.NET type services.
It's worse than that. Microsoft marketing is largely to blame for the confusion and misinformation surrounding.NET. They pitched it as web services when in reality web services is just a small (lame) part of a relatively big thing.
The problem is that the marketing strategy succeeded too well, but their strategy failed to deliver a message that anyone but die-hard Microsoft developers could clearly understand.
.NET itself hasn't failed except on the stupid wild claims made by the starched-shirt sales & marketing drones in the ad department.
--
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
You'd think all the C++ programmers at MS would have clued in the marketing guys that not every class nor every marketing program need implement.NET().
Otherwise, pretty soon folks will be GoingOutToLunch.NET
-- "Provided by the management for your protection."
In terms of it being used everywhere, think of it as if was just replacing Win32. There is a lot more to it than that, but that's why you hear (if you're watching this sort of thing) that they're using it so much in-house. It's really the foundation on which they're building most of the rest of their products.
--
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Reality is quite nice though
by
mccalli
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The marketing hype surrounding.Net evaporated, true. However as a means of developing for Windows in virtual machine which supports multiple languages, the actually technology is still going strong.
And so it should - it's better than the alternatives which preceded it. It's just important to divorce the.Net marketing cloud from the actual technology on the ground.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
metamatic
·
· Score: 0, Troll
And you would want to develop for Windows using a virtual machine because...?
Let's see... worse performance, no improved security because we're talking Microsoft here, no cross-platform capability... yup, sounds like a winner.
-- GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
ClubStew
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
See, you linux junkies don't really know crap about MS, do you? In most cases, the CLR out-performs native Win32 because of better heap management, caching, and other little things here and there. And there will be cross-platform compatibility once linux developers finish Mono.
If anything that runs on a VM is slow - it's Java. It has to JIT everything before running it while the CLR JITs on demand and it even does that faster!
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
Troed
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
... so, you complain about people not knowing enough about the CLR - but you show your own ignorance and lack of knowledge regarding JVMs.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
no cross-platform capability...
Just waiting on the OSS folks to finish Mono...
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
Ooblek
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I would have to agree. One of the problems is that even Microsoft is still releasing products that are based on BizTalk and Commerce Server, which seems sort of counter-intuitive. If you look at some of the new products being released by Microsoft Business Solutions (aka Great Plains), you have to wonder what they were thinking. Their business portal product is based on BizTalk, their.NET CRM application talks to the financial application through BizTalk, and they still have their e-commerce packages that are based on plain-old ASP and COM+.
I will say though that I have recently been working on a project to allow a unix legacy system talk to a web service to do real time credit card authorizations from a COBOL application. Using GCC 3.3, libxml2, libxml++, and libwww to post to a web service, it appears to be transacting quite nicely. I can see a lot of legacy application adapters being developed in this manner in the future. Now if only some of the documentation of these libraries were better....
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
ClubStew
·
· Score: 0, Interesting
Oh, have I? Why don't you tell me then?
I've developed using Java since the beginning and everything I ever read about the JVM stated that it JITs everything that is "early-bound". Perhaps JITting has improved, but start-up times barely have! My.NET apps still start-up and run much faster than their Java counterparts.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
Tenareth
·
· Score: 1
So, in other words, the.NET JVM works around the horrible memory management, caching, and other little things here and there of the MS Operating System....
Interesting method, instead of fixing the OS they put in a "work around".
-- This sig is the express property of someone.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
CynicTheHedgehog
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
What I like about.NET:
- The way codebehind is implemented, and the ASP.NET page lifecycle - Custom controls - Properties and indexers - Collection and foreach - Events and delegates - app.config and web.config - XCopy deployment - Newsgroup support
What I don't like about.NET:
- Buggy implementation - Crappy file I/O package - DLL Versioning (Pain in the ass. Just deprecate!) - Crappy API documentation - A lot of default behaviors, little of which is intuitive, predictable, or documented - The inability to use classes effectively for things they weren't designed to work for, even though they would be perfect for the job. This is largely due to shortsighted design and access constraints (private methods, un-settable properties, etc)
In other words, I love the CLR design and syntactical shortcuts and hate the class libraries and implementation. The feature set is very wide but not very deep. It's painfully obvious where they've set their focus (ASP.NET, ADO.NET) and where they haven't (file I/O, date/time manipulation, string formatting, etc). You develop like lightening until you reach a point where you want to refine it a bit and make it do something very specific, then you spend weeks trying to figure out what it's doing, why it's doing it that way, and how to work around the default behavior.
It's a good product for small projects, but if you're doing enterprise applications, you're better off implementing a lot of this stuff yourself. A good example are typed DataSets...they manage rowstate and updates and such, which saves a lot of time in the short term, but a lot of the time you want much finer control and a looser coupling between business objects and the data schema. Unfortunately, you can't touch the rowstate directly, which leads to some pretty interesting (and ugly) solutions.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
FatRatBastard
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Agreed about technology vs marketing hype, but there's something about.NET that has bothered the hell out of me. They technology (or at least the hype around it) is at odds with the business reality at MS.
MS claim that.NET will be open and cross platform, but the only way this can happen is if cross platform means "across *our* platforms."
Currently MS makes the bulk of their money from the OS and Office. If they truely made.NET cross platform (or let something like Mono take hold) then that starts to eat into both their server and desktop base. I mean, why would anyone pay MS $$$ for each desktop / server if you could choose between *BSD / Linux / VMS / Un*x / et al? For instance, if I had cycles to burn on an IBM mainframe it would make sense to host my.NET services on it, assuming it was truely cross platform.
So basically I fail to see how MS could inplement a businees plant such that.NET would generate more money than the potential loses from the hit they'd take on server / desktop licenses.
Again, MS makes (prints???) money by selling OSs and Office (everything else is just a rounding error). You can be damn sure they're not going to do anything to threaten that cash cow. The interesting thing will be how MS ties.NET to its own OSs. The big draw about web services is that they're supposed to facilitate easier communication / data sharing between disparate systems.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
JaredOfEuropa
·
· Score: 0
"Let's see... worse performance, no improved security because we're talking Microsoft here, no cross-platform capability... yup, sounds like a winner."
Worse performance, compared to what? Compared to Java (one of the competitors in the Enterprise / Web Services market),.Net seems to measure up nicely.
Security? Most of the security holes in enterprise setups using MS are due to clueless system admins. I have worked for many companies where security on their MS systems has never been an issue. In contrast, I have also seen wide-open Unix applications, because the developers couldn't be arsed to adress security. It all depends on your people.
Cross-platform?.Net will interoperate with other platforms just fine. It will not run on those other platforms, true, but for many corporations that is not an issue. Many of them are now finding out that neither putting all their eggs in one basket and choosing a single vendor/platform, nor designing everything to be platform independent and free of vendor lock-in, are winning IT strategies, or even viable ones. Changing technology, insights and the average product lifecycle make it all a pointless exercise. (caveat: that depends heavily on the type of company, and its IT requirements. There are probably companies for which these have proven to be viable strategies). What one can do is design applications so that they communicate easily with each other, so that applications or even components can be replaced piecemeal, on different platforms or languages if need be, and interface with legacy systems as well..Net attempts to achieve that, partly by using open standards for communications and the virtual engine (just how open these standards are is debatable).
If you develop or use Unix systems exclusively, just ignore all this and move on. However, if some of your applications will run on a Windows platform, you might want to look into.Net. Despite the failure of the marketing hype (and the obvious flaws of the Windows platform), the technology isn't half bad.
-- If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
arkanes
·
· Score: 1
J2EE servers generally compile to native code in much the way.NET does. I haven't seen any benchmarks but I understand they're vastly superior to your standard JVM. It all depends on what kind of target space you're looking at -.NET gui's are still noticeably less efficent than native win32 ones, and Java ones are even worse (people keep telling me this isn't true. It's true for every Java app I've used, although Eclipse is probably the best. It's far in the minority though, most Java apps are painful).
On the other hand, sever processes on both platforms perform much better (sometimes even beating native code, as you mentioned).
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
uradu
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
> it's better than the alternatives which preceded it
From Microsoft! Because there have been better alternatives on Windows for a long time--both in terms of MUCH more flexible and expressive frameworks for C/C++, and in terms of different programming languages. But as far as Microsoft products for developing for Windows are concerned, yes,.NET is their best effort so far.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
Glock27
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
See, you linux junkies don't really know crap about MS, do you?
Far too much, in most cases.
In most cases, the CLR out-performs native Win32 because of better heap management, caching, and other little things here and there.
Said heap management, caching, etc. couldn't have been implemented in a pre-compiled language?!? Sure.
And there will be cross-platform compatibility once linux developers finish Mono.
So long as Microsoft sees fit not to exercise it's massive patent portfolio. I'd sure bet my business on Microsoft playing nice...not.
If anything that runs on a VM is slow - it's Java. It has to JIT everything before running it while the CLR JITs on demand and it even does that faster!
That would depend on which Java implementation you're talking about. There are fully pre-compiled Java systems available, however the VM based versions are very competitive. They are certainly neck and neck with the CLR...and are available on many platforms, now. Even enterprise class platforms.:-)
Java has tremendous momentum - which.Not has largely failed to affect.
-- Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
pmz
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Their business portal product is based on BizTalk, their.NET CRM application talks to the financial application through BizTalk, and they still have their e-commerce packages that are based on plain-old ASP and COM+.
This is one big problem with Microsoft. Each time some VP gets all horny for an idea, it seems whatever preceded that idea becomes somehow irrelevant from marketing and, eventually, support standpoints. I would bet there are many many millions of lines of commercial code out there tied by thier guts to COM, BizTalk, and whatever, leaving those Microsoft customers mystified about why they put forth all that effort only to have their vendor spit all over them and push them into the mud. Microsoft has absolutely no sense of being committed to their customers, which, IMO, is a big no-no in pretty much every other industry ever dreamt up by humans. This three-to-four year turnover in technology from them just needs to slow down (hell, the last major inventions elsewhere, UNIX, the WWW, Lisp/Java/VM-stuff etc. are all pretty darn "old", now, but evolving rather than getting uprooted and mulched).
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
interiot
·
· Score: 1
The inability to use classes effectively for things they weren't designed to work for, even though they would be perfect for the job.
You develop like lightening until you reach a point where you want to refine it a bit and make it do something very specific, then you spend weeks trying to figure out what it's doing, why it's doing it that way, and how to work around the default behavior.
Sounds just like the API in Visual Basic. Which may be fine for VB.NET users (though I think they can do better even there), but if that's also what you get with C#, that really sucks.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
a_n_d_e_r_s
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
There is no need to reinvent the wheel for enterprise solutions and use do-it-yourself Its costly and takes a lot of time.
For Enterprise solutions - just go with java.
Most people seams to be doing just that.
-- Just saying it like it are.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
HeadDown
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You mean what you like about ASP.Net. There's more to.Net than just websites, you know.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
ClubStew
·
· Score: 1
First, I never said "the JIT". Second, don't be so anal. By saying the JVM, I didn't mean THE JVM because, yes, I know there's more than one and they each have ads and disads. But, if I were to say "the apple", do you think I would mean THE apple? No, of course not.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
borgboy
·
· Score: 1
I'm very sincerely curious about how the IO classes, the date handling and the string formatting are lackluster for you. I do quite a bit with the above and don't really notice a failing in those areas. Also, I'm pretty happy with the documentation.
Now, about your comments WRT Datasets and enterprise dev - I think you're spot on.
We do a lot of development with WebSphere and.Net, and in general, we're finding.Net very productive for Windows development, both client and server side.
-- meh.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
FireBreathingDog
·
· Score: 1
I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but the exact same thing can be said re: Sun and Java.
How does Java help sell Sun boxes? How does it help sell Solaris?
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
Reality+Master+101
·
· Score: 0, Funny
There is no need to reinvent the wheel for enterprise solutions and use do-it-yourself
Its costly and takes a lot of time. For Enterprise solutions - just go with java.
If the wheel is square and made of stone, then many times wheels need to reinvented. Stone, square wheels don't move very fast. Kind of like Java (in more ways than one).
-- Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
NFNNMIDATA
·
· Score: 1
A lot of folks are using java, but I should point out that where I live java job postings are way outnumbered by.NET postings -.NET is growing quickly considering the state of the economy.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
Troed
·
· Score: 1
... since there are numerous JVMs, aswell as lots of different JIT or non-JIT solutions, your first post said... nothing. Can you be more specific as to which JVM and JIT solution you're comparing the CLR? I'm sure someone (or if someone already has) can point out a solution that works just as the CLR one, or better.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
NFNNMIDATA
·
· Score: 1
So long as Microsoft sees fit not to exercise it's massive patent portfolio. I'd sure bet my business on Microsoft playing nice...not.
Hmmm, knowing MS, I doubt they'd intentionally damage potential customers. Instead they will probably either (a) kill mono soon, or (b) wait until the people who are going to use mono get entrenched and then kill mono, offering.NET stuff at a discount to get them on board, thus sucking in as much of the linux crowd as possible while looking like the good guys.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
alext
·
· Score: 1
Er, no.
J2EE servers use the same VMs as regular Java apps. JVMs use JITs. All JITs are capable of more optimizations than the static compiler used in Dotnet.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
FMITGA!.NET does not use a "static compiler"..NET methods are JIT compiled prior to being invoked and yes, it is an optimizing compiler. There is a deployment tool named ngen.exe that will generate a native image, but it is not heavily used in the current release. Would you frickin/.ers start reading some techinical material before commenting on matters that you obviously know nothing about.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Sun has a history of providing open standards to the community. They win by producing a good product (instead of product forcing). NFS is a good example.
BTW, I think Sun is dying, but not because of Java.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
singollo
·
· Score: 1
Isn't that the point of being a monopoly. You have the choice of getting rid of whatever tech you want, and still generate revenue because people are dependent on you. I'm not specifically bashing Microsoft. Apple did something reasonably similiar with the MacOS/OSX switch.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Can you go into more detail about the second paragraph?
Ie, what are you doing with this stuff, and how do you like it? GCC 3.3, libxml2, libxml++, and libwww?
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
pmz
·
· Score: 1
Apple did something reasonably similiar with the MacOS/OSX switch.
I haven't used Mac OS X and their "classic" emulator, but, in principle, it can be argued that they did the right thing. They saw an opportunity to go from their DOS-era desktop operating system and make a 1970-2000+ modern workstation/server operating system while still keeping compatibility in a separate compartmentalized emulator. In the long-term, this is a big win for both Apple and their customers.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
truth_revealed
·
· Score: 1
Libxml2 is a bitch to use - memory ownership is not documented, and the examples are poor. GCC 3.3 produces excellent code. Libwww is not threadsafe. Never tried libxml++.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
Hard_Code
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I agree. I am a full time Java developer. I love Java. But I ALSO realize.NET is really cool stuff. Or rather, the CLR, which is basically a more generic VM, is cool stuff. If you are a windows user, and have been using windows update, poke around and you will find that you have ALREADY downloaded the.NET runtime, and that various things are already based on, and use it (e.g. IE 6)..NET/CLR is there, you just don't see it. Which is the way it's meant to be anyway. The "Web services" side of.NET of course has been hampered because web services adoption is slow, but the CLR side of.NET is still strong, and I think is a great step up from C/C++/COM/ActiveX/PotLuckAPI.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
Chester+K
·
· Score: 1
their.NET CRM application talks to the financial application through BizTalk
Microsoft is currently developing a.NET solution to replace the old Great Plains package. These things take time though, so they're maintaining the old code base while they do so.
--
NO CARRIER
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
Chester+K
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
They technology (or at least the hype around it) is at odds with the business reality at MS.
MS claim that.NET will be open and cross platform, but the only way this can happen is if cross platform means "across *our* platforms."
.NET is about interoperability, not cross-platform execution. The big reason Microsoft is behind.NET is to get Windows a foothold in shops currently based around Unix.
--
NO CARRIER
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
And where I live the reverse is true.
Individual results may vary.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
achacha
·
· Score: 1
libwww is quite buggy, not well documented, leaks memory, not thread safe and quite limited in functionality. I had a lot of problems using it under high volume (works great with 1 user hello world apps tho):)
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
Baki
·
· Score: 1
Yes, MSFT shall not be able to keep up their rate of changing technology. They have been forced to do so and I think they shall suffer once they no longer can do this.
Reason: It has been their way of keeping competition shut out. As soon as others became able to reverse engineer their file formats, API's and network protocols, their products threatened to loose their exclusive nature and others would be able to create products that open a possible migration path. Once they (have to) stop doing this, it will become much easier for customers to move on, away from MSFT.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
arkanes
·
· Score: 1
JIT is better than interpeting, but is not faster than native code in most circumstances. The extra optimization you can do via runtime knowledge rarely compensates for the JIT overhead. In any case,.NET also uses JIT - the JITed code is cached for later use, however. Sort of a best of both worlds thing.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
fredrik70
·
· Score: 1
huh? weird place. over here in London youy can count the number of.net jobs on the fingers of one of your hand. java jobs though are everywhere. Doubt sun has to worry that much. a *lot* of people has already done significant investments in java and they're not likely to change for quite some time.
-- if (!signature) {
throw std::runtime_error("No sig!");
}
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm sick of people saying.NET supports multiple lanugages..NET supports one language: IL! I will also consider C# as an answer as it is a new lanugage and maps perfectly to IL. HOWEVER, all existing languages must be mapped (asimilated) onto IL, if IL doesnt support a language feature, SO SORRY! Take C++.NET for example, it mearly tries to mimic C++ syntax, that's it, it is not C++ by any stretch of the imagination.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
andcal
·
· Score: 1
Since this is for enterprose applications (which suggests an intranet setting), have you investigated using windows forms class libraries for your application, instead of web forms?
-- --something witty
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
CynicTheHedgehog
·
· Score: 1
The I/O functionality consists nearly entirely of static methods that, frankly, don't do a lot for you. You can get a list of filenames in a directory, but I haven't found anything that will parse the filename into path segments and reformat it for various platforms. Java does this wonderfully, and the functionality betwee java.io and java.net allows you to do really neat things with paths OR URLs (you don't have to know or care which, Java does that for you).
But what I miss most is that in Java, when you call read( byte[] a ) it will read a.length bytes and advance the file pointer so you can perform the same call in a loop until the returned value is less than a.length. In.NET read( byte[] a, int b, int c ) only reads c - b bytes and does *not* advance the pointer. Interestingly, b and c are ints, whereas the file length can be long, so conceivably you could be unable to read the end of a very long file (that is, if there is a distinction between int and long in.NET). The only way to read in a file in a loop is byte-by-byte (read( ) advances the pointer just fine), which is *very* inefficient. I ran into that while trying to copy an HttpPostedFile into a blob field on a data object. Pain in the ass.
With respect to I/O, it looks like.NET gives you little more than what you get with a standard C++. I guess I'm just spoiled by Java, which has an extremely robust I/O package.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
CynicTheHedgehog
·
· Score: 1
Yes, we're on an Intranet, but we have salespeople in 9 states that are connected via VPN. Deploying a Windows Forms application to 250 remote laptops is not something we wanted to mess with. Besides, ASP.NET and Web Forms are one of the things I like about.NET...it's the backend stuff (ADO, BizTalk, MTS) that kills you.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
bat'ka+makhno
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You might want to take another look at the MSDN I/O stuff. To get you started, have a look at the FileStream and BinaryReader classes, which have the functionality you're looking for.
Good luck.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Simple. Sun releases Java to the world with a comparatively advantageous license (please I know some of you communists may not agree, but it is a decent license for corps) and many people start to implement solutions using it. Sun benefits when people need servers to run their Java applications on. Sun benefits when people need Sun workstations to developer their Java applications (probably not many). Do you think for a second that if Sun developed Java just for Solaris that anybody would be using it? What good would Java be to Sun if it had zero adoption rate? Sun gives it away, with some restrictions and everybody adopts it. Sun gets it back when people build huge applications and decide to use Sun servers to host those apps. Yeah they can decide to use servers from another vendor. But the odds are that even with competition in the server space Sun makes more money on Java due to mass adoption than it could by keeping it proprietary.
It is obvious that Sun knew that the only way Java would work for them in the bottom line would be to give it away and get people loving it. They are not Microsoft; they cannot dictate their technology on anybody regardless of how good it might be. Sun can come out with the best thing on the planet tomorrow and nobody would use it.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
awol
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, I thought the one nice thing about.nyet, sory.net was the single class library for all languages. Seems kinda cool to me.
-- "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
glenebob
·
· Score: 1
I've been impressed for the most part with.net. I do have a couple of gripes though.
The collection classes are horribly inconsistent. After working with the c++ STL containers, the.net ones are kind of a joke. I really miss the b-tree based dictionary (map in the STL). Sometimes it's nice to have the collection do the sorting for you, and hashes don't. The list classes are a bit confusing; are they lists or arrays? The documentation doesn't tell you what the performance specs are, so it's tough to tell, and sometimes it's really important to know and choose properly.
The IO classes are a bit limited, mostly I think because of limitations in the underlying IO subsystem in Windows. You can't do async IO on anonymous pipes (which the std handles are), and if you're unfortunate enough to have to deploy on the old DOS32 crap (WinME and earlier), you can't do async IO on disk files either.
There doesn't seem to be a way to wait for either an IO to complete or a window message to arrive. This is provided for in the Win32 API, but not in.net, and it can make GUI apps difficult to write if you need async IO.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
FatRatBastard
·
· Score: 1
That actually makes more sense, but I still wonder how that gets leveraged into the Unix workspace. Interoperability assumes a two way street. Again, if.NET is a success (as they have thus far defined it) then MS still puts themselves into a position where the MS solution should'nt be the *only* solution. Interoperability implies fairly transparent standards, which means that competing implementations can be created (.GNU, Mono) that, if not 100% compatible, are "good enough." Either they clamp down on competing solutions and keep tight reins on the standards/implementation (their home grown solutions and carefully selected licensees) or they allow many different versions to grow in their "ecosystem" (god, I hate that term). If they do the former they're going to have a much harder time selling to anyone who wasn't already in the Windows camp. If they go the latter then they've lessened the appeal of their own OS.
(Apologies for the crap spelling)
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
sdkone
·
· Score: 0
Said heap management, caching, etc. couldn't have been implemented in a pre-compiled language?!?
A few points:
1. The.NET runtime JIT-compiles - it does not interpret nor is it designed to be interpreted. Apart from avoiding the hit of the JIT, there is little point in "pre-compiling".
2. In order to have a multi-language, execution environment with complete deterministic garbage collection and the type of security features.NET has, you pretty much need to have a intermediate language that is type safe and verifiable.
3. "Pre-compiling" has a completely different technical meaning than the one you are using.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
sdkone
·
· Score: 0
I'm sick of people saying that languages exist: computers support one language only - binary! And all existing languages have to be mapped to binary!! Blah blah blah...
.NET supports multiple languages - how do I know this? Because there are multiple languages implemented for.NET. QED.
Now if your bitch is that all languages can't be implemented for the CLR then you're almost half right. If your bitch is that all languages can't be implemented for managed execution for the CLR then you are closer to the mark...
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
Bodrius
·
· Score: 1
I got the impression that what he liked about.NET was ASP.NET, because that's where MS had their focus on, and that the rest is pretty much lackluster.
So the problem would be that there is little more to like about.NET than websites.
--
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Said heap management, caching, etc. couldn't have been implemented in a pre-compiled language?!? Sure.
While this would be possible, it is certainly not trivial. The advantage the CLR, and that other compacting garbage collecting VMs, have is the ability to quickly allocate memory from a thread local heap (so as long as there's enough space it's just incrementing the heap pointer). Later they can move the memory around as necessary. Most programs, if they tried this w/o a compacting GC, would end up wasting memory from holes they create (non-contigious freed blocks won't soon end up as the pool for a thread local heap).
You can of course recreate a GC in many pre-compiled languages (obviously C/C++) , but it's going to be difficult, time consuming, and error prone. On the other hand in languages like these you can use even MORE efficient memory management routines (for example by optimizing the free path more than a GC can ever be optimized). So there's trade offs...
But if you're someone who just doesn't want to mess with this stuff the VM w/ a GC will win.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
There doesn't seem to be a way to wait for either an IO to complete or a window message to arrive. This is provided for in the Win32 API, but not in.net, and it can make GUI apps difficult to write if you need async IO.
Using async io & socket apis (eg, FileStream.BeginRead/BeginWrite, Socket.BeginReceive, BeginSend) will use completion ports automagically. From there you can wait for the IO to complete by doing the corresponding EndRead / EndWrite (you'll need to open the file for async I/O though). You can also provide an async callback to be notified on completion (at which point you can call the End method). If you have an OS handle that you got that you want to do async I/O on you can all call ThreadPool.BindHandle - but that's normally not necessary.
As for your window messages, if you're running a Winforms app (where you'd most likely be doing this) you can override WndProc and get all the messages.
Re:Reality is quite nice though
by
borgboy
·
· Score: 1
The I/O functionality consists nearly entirely of static methods that, frankly, don't do a lot for you. You're refering to the System.IO.File class? Yeah, it's kinda lame for IO. Really meant for dealing with the attributes of a file, not the contents. I think you missed the System.IO.FileStream class.
You can get a list of filenames in a directory, but I haven't found anything that will parse the filename into path segments and reformat it for various platforms. The System.IO.Path class.
But what I miss most is that in Java, when you call read( byte[] a ) it will read a.length bytes and advance the file pointer so you can perform the same call in a loop until the returned value is less than a.length. In.NET read( byte[] a, int b, int c ) only reads c - b bytes and does *not* advance the pointer. According to the documentation for System.IO.FileStream.Read(), the stream position is indeed updated after each read. You can even use a StreamReader or a BinaryReader to do more complicated/interesting things.
Interestingly, b and c are ints, whereas the file length can be long, so conceivably you could be unable to read the end of a very long file (that is, if there is a distinction between int and long in.NET [BB There is ]). The only way to read in a file in a loop is byte-by-byte (read( ) advances the pointer just fine), which is *very* inefficient. I ran into that while trying to copy an HttpPostedFile into a blob field on a data object. Pain in the ass. I'm sorry you had it rough, but you dont appear to understand how the streams or readers work. As far as large files go, you CAN reach the end if the stream position is updated, which it is.
With respect to I/O, it looks like.NET gives you little more than what you get with a standard C++. I guess I'm just spoiled by Java, which has an extremely robust I/O package.
Might I suggest reading up a little more on the IO capabilities in the.Net framework at MSDN
-- meh.
Only 3 years...
by
sc00ch
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'm not pro.net at all and i don't really know much about it to be honest.<br> But i think its crazy to judge something is big as.net in this way.<br> If something doesn't 'take off' in 3 years time it's now a failure? Lets not be silly...
Well, it does seem to be their track record. After all, exactly 3 years after the release of Win2k, it's being certified as "secure".
Re:Only 3 years...
by
tlianza
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If something doesn't 'take off' in 3 years time it's now a failure? Lets not be silly...
I agree with you, and I would also argue that.NET hasn't been around for even close to three years. They just released the server platform for.NET a few months ago. I personally wouldn't start the clock ticking when the first person uttered the word ".NET". It takes a while to get the development and platform software built before you can get the rest of the world developing with the stuff.
The birth of an idea and the release of a platform are two different things. Although if you think life begins at conception, then maybe this 3-year viewpoint is consistent:)
Re:Only 3 years...
by
RoLi
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
Well, but what does.NET really offer?
Is there any real problem that couldn't be solved before and can be solved with.NET? I don't see it.
Java solved the problem of cross-platform compatibility. It runs everywhere on every platform, no other platform offers that (and neither does.NET).
.NET is just a evolutionary improvement over Visual Basic: A programming solution for Microsoft-only shops.
How dare you use rational thought on this forum! May you be banned for eternal life to the pits of heck!;-)
Yes 3 years since the first beta release and MS has lost the game? Funny because I look around and see.Net projects popping up all over the place. I come from a Java background and still love Java and still use it when it fits the problem. But I also love.Net and everything it offers on the win32 platform. I think there are thousands of developers like me that would agree..Net is here to stay and is has nothing to do with "simply marketing" or "clueless managers". It has to do with.Net simply being an easier way to develop on the target platform of 75% of the computing market.
Depends on which system of transliteration you use. Njet is the more modern (and probably more correct) by Nyet has a longer usage in Anglophone countries. The Oxford English Dictionary gives "niet", "nyet" and "njet" as accepatable.
-- Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Re:In Soviet Russia...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"Shut the fuck up" is also considered acceptable, by me, to you.
Re:In Soviet Russia...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"Heh. Dr Pepper tastes funny after going through your nose. Yuck."
What? Do you mean to say you drank it again after ejecting it from your nose? Yuck indeed.
-- "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy
way to factor large prime numbers."
Bill Gates,
Re:In Soviet Russia...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
he had a russian mother
You are kidding, right?
by
PhysicsGenius
·
· Score: 2, Funny
If you use Linux you obviously won't see the benefits of.NET, maybe that's why you guys haven't seen it. But the improvements have been manifold, let me give you some examples from my own network, which is.NETified:
1) We have single-source logons for all users, even if they migrate workstations.
2) Users can access their apps and data from anywhere on the network, even offsite.
3) Ping times have halved.
4) You wouldn't believe our uptime, sometimes we go for weeks without rebooting.
5) The TCO is 1/10th of what it was and we've been able to reduce our IT staff (maybe this is the real reason the/. readership hates.NET?).
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
you jokeing... right??
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"We go for WEEKS without rebooting". Hahaha. Weeks, impressive. Try uptimes of about 700 days or better, that is what you should compare against !
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Obviously moderators have no clue what.NET even is because it has nothing to do with what he is talking about. The only part of.NET that exists now is the programming framework. I highly doubt that his "ping" times have been halved because he use C#. Even a moderator with a slight knowledge of computers will realize that ping time has nothing to do with the OS.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
linuxci
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Sounds like MS Marketing BS, but 1 and 2 are possible on most UNIX systems, Linux and pre-.net versions of Windows, so that's not new.
Why would.net affect ping times? If it did, was this compared to older versions of Windows, Linux or Solaris?
As for total cost of ownership, it's always a case of your mileage will vary, it depends on where your staff has most skills. Personally I consider maintaining unix systems a lot easier and a lot less effort so that would cut down the TCO in that case. Get a bunch of McSE's and the results would be different, as would getting someone with an equal balanced knowledge in windows and unix.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
youaredan
·
· Score: 1
*a dark figure glides across the void, and stops behind a tree... He tilts up his cap slightly, and the light of a nearby street-lamp glint in his eyes devilishly.*
And another figure shows up with a big ass suitcase and pays him off.
I wonder if there is truth to the reality that people can feel compelled to support thier corporate masters while employed... If you would normally use BSD/Linux - but are bound and gagged in the Win32 closet, why then stand up for it? I've worked for many companies. and the Unix staff has _always_ been at least a quarter the size of the Windows staff... even in companies using unix desktops across half the company! Why would the typical/. reader care if Win32 layoffs are due to.NET? Take that flag to the ZDNet/PCWorld pole.
Your shackles must ache.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
AshPattern
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Huh. Sounds like 1) yp, 2) xwindows, 3) lack of outlook viruses, 4) linux or bsd, and 5) open source
Good thing to know MS technology is on the forefront of innovation.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
xThinkx
·
· Score: 0
1) We have single-source logons for all users, even if they migrate workstations.
2) Users can access their apps and data from anywhere on the network, even offsite.
3) Ping times have halved.
4) You wouldn't believe our uptime, sometimes we go for weeks without rebooting.
On my linux network I have all those things, except my ping times are still half of what they are on my m$ network (yes I have 2 networks, one MS, one *ix), and you can replace weeks with months or possibly years (for my simple fileserver) for reboot times.
Really and truthfully, a well-managed.NET network will of course outperform that of a previous m$ network. However, a the same effort put into a unix/linux network will produce far better results, Microsoft just doesn't have it where it counts (efficiency) for servers
-- Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
"
1) We have single-source logons for all users, even if they migrate workstations.
2) Users can access their apps and data from anywhere on the network, even offsite.
3) Ping times have halved.
4) You wouldn't believe our uptime, sometimes we go for weeks without rebooting.
Funny we dont have.net and we have most of this...
1 - Windows has had this for decades... it's call domain login model.
2 - Roming profiles... had that cince NT 4.0 here..
3 - we cut ping times to.01 by simply upgrading the crap networking equipment and beating the hell out of users that listen to streaming radio station audio of stations that ARE IN THE AREA and can be recieved on a $5.00 clock radio!
4 - NT4 and W2K on decent hardware maintained by competent IT will go 2 years on a server and at least 2-3 months on a workstation...
so what did you gain by.NET? we don't have.NET and have better than thou.
-- Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Umm how the hell did.Net reduce your ping times?
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Sheetrock
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Most people that have poo-poohed the stability of Microsoft's platform haven't:
Tried a professional or better version; there's a reason they cost more even if they don't run that CGA poker game you copied off of someone else in high school
Gone through the training necessary (i.e., read a book) to install and maintain Windows in a work or enterprise environment
Used the stable of tools designed to ease and enhance deployment of Windows technologies -- Windows Terminal Server, Norton Ghost, etc
The fact is, one can choose between the compatibility offered by many Free operating systems and the tuned performance of Windows much as one can choose between a SUV and a racecar -- but if you can't operate a racecar it's probably better to go with the SUV.
--
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try. -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Cassius105
·
· Score: 1
"4) You wouldn't believe our uptime, sometimes we go for weeks without rebooting."
hehe is that surposed to be impressive?:P
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
mgs1000
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I would love to have a.net enabled ping utility!
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Even a moderator with a slight knowledge of computers will realize that ping time has nothing to do with the OS.
Depends... ping time is usually measured from just before you call send() until you complete your recv() to receive your ping back. Factors such as poor TCP/IP stacks, kernel design, and load on your system can effect the timings (as far as internal factors).
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Verteiron
·
· Score: 2, Informative
PhysicsGenius is known for these sorts of posts. He posts brilliant, well-written trolls. But they're still trolls. Read his posting history sometime.
-- End of lesson. You may press the button.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Michael+Hunt
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
You, Sir, are a troll:)
Albeit, a very good troll in that you ALMOST had me going until I read point 4. Upon rereading your other points:
1) 'Single-source logons' are a function of AD/Kerberos under 2000/2003. In a corporate environment, they give you all the benefits you're claiming that.net does. The '.net passport' stuff hasn't really taken off (is anybody apart from hotmail and msn using it?)
2) How does this have anything to do with.net? Remote access is a function of authentication (AD/KDC as above in a 2000/3 environment) and security (leased line or 'VPN'.).net has nothing to do with the latter part of the equation.
3) Since the various.net RPC mechanisms use a more verbose protocol than traditional MS/DCE RPC calls, I fail to see how this could be the case, unless you're using the 9/10 of your TCO saved in (5) to buy bigger pipes.
4) My windows 2000 servers at work usually only get a reboot when someone installs a hotfix. Since the patch lifecycle is test->uat->production, we have ample warning for this. Uptime, on average, is around 5-6 months. These machines are everything from AD controllers supporting thousands of users, to RDP/MS TS boxes with 50-odd users each.
5) correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't.net more expensive, being subscription based? I realise that this isn't the whole of the TCO equation, but windows servers are windows servers, and no amount of point and click window dressing is going to reduce the amount of manpower required to run systems well.
I'm no Windows apologist (check my posting history,) but surely your argument is bunk:P
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
MosesJones
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
1) We have single-source logons for all users, even if they migrate workstations.
Then you don't have AS400s, Legacy applications or Unix then ?.NET is certainly improving the Windows world, but this is a limited part of the.NET vision.
2) Users can access their apps and data from anywhere on the network, even offsite.
All their apps ? Or just the PIM ones in Outlook and the new development. Is that offsite access transactionally secure (i.e. not using Web Services)
3) Ping times have halved
This one confuses me. Are you telling me that the network traffic has been REDUCED by using.NET ? This is strange as.NET is more network intensive. Or do you mean response times ?
You wouldn't believe our uptime, sometimes we go for weeks without rebooting
Oh hang on its a troll isn't it by a Linux dude... I mean come on, anyone who can't keep a Windows box with a mean-time between failure of over a month is a cretin.
5) The TCO is 1/10th of what it was and we've been able to reduce our IT staff (maybe this is the real reason the/. readership hates.NET?).
Then they should REALLY hate AS400s and OS/390s and Sun's N1 architecture which have a support cost several hundred times as good at a fraction of the price..Net DOES have some great features, and DOES have some points to recommend it. The Mobility area is one part that MS have clearly thought about.
But in comparison with J2EE it suffers on several levels, the biggest of which is that J2EE is a standard adopted by all of the other big guys, and is the one that most enterprise vendors are moving towards, SAP for instance..NET is an expansion of the Outlook/Exchange model that has served MS so well (as an aside, the thing that MS probably fear most is a really good open source version of Exchange)..NET is not crap, but the reasons you have given are not the reasons.
-- An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
No no no.
You've been misled - you've actually installed Linux....
Why is it that MS is only now catching up with what's been available in UN*X-based (and other) systems for many years?
I can do all this stuff on a Linux network, without paying onerous annual dues to Microsoft.
To us, these aren't benefits, they're what we're used to. Why pay more (TM)?
1 - Was already the case before with NT 2 - Web apps ? What is new with this ? 3 - You are joking. Nothing to do with.Net or thing s like that. It only depends on the TCP/IP (ICMP) protocol implementation, not on what is "above" the kernel 4 - Whoohoo ! 5 - Any link to a report with real numbers ?
-- Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Don't be fooled by this moron troll. This stuff has existed since before Linus was even wiping his own ass and part of Windows since NT 4. His post has nothing to do with.NET or anything new Microsoft is doing. He is a famous troll. Don't let him get your anti-Microsoft juices flowing for nothing.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
WeirdKid
·
· Score: 1
1 & 2) Had this back in the early nineties at college with SunOS, NIS (later LDAP) and X11. Way to innovate, Microsoft!
3) it's more likely you upgraded your hardware somewhere along the way and a side-effect was faster ping times; an application framework seldom affects these kind of things.
4) only weeks?!
5) troll
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I highly doubt that his "ping" times have been halved because he use C#
Obviously, when he say "ping", he mean something else.
Most people have had the convenience (and added stability) of equivalent free software for a decade longer than M$ has been able to provide it. Nice troll though.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
4 - NT4 and W2K on decent hardware maintained by competent IT will go 2 years on a server and at least 2-3 months on a workstation...
It depends entirely on the software. If your applications (or drivers, or even firmware) is buggy, you will have to reboot much more frequently due to memory leaks and such.
Where I work it is SOP to reboot our Citrix Servers *every night* because they are running multiple instances of applications that were designed to run in a desktop environment. (some of which is of doubious quality, at best...)
If you are just running file sharing on a good server grade machine with solid firmware, you could run almost indefinitely under NT or W2K. But introduce a single buggy application and your uptime will go downhill fast.
You are a manager, right? I guess you just finished a meeting with MS sales drones, yes?
-- ---
(The signature is intentionally left blank)
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
zulux
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
A few weeks uptime is nothing to brag about.
There was a Microsoft guy giving a presentation about Windows 2003 server - he proudly claimed that MSN.com was using it a getting six weeks of uptime..and more!
Most of us snickered. Except for the MCSEs - they were impressed. Of course most MCSEs are impressed with a bundle of sticks with a clown hat on top, but I digress.
--
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
MavEtJu
·
· Score: 1
3) Ping times have halved.
They're cheating, they've moved their icmpd into the kernel.
-- bash$:(){:|:&};:
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
ShadeARG
·
· Score: 1
play on words, but shouldn't a "hotfix" be like a "hotswap", where the system stays up and continues to function without introducing any downtime?
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Nick+of+NSTime
·
· Score: 1
700 days is 70 weeks.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"there's a reason they cost more even if they don't run that CGA poker game you copied off of someone else in high school"
Don't copy... don't copy that floppy!!!"
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Maybe you should have read PhysicsGenius history before replying. He's a very successful (and funny) troll here on slashdot.
Boycott user accounts
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
leomekenkamp
·
· Score: 1
Obviously trolling, but since you have +5 I'll bite:
Tried a professional or better version; there's a reason they cost more even if they don't run that CGA poker game you copied off of someone else in high school
What exactely are you trying to say here? That an MS OS with 'Professional' in the name cannot run DOS apps? Or that MS only patches certain bugs in more expensive versions of their OS-es?
Gone through the training necessary (i.e., read a book) to install and maintain Windows in a work or enterprise environment
So you need a book to press 'next', 'next', 'next', 'finish' in install-wizards? If you need training, then why are there wizards? And don't tell me a good sysop needs wizards; those are for the naive end-users. And if they should not intall and maintain a product, then don't provide wizards.
Used the stable of tools designed to ease and enhance deployment of Windows technologies -- Windows Terminal Server, Norton Ghost, etc
Ghost a windows technology? Don't make me laugh. It is a hack to get around the rediculous barriers MS puts in its products on purpose. Ever wondered why there is no 'Norton Ghost for *nix'? That's because it is not needed; simple cp and tar commands come a long way. Same goes for Windows Terminal Server; there is no unix equivalent, because it's build-in, use eiter telnet or X through 'ssh -X'. Or vnc.
-- Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
darnok
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The government body I'm working at for now has had all sorts of problems with.NET. People who've been around for longer than me tell me that Microsoft Consulting Services have convinced the CIO and his immediate advisors that.NET is the universal solution for everything IT, and it certainly seems to have been implemented with that in mind..NET seems to be a good fit for Web Services, but that's only a very small part of the set of applications that are being developed today. In particular, for anything with fairly rigid and auditable security requirements,.NET simply isn't a good fit, and nor is any competing Web Services model at the moment. When you consider that government bodies need to be paranoid about the security implications of any data that floats around their servers,.NET just isn't appropriate for a hell of a lot of situations without a lot of supporting "legacy" infrastructure alongside it.
You need to treat.NET as Just Another Piece Of The Puzzle.
As with Trustworthy Computing, MS seems to categorise.NET as "The Great Silver Bullet" when it comes to doing IT. As with Trustworthy Computing, MS is probably right if you consider the problem from a purely-MS perspective; both Trustworthy Computing and.NET position MS to sell product into markets that it previously couldn't touch, even though any end-user benefits seem highly debatable at best.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
arkanes
·
· Score: 1
Without making any sort of judgment call on the stability of free OSes vrs non-free ones (10 years ago, all the free OSes were stomped into the ground by commercial Unices anyway), what does stability 10 years ago have to do with stability right now?
Just to address point 5, in what way is.net subscription-based?
Granted, my experience of.net is limited to development work using the.net Framework, but that is essentially just Microsoft's answer to Java and the JDK. There's absolutely nothing subscription-based about it, it's just a technology for developing software.
True, there was talk a while back about having web-enabled subscription software,which may have come under the blanket term of ".net stuff", but that's not what.net is really about.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Sure, in any dictionary but Microsoft's.
Seriously, this is my single biggest complaint about MS on our server. Every install, (almost) every patch or security update requires rebooting! The first suggestion I get from everyone for any of our software (Backup Exec is a particular offender) is to reboot the server. We only have 10-12 people logged onto the server, but this is a major PITA! I can't imagine this at larger installations.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
700 days is actually 100 weeks.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
gregmac
·
· Score: 1
1) We have single-source logons for all users, even if they migrate workstations.
And why wasn't this a standard feature before? Designing a network that doesn't have this is just dumb - but often necessary, back in NT (and even 2000, to an extent) days. But really, that's due to lack of openness.. you use microsoft's domain authentication, and if your mail server doesn't happen to be exchange, you have to have a second authentication system.
2) Users can access their apps and data from anywhere on the network, even offsite.
VPN is nothing new. Accessing apps remotely is neat, but any terminal server will let you do this as well (and not just windows terminal server).
3) Ping times have halved.
I don't see how.NET could affect ping times. Using modern hardware helps - ie, use 10/100 switches instead of old 10mbit hubs.
4) You wouldn't believe our uptime, sometimes we go for weeks without rebooting.
Wow.. Weeks without rebooting! This really makes me laugh. Windows is the only platform that actually requires regular reboots. Most systems only require a reboot to upgrade hardware or kernels. I regularly go for a year without rebooting. Actually the last two times I rebooted were due to 1) faulty power outlet. 2) switching to another UPS.
It's kind of funny to see the look on MSCE's faces when you upgrade an email server and only have a downtime of 15 seconds, without interupting any other services running on that machine.
5) The TCO is 1/10th of what it was and we've been able to reduce our IT staff
I'll bite.. did you mean "had to reduce our IT staff because the cost of the software meant we couldn't pay salaries"
(maybe this is the real reason the/. readership hates.NET?).
..Or maybe it's because people are sick of MS hyping old ideas as revelations.
-- Speak before you think
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
4) You wouldn't believe our uptime, sometimes we go for weeks without rebooting.
err.. as apposed to what? I guess thats not bad for a windows box, but at my company, most of the linux machines have gone for over a year without a reboot.
It's amazing how people have accepted the constant rebooting of windows and think a few weeks without is great. I've used alot of OS's in the past, Linux, BeOS, AmigaOS, QNX, guess what... NONE of them need rebooting on a regular basis. Only windows is so crummy at it's resource handling that such a thing is required. It is NOT the norm.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
He posts brilliant, well-written trolls.
Surely you jest... I've been watching his posts for a while too and, for a "physicsGenius", I find his command of the English language, both spelling and grammar, to be very poor.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
scrytch
·
· Score: 1
> J2EE is a standard
Assuming you don't mind mechanisms that aren't standardized and thus vendor-specific across all implementations, like oh, authentication. There's roles. There's role mappings. There's even a standard form name and fields for passwords. But there's nothing in J2EE for something as simple as mapping a password to a user. Let alone something like PAM or JSSE. Not even an XML file. Not even a function. The reference implementation? Tomcat-specific.
What a bloody joke.
-- I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
plazman30
·
· Score: 1
You go WEEKS without rebooting? And you call this a good thing. Are Novell servers go MONTHS without rebooting. Our Solaris boxes have been up a year or longer.
Going WEEKS without rebootingh is pathetic.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Dr.+Smeegee
·
· Score: 1
What I'm saying is, you're trumpeting the wonders of Microsoft as if it were something new, exciting and worthy. Well, commerciall UNIX did lead the way, open source is catching up and MS is in a poor third place. You can have nice, clean, stable, open implementations for free, or you can have inferior and expensive Microsoft-only technology. If you've been in the business longer than two years, what's the point in migrating off your superior, cheaper stuff top go with Microsoft's inferior expensive stuff? I realise this will be modded down as flamebait or troll because it's anti-Microsoft, and that is currently out of fashion around here, but those of us who are old enough to remember know what we're talking about whether you young 'uns like it or not.
I guess in Soviet Russia, it feels like there is 10 days in a week.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
I was under the impression that ping time had something to do with an IP (ICMP) implementation in the OS. Furthermore, I think his point is that the.Net apps have cut down on network congestion, which would lower ping times.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Not on Omicrom Persio 8. I take it you're one of those Omicrom Persio 6 people with your fancy 7 day weeks and 70 day years.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
arkanes
·
· Score: 1
Well, _I'm_ not, and so what if I was? It's new for Microsoft. Windows has had NTFS write support for forever too, but if/when they finally get that working properly under Linux people will do all sorts of happy dances. Are you saying that a free implementation will always be better? It certainly can't run.NET code as well.
Why does having had a feature for 10 years make your feature better? If it is, then argue on the merits, not on how long you've had it. If Microsoft stuff is inferior, fine, but it's not inferior BECAUSE it's 10 years younger.
I'm just angry becuase the Great Unwashed sing and dance the praises of Microsoft because of all these "great new things" that have just come out that everyone else has been able to do for over 10 years, often better and usually at lower cost. They use this as an excuse to stay with Microsoft and to ignore alternatives because it's unfashionable to use UNIX-like operating systems.
True, there was talk a while back about having web-enabled subscription software,which may have come under the blanket term of ".net stuff", but that's not what.net is really about.
That's the problem...nobody knows what the hell.NET is (except for, perhaps, existing.NET programmers) because of horrid marketing on MSFT's part.
Contrast that with Java...aside from the neophytes who can't tell the difference between Java and JavaScript (again, bad marketing), PLENTY of non-Java programmers can at least explain what it is.
TO THIS DAY, years later, I--a software developer with over a decade of experience--STILL do not know what the fuck.NET really is...
Is that my fault? Or is it the fault of MSFT marketing?
A case can be made either way, but if YOU'RE trying to sell ME something, then YOU damn well better make sure you convey your message to me in such a way that I can understand it!
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
4) You wouldn't believe our uptime, sometimes we go for weeks without rebooting.
Really? A couple of weeks? That's amazing!
Sun Microsystems Inc. SunOS 5.8 Generic February 2000 www:~$uptime
4:22pm up 537 day(s), 19:01, 1 user, load average: 1.06, 1.23, 1.30
BTW, this server has been in service for 537 days. See if you can figure out how many reboots it's had.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Actually, given the way Microsoft was marketing.NET initially, I think basically anything you can think of could be construed to have something to do with.NET.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
sharkey
·
· Score: 1
I would love to have a.net enabled ping utility!
We've been waiting 70 years for an up-to-date 2nd Edition. Such a leap forward in the technology of ping would require it.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
AstroDrabb
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
1) We have single-source logons for all users, even if they migrate workstations.
Been there done that without.net.
2) Users can access their apps and data from anywhere on the network, even offsite.
Same here. This has been a feature of Unix/Linux for many years.
3) Ping times have halved.
Man, you must have had a really bad network. I don't see how just switching you applications to.not will increase ping times. Also, Linux with samba surpasses MS at their own SMB game.
4) You wouldn't believe our uptime, sometimes we go for weeks without rebooting.
Umm, come into the world of Solaris/*BSD/Linux and YOU won't believe our uptimes.
5) The TCO is 1/10th of what it was and we've been able to reduce our IT staff
How does using.net decrease your TCO? I guess you are not factoring in all the application fees, OS license fees, retraining costs, etc. The license fees alone will completely offset ANY benefit of moving to.net.
(maybe this is the real reason the/. readership hates.NET?)
Why would someone on/. hate.net if it truly is a great product? Most people hate it because of WHO it comes from. We all know how that company works and their main goal is to be the ONLY provider of all OSes and appliactions and they use every means possible to lock you in and ensure NO migration paths. Sorry, all.net does is lower the bar for sub-par programmers to produce mediocre solutions that will put you on the "MS Path", which is a path of constant updates, upgrades and expenditures that MS tries to keep at an 18 - 24 month cycle. MS's main goal is to have you upgrade your solutions every 18 - 24 months. They are not in business to provide you with long lasting solutions, otherwise where will there revenue stream come from if everyone doesn't upgrade every 2 years or so? The only thing you get from MS is a band-aid to be applied for an average of 18 - 24 months.
-- If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
AstroDrabb
·
· Score: 1
Most of us snickered. Except for the MCSEs - they were impressed. Of course most MCSEs are impressed with a bundle of sticks with a clown hat on top, but I digress.
Man, that had me rolling on the floor : )
-- If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
WuphonsReach
·
· Score: 1
4 - NT4 and W2K on decent hardware maintained by competent IT will go 2 years on a server and at least 2-3 months on a workstation...
Yep, that's entirely dependent on the hotfix and SP schedule out of MS. Is NT4/W2K stable enough to run your business on? Yep, properly managed it's good enough to get the job done 99% of the time. Most of our downtime is either hardware that failed, or having to reboot after installing a hotfix/SP.
Unfortunately, it suffers from the swiss army knife syndrome (a.k.a. jack of all trades, master of none) while a Novell file and print server is pretty much turn it on and forget about it. Also, because it can do the same things that an office workstation can, it suffers from tinker disease... admins that just can't resist touching the box to install some shiny new gizmo or change a setting.
-- Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Nick+of+NSTime
·
· Score: 1
I only work 4 hours a day, so a 40 hour week is 10 days.;)
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
shadow099
·
· Score: 1
Ok, I understand that your indoctrinated... Windows has that effect on people who havnt given anything else a try. But you need to realize that your points are wrong:
Tried a professional or better version there's
a reason they cost more even if they don't run that CGA poker game you copied off of someone else in high school
Hmmm, If you think windows is a professional version you need to check out OSX, or Linux, I just checked my person linux workstation... uptime 405days:) I reboot my win2k box daily.
Gone through the training necessary (i.e., read a book) to install and maintain Windows in a work or enterprise environment
Been there done that. MCSE, MCDBA.. bla bla bla... I just didnt take the test, I actually went to the training... it teaches you nothing. Go and get a Linux cert and then you have the right to talk.
Used the stable of tools designed to ease and enhance deployment of Windows technologies -- Windows Terminal Server, Norton Ghost, etc
Hmmm, I think its already been said.. why bother?
So the choice is, reboot my 15 microsoft servers daily, or switch to 5 linux servers which handle the same tasks that there proceeding 15 microcrap servers did and spend time on IT subjects that I really need to be spending time on... like playing starcraft and replying to Microsoft Trolls like yourself.
I think the choice is clear.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
scrytch
·
· Score: 1
I call FUD!!!
JAAS has been a standard in J2EE for ages now.
Call it what you want, but have you used it? There is nothing in deployment descriptors to state a JAAS context. Know where it's kept? server.xml. That's tomcat boys and girls, not J2EE.
Well, not quite so fast, you can put it in the deployment descriptor in Sun ONE. It goes in "sun-application.xml". Gee that looks kind of vendor-specific, doesn't it? Hope you weren't planning on running that.ear on anything but Sun ONE, unless you wrote the dd's for all the vendors you might deploy on.
Maybe I should resurrect my old.sig about the word "FUD"...
-- I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
2) Users can access their apps and data from anywhere on the network, even offsite.
Not only that, but *anyone* can access your apps and data from anywhere!:)
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
MosesJones
·
· Score: 1
Double Fud...
Deployment descriptors are generated by IDEs, not written by hand. With J2EE 1.4 which is being released now the deployment descriptors have also been standardised so you don't even have to do the automatic regeneration.
-- An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Dude, you definitely got hosed. I damn near choked on my coffee. That is first-class MCSE humor right there.
Re:You are kidding, right?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> Deployment descriptors are generated by IDEs, not written by hand
This has got to be the most laughably ignorant thing I've read yet on slashdot...
New MS project announced!
by
Dark+Lord+Seth
·
· Score: 4, Funny
It's called "Microsoft Passport"! I thought it sounded familiar but when I asked, they waved their hands at me and said "This project is new..." so it has to be! Can you imagine the advantages? Logging into hotmail automagically using MS Passport, using Passport as some sort of all-round login system... Heck, you can even use MS Passport as an instant messenging system! Wow!
In related news, Microsoft, also well-known for their Rolling Stones Start Me Up campaign in '95, have signed a deal with the Olsen Twins and will begin filming their new movie, "Passport to Microsoft," expected to be released summer of 2004.
You mean Xbox +.net + investments in wifi and mesh networks = ubiqutious connectivity and single vendor lock-in for users, and maybe some subscription only software as well?
--
"Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
Yeah right.....and if you have read the article or any of the statements made by MS regarding this "renaming", you'd have seen that what you wrote is nothing more than:
Linux already is moving on - note "Mandrake Linux" (no GNU)....
Whatever....Not naming it.NET is simply a move by MS, insisting on the fact that the platfomr is already so "deeply"(their words) integrated that there's no need to mention it...
I thought the dropping of.net in marketing was really just reflecting that they figured out advertising what is basically a new development platform/api to everyone under the sun just led to confusion.
In a way it'd be like Apple running around pushing iChat.cocoa or Mac OS X Server.cocoa. Most people don't need to know it exists.
--
"Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
To a degree I think you're probably right. But the other reason is probably that they've gotten the term out among the people who should care, which is the developer community. There is still a lot of.NET advertising going on targeted at developers (even here on OSDN), but as the Parent posts observe, they're no longer attaching the name to everything that moves.
--
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
It's because nobody knew what the fuck.NET meant because it was being used to refer to at least 3 different things - all the new MS products, whether they used or were based on other.NET technology or not, the whole web services paradigm, and finally the VM and CLR. None of these are neccesarily related, and it was just causing confusion. So they up and removed the.NET from everything, which was just as bad imo.
To that end they have done very well. And from what I hear.net not really a bad thing.
In fact I am kind of pleased that C# seems to be taking off. I'm almost finished with my associates degree in cis, and out of the classes I have taken(pascal, c, c++, 2 VBs, java) C++ is by far my favorite language, with java in second. So at least if I have to work in a MS dominated world I can use a language that is similar to the my two favs.
--
"Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
Emperor's New Clothes test...
by
jkrise
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Kid: But there's nothing on.Net!!! Joe ServicePack: I think only wise folks can u'stand.Net MCSE:.Net rocks GNUist:.Net?.Not.. Microsoft: We're betting our ass. IBM: Your ass is grass. Sun: Java's the way.
-- If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Re:Emperor's New Clothes test...
by
Lord_Slepnir
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Microsoft: We're betting our ass.
Unlike a lot of companies out there, Microsoft doesn't bet everything on one product. Even if.net were to suddenly evaporate, Microsoft still has a lot going for it. A fairly stable OS that will run on a majority of hardware (I have yet to find a distro of linux that won't mess up on my IBM laptop after about 2 weeks of running or will recognize all of my USB stuff on my desktop properly on install).
I might have read you wrongly. However, I can tell you that the land around Redmond, Washington is very bad for Donkey grazing, so I doubt they have an ass to bet.
You also forgot the following:
SCO:.Net is infringing on our unix patent by providing a 'user' a way to 'logon'. We demand 11 bizilliondy dollars. Cash.
Slashdot reader:.NET IS HOW BILLGAT~1 IS GOING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!1111 IT SUX0RZ NE WAY!!!!11
Re:Emperor's New Clothes test...
by
longbottle
·
· Score: 1
Why does this remind me of some IRC channels I've been in...:P
I need a life.
-- I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute of it!
Re:Emperor's New Clothes test...
by
Cyclone66
·
· Score: 1
Re:Emperor's New Clothes test...
by
finkployd
·
· Score: 4, Informative
A fairly stable OS that will run on a majority of hardware
I'll give you fairily stable (2000 and XP are pretty good) but majority of hardware? Sure, you can have any processor you want as long as it is x86 (or StrongARM if you want winCE). I can't run Windows on Sparc, s/390, PPC, Alpha (well, NT 4 could), IBM's new 970, etc. Sure it supports the majority of consumer devices, but there is much, MUCH more to the computing world than Mom and Pop's PC. Windows is very small outside of this realm.
I have yet to find a distro of linux that won't mess up on my IBM laptop after about 2 weeks of running or will recognize all of my USB stuff on my desktop properly on install
Which laptop and which distros have you tried? I have run Redhat 7.3 and 9 on my T23 and have never had a problem (including using my USB devices). I might be to help you out or at least point you to some docs if you interested in getting it running.
Finkployd
Re:Emperor's New Clothes test...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
x86 *is* the majority of hardware, despite the fervent wishes of the dwindling band of Alpha users or the fanatical Apple-huggers.
Re:Emperor's New Clothes test...
by
Lord_Slepnir
·
· Score: 1
IBM Thinkpad a22p. I've tried all sorts of RedHat distros, and X Windows always goes and gets messed up after 2-3 weeks of running. All I run on it is AOL instant messenger for Linux, Mozilla, and Open Office. I've tried updating it, I've tried not updating it, etc.
Re:Emperor's New Clothes test...
by
hummassa
·
· Score: 1
I have yet to find a distro of linux that won't mess up on my IBM laptop after about 2 weeks of running You should have recognized this as a troll, 'cause when you get some linux distro running in any machine, it just keeps running fine afterwards. It's not like windows, that can bork unexpectedly.
-- It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Re:Emperor's New Clothes test...
by
finkployd
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Well, this search returned quite a few hits on some good Redhat configuration tips and a (oudated) Linuxcare certification for a few distributions. It looks like if nothing else, Redhat 7.x is reputed to work well on it. The problem you are describing (something getting messed up after a few weeks of running it) is something I have never seen in Linux on any hardware.
If nothing else, Linux is known for being pretty rock solid stable once it is configured and running. Have you ruled out some kind of hardware problem? I had X locking up on me all the time for a while (windows ran just fine) and it turned out to be a bad memory chip. It was under warranty and after getting a new one it has worked without a problem. You might want to run memtest86 on it and see if that is what is happening to you.
Finkployd
Re:Emperor's New Clothes test...
by
finkployd
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
x86 *is* the majority of hardware, despite the fervent wishes of the dwindling band of Alpha users or the fanatical Apple-huggers.
Try leaving your little underpowered desktop world for a little bit and look at the rest of the computing world. There are giant Unix servers and Mainframes everywhere. McDonalds is probably the majority of restaurants as well, but that doesn't make it important to the culinary world.
Finkployd
Re:Emperor's New Clothes test...
by
Lord_Slepnir
·
· Score: 1
I'll try that. What I'm leaning towards is a bad sector on my hard disk. I've never thought of going back that far, what I've been trying is redhat 8 and 9. I will say that aside from some problems with my Radeon 9700, Redhat 8 is working very well on my desktop.
The problem you are describing (something getting messed up after a few weeks of running it) is something I have never seen in Linux on any hardware.
I can only second that. I've experienced serious bit-rot on "that other operating system", still does with XP, but never Linux. The only time I've even come close was when the disk filled up on an RH 7.2 system (from misconfigured logs) but that wasn't that hard to understand. Could be hardware as the previous poster said, but I doubt it's the OS.
I'll try that. What I'm leaning towards is a bad sector on my hard disk.
Also, you sure it's the running time (in weeks I mean)? Could be heat if the usage scenario differs. Heat can be tricky sometimes, especially with laptops.
I don't know if the smaller IBM disks support S.M.A.R.T, but if they do checking out what it says (if you suspect the disk) could also be worth a try (there's a daemon for Linux). It doesn't catch all (esp. intermittent) problems, but it's better than nothing.
-- Stefan Axelsson
Re:Emperor's New Clothes test...
by
admbws
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Re:Emperor's New Clothes test...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No memtest86 isn't that good for memory issues. It lets loads of things though. Try this sig11 stuff. I've found memory issues that memtest86 doesn't pick up. X and kernel compiles are good for bringing memory issue to light.
NO tolerance for standards wars
by
mekkab
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
GM's Scott issued a strong warning to Microsoft, Sun and the other players in the Web services industry, that enterprises will not tolerate the standards wars of the past. "We have no appetite for it," he said
Exactly, so he and everybody else is sitting back and waiting for a clear winner with mature functionality to materialize. In other words, he's saying "Screw.net, let some other schmuck take the cost of developing it. WE got screwed on ISO networking and Token ring! Twice bitten, 3 times shy!"
-- In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Re:NO tolerance for standards wars
by
zero_offset
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
And again, the part everyone fails to understand about.NET (mostly due to Microsoft's crappy marketing) is that remoting in.NET is a fully pluggable artchitecture. So whatever standard emerges, you can still use.NET. Just handle your remoting in a reasonably abstract way, then switch the damned thing on the fly.
Hell, some of the basic tutorials that came with the.NET beta (and probably with the release version, I never got around to looking at them again) showed you how to do this. A local binary component communications channel was transparently switchable to an HTTP-based protocol using policies which were controllable by an administrator... re-programming and re-compiling not required.
Fight all the standards wars you want, then just plug in the winner and get back to work.
--
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Re:NO tolerance for standards wars
by
pmz
·
· Score: 1
Exactly, so he and everybody else is sitting back and waiting for a clear winner with mature functionality to materialize.
Not necessarily. When put off by Hailstorm/Passport, Sun and dozens of other large private enterprises met and came up with the Liberty Alliance. Ostensibly, they came up with standards that allowed single-sign-on, even among businesses that don't trust each other.
What GM was probably tired of is new standards getting shoved not only down their throats but up their asses, too, by Microsoft and all the "me too" consultancy firms out there, who mainly employ doe-eyed college graduates and trendy-but-naive middle managers.
Note that at projectliberty.org, General Motors is a big member of the Libery Alliance, so they aren't entirly sitting on the side-lines, either.
Re:NO tolerance for standards wars
by
TeJo
·
· Score: 1
Actually this.NET web service strategy is something that Microsoft is actually doing it right. Before I go on to support Microsoft's moves let me clarify that I am a Java proponent. Recently I had a chance to attend WinDev conference. The supprising news there was that Microsoft was backing away from the technologies implemented under the umbrella of Global XML Architecture (GXA). They are moving the concepts to support WSI's Web Services Architecture (WSA) initiatives. They are collabrating with the other big players (IBM, Verisign, BEA and Sun) to standardize the techonologies. It seems interoperating with other vendors implementations is one of their top priorities. Only time will tell whether is becomes a realitiy.
Cheers....
Re:NO tolerance for standards wars
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
WE got screwed on ISO networking and Token ring! Twice bitten, 3 times shy!"
Er, I think you mean OSI. What the heck is "ISO networking?":)
Re:NO tolerance for standards wars
by
mekkab
·
· Score: 1
THanks, I meant ISO's OSI networking!;)
-- In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
What?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Funny
virtually none of the promised advantages have come true
What nonsense. I use.NET every day and it has delivered all of its promised advantages.
-- We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
Your trolling is getting pretty stale, PG.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'd stick with trolling the physics stuff at least.
It takes insight to notice these things take time.
by
Sheetrock
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Very few of today's Internet standards were recognized even within three years as standards. Usenet took seven before it became ubiquitous, IRC took at least four (with DCC still not part of the spec), and even the WWW took six. Remember, it was fundamentally a revision of Gopher technologies, which in turn were an iteration of something else (Archie?)
Most of.NET was puffery, to be sure (I read a piece on MSDN more or less admitting this), but that's largely because it was a working title given to a number of next-generation technologies that may or may not pan out, many of which haven't been released. You can't really consider C# or Hailstorm to have been around and competing for three years, can you?
--
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try. -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Woe betides us once more: brace yourselves for another flood of misinformed, biased and downright incorrect assertions from both sides of the fence. Please, no "c# is java", ".net is slower than java" or other such empty statements. If you've worked with.NET for 6 months plus (remoting/asp.net/interop/ado.net), great. We welcome your comments. Perl monkeys need not apply.
Likewise for you "java" programmers out there who in actuality have only ever compiled one applet, and it was a recompilation of a decompiled shareware scroller that you removed the copyright notice from. Well done. On the other hand, if you've solid experience developing beans, rmi and other such projects, we also welcome your comments.
The rest of you shut up and learn.
Rant over.
- Oisin
--
PGP KeyId: 0x08D63965
Re:fun with fud.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You must be very proud of your buzzword-spammed resume.
Re:fun with fud.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hey man, don't be dissin' my applet warez, d00d! I am a most excellent Java programming god!
Having worked with J2EE for a couple of years, I've been very impressed with what I've seen so far of C#/.NET. I found the level of integration quite staggering. It's just so much easier to develop and deploy a (.NET) web-app within the VS.NET 2003 IDE compared to, say, a similar (J2EE) web-app in JBuilder enterprise. For instance, compare the ease of setting up ADO.Net with ties to data controls to the equivalent EJB pattern in J2EE.
Personally I'm looking to migrate my skills over from J2EE to.NET in the next year as I see a lot of work going to.NET. I expect there will also be some migration work out there porting bodged J2EE apps into.NET -- I know of one such existing project already.
I am one of those developers that have had over a year of using.Net and visual studio commercially. And hey, I have also done java - CORBA stuff on Lotus Notes & Oracle. I have opinions both ways. The questions you need to be asking yourself when choosing the platform, or not, are:
Are you building apps the need to run on desktops (on which window dominates)? - Use.Net Winforms (instead of VC++ or VB6).
Are your web applications being hosted by yourself (ie you are an ASP)? - Use what ever you like.
Are you building web applications AND desktop applications AND those desktop apps use SOAP etc to work with the web apps? - Use.Net if you are using windows server side.
Does your server software need to be installed on customers hardware? - Use Java as it more likely to be accepted in the market place.
Do you want to use just one vendor for DB, middleware, os, language tools, webserver etc? - Use.Net, otherwise use Java.
Cash, MS licences cost more than Linux, but the real cost is in employees. Can you get staff to know your choosen platform?
Yeah, perhaps a little simplistic, but we standardized on.Net because of #3 above, and with Visual Studio.Net we have a built a product that is comparable to our competitors with 10% of the staff they have and in 25% of the time spent. We have one tool that allows us to build every aspect of our software. We can debug and step through, in the one environment desktop code (Forms and Javascript), server side code and db code. Can that be done in any other tool?
--
Rocket science is easy. Neurosurgery, now *that's* difficult.
Well that may be partly because JBuilder sucks. Try IntelliJ IDEA - I've very little experience with VS but people who have used both say they're very impressed. Personally, I love it and wouldn't touch anything else:)
--
----
Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Hi,
I am all for html hyperlinks but I think I can find Eweek's website, as well as microsoft's website and its dot net section, especially after three years.
Of course I know, I wouldn't be bothered if I didn't try to read the article. Who reads the articles on slashdot anyways?
Re:Hyperlinking frenzy
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I've always been under the impression that such excessive linking helps to protect the main article from the slashdot effect.
Although linking to Eweek's mainpage seems to counter that, but you see my point.
Re:Hyperlinking frenzy
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
KISS MY BLACK ASS
black? I'll admit it's be (fortunately) I long time since I've seen the goatse guy, but I thought he was a white guy.
Re:Hyperlinking frenzy
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Pret a tout pour avoir le mot de la fin depuis 1977.
"Ready to have the last word since 1977"? I think that's is what your SIG is trying to say, but it looks suspiciously like a babelfish "translation." You do realize that machine translation has a long way to go before it actually works, right?
What about Linux
by
fudgefactor7
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
All the Linux vendors out there pretty much said that they were going to take over about 3 years ago too...is it time for them to move on as well?
I think it's safe to say that Linux has been doing a very good job in taking over considering the fact that it went from a joke to a threat for the Redmonds during the last three years...
--
bada bing
Re:What about Linux
by
leomekenkamp
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Except for Lindows (and SCO), I think most linux distributors are quite realistic. Can you provide urls to back your claim?
-- Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
hmm...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"...none of the promised advantages have come true..."
surprise !
all about the Benjamins
by
AssFace
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
say the words "dot net" and you get to add so much to the cost of projects that it immediately makes it worth it to switch over.
that is the only reason I could see why.NET might ever catch on. I'm not saying it is a useless bit of technology, I'm just personally partial to using any number of existing technologies that do the same thing and are cheaper to implement.
my current employer is retarded when it comes to computers and they paid someone to do a very basic web project in "dot net" because there was a general misunderstanding in the difference between the domain and the programming structures.
In the end it cost them a ton and now it is costing them more to maintain. I am trying to get them to port it all over to a much lighter system (php on linux or freebsd), but they are currently not interested.
--
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
Re:all about the Benjamins
by
sirshannon
·
· Score: 1
The projects I write in.NET (especially web apps) are much cheaper, faster, easier to develop, and more powerful than they would have been if developing in MS's previous versions.
The fact that your employer hired someone that didn't know what they were doing has nothing to do with.Net at all.
Re:all about the Benjamins
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Be careful. You'll make your boss look bad and you'll be fired.
Re:all about the Benjamins
by
AssFace
·
· Score: 1
While they might indeed be cheaper/faster/etc than previous versions of MS products - they aren't necessarily cheaper/faster/etc than the alternatives.
Java, PHP, etc all have their places and in my experience, I have yet to run into a web application or even just a web site that was done in MS that couldn't be done cheaper and better on a different platform using a different technology.
I have implemented my share of MS stuff as well, and at one point nearly worked for Microsoft themselves - so I'm not just saying this as a "boo MS" thing, but a genuine experience backed comment.
My company may be retarded, but the people they hired were actually quite good, and they also saw that they had an opportunity in our company to use.NET to show off what they could do, get us to pay for it, and win big. But they certainly knew what they were doing.
--
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
Re:all about the Benjamins
by
Mr.+No+Skills
·
· Score: 1
I think this is a good point. As someone who needs to purchase software for his team, I have been shocked at the $2000 cost for Visual Studio for each developer. Combine this with the hit for MS Office, MS Project, and MS Visio, and you have a $3500 tax from Microsoft for every person and workstation.
We're very aggresively looking at alternatives to this development platform to try and have access to lower cost development tools, especially since the end users don't care what the back end systems are.
-- Sleep is for the Weak
Re:all about the Benjamins
by
sirshannon
·
· Score: 1
if those people did know what they were doing, then you need to make some corrections to your first post. If it cost too much, was hard to maintain, etc, then they most definitely did not know what they were doing.
Re:all about the Benjamins
by
AssFace
·
· Score: 1
We are currently going through the hassles of trying to get an MSDN subscription here in Bermuda. Microsoft is of no help. They put us in the Latin district, and therefore won't sell to us directly. Of the two numbers that they gave us, one is disconnected, and the other is all in Spanish. Perfect.
If you are writing something for a client that is demanding you use MS, then it seems pretty obvious to use their newest and greatest stuff - it is usually better than their old stuff (I much prefer XP over any of their previous OSes).
But if you are given the choice of how to implement it - in the end, doing it on Linux or FreeBSD as a server platform, and then any number of languages are available.
If it is a web app, the end user can still use IE and you can still use all of the fun DHTML, XML, and XSL translations that you could on MS (frequently faster too).
It isn't even really an arguement to say that if the client has an MS database then you have to use MS stuff - if they are using SQL server, then you can connect to it via other server types. If they are using Access, there are still other ways of getting the data out - either directly, or exporting it, or converting it. None of which are particularly hard..NET allows for a new range of Certifications that are needed to stay up to date with the MS Cert programs, which is an entire revenue stream in itself. It also is a change in technology that gets people all excited and makes them want to upgrade their systems. For the most part, from the companies that I have worked with - the ones that don't know the alternatives think that there is only MS and that is what they go with. But the ones that have very important things and/or know what they are doing, demand a Solaris/Oracle/Java system. Although many banking systems are slightly different than that, but never Microsoft.
--
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
Re:all about the Benjamins
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Look at the Productivity aspect as well though. We invested in VS.NET, although it is a heavy investment, it was worth it for the one environment. One IDE and One Tool (to bind them all?) lets you Design (Forms, Databases) & Code (C#, VB, C++, JavaScript, etc.) & Debug (Code, Database).
Being able to set a breakpoint in ASP.NET, then step into the Code, and from there into the Database Stored Procedure is fantastic and saves significant time on certain dodgy code one of the morons wrote.
Re:all about the Benjamins
by
AssFace
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps I'm not making myself clear.
1) They are all heavily certified in all of the MS Certs. They can program well, and they do.
2) They saw that their client (the company I'm currently working at, but this was prior to me getting here) didn't have a clue, so they saw the opportunity for a project where they could do it in.NET and then refer other clients that "so and so had us do it in.NET" so then these other clients that are clueless then use us as a point of reference - even though it is technically misguided.
The programming costs are a moot point here because the bulk of the high costs there were again, they saw that the people here weren't with it in terms of technology, so they overbilled them - claiming things would take longer than they would and such. They could have done that in any programming language - so that cost isn't an issue.
What is an issue is that we had to setup a Windows Server with the newest crap on it. That cost us far more than a Linux or FreeBSD system would have.
The site we are doing is *very* basic. It could have been easily done using PHP or Perl and just flat text files. The server doesn't get much load, and it only needs to keep track of users and send out mail occasionally.
The company knew *exactly* what they were doing when they set it up this way. They were maximizing their profits off of us both now and in the future, as well as gaining a foothold with future customers as well.
In terms of hard to maintain - that is an issue with Microsoft, not with the programmers. The additions that we need to do to the site are going to be a pain in the ass simply because Microsoft doesn't make things easy for you (at least not the things that are easy on Linux/FreeBSD).
In the end, you know.NET - bully for you. You program things that you feel are good in it - again, that is fantastic, and I congratulate on it. But I assure you that in the world of telecom, finance, and insurance (which is the worlds I know well), Microsoft is worthless in terms of anything beyond a LAN. It works on the desktop, it works (well, that is a point of contention with many) as a mail server, and it gets you through on file sharing. But in terms of.NET for web apps... that is a very different thing and I would personally, in the enviroment I know, say that.NET sucks and yet will remain solely because of the MS name and the fact that it can lead to increased revenue of those charging to program in it.
--
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
Re:all about the Benjamins
by
sirshannon
·
· Score: 1
okay, I was actually going to add to my last post, I hit "submit" too soon. I was going to say "they either didn't know what they were doing or they knew EXACTLY what they were doing and fleeced your company". Of course, people like that don't last forever in this business, I make quite a bit of my living cleaning up the messes that other people leave. Messes left by conmen (at least one was literally a convicted conman) who program in all kinds of languages. None in any.net languages yet, but I'm sure is just a matter of time.
In regards to your Windows 2003 Server costs, the web edition (which seems like what you needed) is $400, no CALs required. I have a feeling you were sold Enterprise or some other (much pricier and unnecessary for web apps) version.
Your web app is hard to update because your programmers wrote it that way. Period. Saying that it is MS's fault is like saying it is MS's fault that my website is blue.
I am sorry you guys got ripped but again, that is due to people, not technology. If you think people haven't been overcharged for horrid Java, PHP, etc, then you should ask around a little more.
Knowing that the.net web app in your company was oversold and underdeveloped has NO bearing on the quality of.net as a whole. How can you make that assumption? If I charged you a million for a shitty Java app, would you say the same about Java? How many.net web apps have you worked on? Worked with? How many companies have you worked with/for that have implemented.net apps? If you have the experience and knowledge about.net web apps and.net distributed apps in financial and insurance industries to disprove my knowledge of the same, then I need to hear more from you. I'll take your word for the telecom sector because I've never worked with.net in the telecom industry as you apparently have.
Re:all about the Benjamins
by
AssFace
·
· Score: 1
LOL - yeah, exactly, they fleeced the guys here. I can't be too angry at them because that is how the business world works, just on different levels of perception.
In terms of my resume, I have worked on about 12 different high level and large scale web applications under an MS platform - many of those were prior to.NET coming out, but they were on an MS platform.
I have only built 3.NET apps, mainly because I try to avoid it - I like the ease of use, but I don't find it any easier than programming in many of the other languages. I have worked on/with about 5 in addition to the 3 I built.
In terms of distributed apps, I'm assuming you are discussing clustered load balancing, otherwise I'm gonna have a laugh. I have a pretty good level of experience with distributed apps - but probably not the type you are talking about. I'm talking about clusters like a supercomputer type stuff. MS doesn't live in that world.
As for distributed server loads - depending on what is doing the load balancing, you have a good point there - MS might make it easier now that I think about it. Note I didn't say "better" - but I do in fact think that they make it easier if you aren't using a dedicated hardware load balancing system.
In terms of web apps for the insurance/banking industry - I hope you aren't talking about web pages or online banking? If so, that can be done in anything, and sure, it is occasionally done in.NET these days I'm sure, and certainly there are a share of MS servers there even if not.NET. But in the backend software - banks talking to each other, hedge funds making trades, insurance companies calculating risk over distributed networks that span continents - I can speak with great experience - they don't use MS for anything for than what is essentially a terminal view.
Telecom is largely Java and Solaris, although the platform varies sometimes, hence why they want Java so badly. I always felt it sucked and was slow, but then over time Java got much better - it has since slowed down a bit in some of the newer versions (and then sped up again), but it all depends on what parts of it you are using.
In the end, I'm not anti-MS, and I'm not even all that pro-Other stuff. I just personally feel that for various applications there are servers and programming languages that are better served for both performance and cost issues. Like I said, I have yet to see an instance where the MS product wins out in the end for the total cost (bang for the buck). And like I said, I hadn't thought of the load balancing without the hardware handling it - my experience there is much more limited, so perhaps MS is indeed easier with their wizards and such?
--
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
Re:all about the Benjamins
by
sirshannon
·
· Score: 1
I meant distributed as in client-server, web services,.net remoting, etc, and other methods that use components spread across multiple machines.
As for.net not being easier to program with, that's pretty obvious. Nothing is easier the first year than what you've been working with for years. I worked with.net for about 2 years (starting with the betas) before I ever offered to use it for a client because it wasn't easier or faster while I was learning the ins and outs of the new languages.
Going from ASP to ASP.Net was a dream come true (no more script, COM dlls, finally some ASP debugging) and a nightmare (totally new language and thought processes). It was like going from MS Paint to Photoshop.
Re:all about the Benjamins
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hard to believe that someone who would hire "AssFace" would be retarded...
Re:all about the Benjamins
by
AssFace
·
· Score: 1
Duh, that's not my real name. My real name is Buttfucker McSucknut. AssFace. Pffsssh, silly name.
--
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
Re:all about the Benjamins
by
NotClever
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps you should look at an MSDN Enterprise subscription. For about $2000 per user (granted - per year), you get all the tools, applications and servers that MS makes. You can get less expensive versions that include less. The licenses for the servers that are included in the MSDN subscription are for testing only, but the Visual Studio and Office licenses are full licenses for the developer.
Also, the licenses are perpetual - just because you don't renew doesn't mean your licenses go away. If you are developing for MS environments, an MSDN subscription is the way to go.
-- Hell, there are no rules here. We're trying to accomplish something. - Thomas Edison
Re:all about the Benjamins
by
WuphonsReach
·
· Score: 1
Just make sure you generate keys for all of the software that you're going to use... made the mistake once of letting my MSDN run out, went to try and get serial numbers for a package (you now have to go online for some of the products) and was SoL.
So I'm not sure that it's still a perpetual license anymore.
-- Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
Re:all about the Benjamins
by
NotClever
·
· Score: 1
That's a *very* good point. I did make sure to do that, and after my MSDN sub expired, I have activated Office XP from the subscription, so it does appear that activation continues to work w/o a change.
But again, very good point! Print out your keys and save them before your sub expires!
-- Hell, there are no rules here. We're trying to accomplish something. - Thomas Edison
Re:all about the Benjamins
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Get the spanish version of office and ask the paperclip =P
I'm not afraid to admit it, I like.net.
My job has become a whole lot easier, taking projects that could have taken weeks and turning them into days. ADO.net was my best friend last month and c# was my mistress. My company is re-doing just about everything as a web service and.net is making it that much easier. The fact that Visual Studio makes everything so easy just takes the load off of our extremely tiny R&D group which is relied on for every single technical question/project/advice. Maybe.net isnt all that it could have been, but it is great tool for any developer... unless you dont have windows, then I guess your just screwed.
Yeah, that's good...tie everything in your company to flaky MS webserver crapware. I'll look for your your company on the front page of USA Today when the next flavor of the month IIS worm tears through.... unless you dont have windows, then I guess your just screwed. That's funny, I see it as a blessing, not a curse.
hmmmm. i don't have windows. but i do have jboss, and catalina, and servlets and struts. and you could too, even on windows. and if we're just going to turn everything into a web service anyway, i think thats more than enough. oh, i forgot, i have eclipse, too. and you know what, thats right, you can too, even on windows. i guess it really doesn't matter what platform you're on, especially if all you're doing is developing web services.
-- ...vividly encapsulates that post-Watergate/pre-punk/coked-up moment when you could trust no one, least of all yourself.
Re:'s GOOD
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
ADO.net was my best friend last month and c# was my mistress
You know that life exists, don't you.
Your best friend is hardly to go to some party with you, and sex with your mistress is hard to imagine:)
Lay off geek life, get a real friend and a real woman, it's good for health.
I don't see how the parent is a troll
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
He's giving real world data, these are indisputable facts.
.Net a complete success
by
tanguyr
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
.Net was (and still is) a marketing ploy to counter the sudden gains in mindspace being made first by Sun with J2EE and later by "web services" in general. Judging from the fact that most PHBs have heard about it it seems to have worked quite well - the fact that they (or, it seems, almost anybody) have no idea what it does it besides the point. As long as MS is still getting column inches ("comparing.Net to Crack Cocaine" or whatever) then it's working for them just fine, thanks. This isn't anything new - MS practically invented the word "vapourware" back in the 90's. I'm not saying.Net does nothing, i'm saying that the engineers got there after the marketing department and the advertising budget.
/t
-- #!/usr/bin/english
Re:.Net a complete success
by
zero_offset
·
· Score: 1
Bzzt, wrong. It was in development for a LONG time before anyone heard of.NET. It was originally called Next Generation Windows Services (NGWS).
However, I will agree that the.NET name and the awful, vague marketing campaign that followed was a more or less direct response to the rising popularity of Java-based solutions.
That doesn't make the underlying pieces vaporware.
And while I hate the marketing campaign they've cobbled together, it's not TOO damned surprising that they would oppose... well, their opposition. It IS what businesses do, you know. McNealy does it, too.
--
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Re:.Net a complete success
by
tanguyr
·
· Score: 1
Oh absolutely - and they're very good at it, otherwise they wouldn't be around any more. My argument isn't that.Net is vapourware, it's that the benefit of.Net to MS stems primarily from the marketing brouhaha surrounding the "product" rather than from any technological badassedness - and that this is no accident. I guess my "beef" isn't that it's mostly marketing, but that it's good marketing;)
/t
-- #!/usr/bin/english
Re:.Net a complete success
by
zero_offset
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I have to disagree with that, too -- but the benefit to Microsoft isn't where anyone is looking, it's internal. Microsoft has been very busily rewriting everything (literally) to run on top of.NET in-house.
Years ago when.NET was first announced, I started saying that I think Microsoft plans to use.NET as a way to jump Windows on to other hardware platforms, and I still think that. It's funny to see people finally picking up on that same concept.
The marketing may fade away, but the platform will still be there, and I'm betting you'll be surprised where you find it cropping up during the next few years...
--
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Re:.Net a complete success
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Double BZZZZT..NET was a clear reaction to IBM/Sun's Java in much the same way that the "NetPC" (remember those?) was a failed reaction to Sun/Oracle's dumb "diskless computer" effort. Details about Next Generation Windows Services were "leaked" years before anything solid was ever demonstrated. That is a clear definition of "vaporware". Microsoft has become a reactionary company, rather than a proactive company. This is all reflected in the continuing uncertainty around.NET.
Re:.Net a complete success
by
zero_offset
·
· Score: 1
It's semantics.
.NET as a unified campaign was definitely a response to Java.
The things which are in.NET -- the things which *haven't* failed and are in widespread use today -- were in development for years before.NET or NGWS was announced or even leaked.
Java was not the impetus, the universally hated Win32 API was.
--
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Re:.Net a complete success
by
greg_barton
·
· Score: 1
Judging from the fact that most PHBs have heard about it it seems to have worked quite well - the fact that they (or, it seems, almost anybody) have no idea what it does it besides the point.
Sounds awfully familiar...kind of like George Bush's campaign strategy...
I mean, did in all the years of Microsoft history ever a promise come true?
Microsofts business model is based on not fulfilling the promises they make, otherwise nobody would ever need to buy a new product. And of course its much easier to have a vision than to make this vision become reality.
And is there anybody that really remembers the promises they made 3 years ago? People are so used to get screwed by Microsoft that they don't even memorize the things that will never come true. All I personally remember of that.net thing is that even 3 years ago people were saying that this is just a big vapoware thing.
Re:What did you expect?
by
$exyNerdie
·
· Score: 1
I mean, did in all the years of Microsoft history ever a promise come true?
Well, not a promise but Bill Gates said this in 1981:
"640KB should be enough for anybody"
It can do most of what they say...
by
ClubStew
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The only problem is that they've made the damn IDE too simple and now every Tom, Dick, and Sally thinks they can program. Writing code and actually developing applications are vastly different.
With XML Web Services (granted, not MS proprietary) and Remoting,.NET make remote procedure calls somewhat easier.
If Mono ever finishes, the platform-specific CLR can run most code. Even though Java's done it for a long time, you're tied to one language: Java. The.NET class library can be used by any language that targets the CLR - and that's quite a few; so any developer can write for.NET.
If the industry could actually start hiring good developers again instead of brain-dead code monkeys who's jobs at McD's got too tedious and their sole purpose for coding is more money, the field of.NET - not to mention a lot of other projects on any platform - would be much better. Who's to blame is all those middle managers out there that hire two code monkeys for the price of one good developer. At least they get what they pay for.
Re:It can do most of what they say...
by
BigGerman
·
· Score: 1
don't forget C# - it is a dumbed-down Java but sure is nice to program.
The way C# handles XML (for example, serializing Objects to XML and "resurrecting" them later) is very good. This is not easy in Java (Castor is only thing that comes close).
Same for Web Services.
I did not do any ASPX but I have heard it is much nicer than JSP (even with Struts).
With C# being an international standard and Mono well on the way, I think.Net is a good thing and will be moderately successfull.
Re:It can do most of what they say...
by
GrantZ
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Absolutely!
I am a software engineer and have written apps in Java, VB, and PERL. I have a friend who has been an M$ developer for about 5 years, and just called me a month or 2 ago to let me know that there is this thing called "design patterns"... just for.Net. There is some M$ website that apparently broke the lid open on the concept of patterns this year (don't know URL). Of course, so did Christopher Alexander in the late 70's, and over 100 others since then... but M$ didn't endorse them until this year. My friend is cool and all, but the general software engineering ignorance was staggering.
Re:It can do most of what they say...
by
ClubStew
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for the support - but just for the record, C# does not do XML well:.NET does. The language is just syntax for writing Intermediate Language, or IL. Different languages compile slightly different, but the result after compilation is mostly the same. It's the IL that the CLR JITs and executes.
C# is more of a superset of java - not quite, java has, off top of head, inner classes.
Calling it a dumbed-down java is misinformed IMIO.
But if you're just putting in a fig-leaf criticism to fend off the MS-haters, then forget I mentioned it;-)
Ignorance - it's definately a problem in all areas of programming [see: slashdot:-)]
Re:It can do most of what they say...
by
mingot
·
· Score: 1
C# has, off top of head, nested classes. Which are the same thing as Java's static inner classes.
Re:It can do most of what they say...
by
BigGerman
·
· Score: 1
I agree about the superset.
By "dumbed-down" I meant that the language was intentionally made "simplier" by omitting or hiding things that might confuse your average waiter->support_person>VB programmer.
Example - exception handling, the fact that in C# methods are not required to handle or declare the fact that they "throw" exceptions.
Re:It can do most of what they say...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That threw me off when I began to code in.NET while working for a J2EE company. I didn't like the fact that.NET programs did not have to declare exceptions or handle them. But then I found out the reason MS did this.
It's to keep interfaces static. When you declare exceptions in Java, they become part of the method sig for that method. If you change the implementation of that method, which you should be able to if it's encapsulated, you can't throw any new exceptions without breaking the method sig. So, any program will have to be recompiled to accept the new method sig.
It's a small change, and it does have it's trade offs. But it's obvious that MS was trying to solve compatibility and deployment by making it a bit easier to deploy changes without a recompile.
Re:It can do most of what they say...
by
goodviking
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If Mono ever finishes, the platform-specific CLR can run most code. Even though Java's done it for a long time, you're tied to one language: Java.
I'm not sure how many times I've seen this single point refutued, but your not tied to a single language to use the the JVM. Want proof, here you go. That's COBOL to Eifel with all the good bits in the middle.
The question is, what do you mean by "Java". There is the programming language "Java". There is the Java Virtual Machine. There is the set of standard class libraries, etc... This is where I think the confusion comes in.
Re:It can do most of what they say...
by
BigGerman
·
· Score: 1
Yep you got that right.
However the argument goes that "throw SomeException" is in fact part of the interface. You in fact declare that you _expect_ a program to blow up in a certain way. That makes Interface definiton stronger which is good.
So if your new implementation introduces new problems it is better if you are FORCED to change the Interface definition so the callers of that interface can adjust their behaviour as well.
If, as in C#, exceptions are not "strongly typed", every caller should be prepared to handle every exception.
Re:It can do most of what they say...
by
zero_offset
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'm not sure how many times I've seen this single point refutued, but your not tied to a single language to use the the JVM. Want proof, here you go [tu-berlin.de]. That's COBOL to Eifel with all the good bits in the middle.
JVM language "flexibility" was added after the fact, and it often introduces some fairly ugly things to existing languages (not that.NET compliance won't).
Most people don't understand that the.NET intermediate langage (IL, which is what.NET programs compile into unless you use the native-compile switches) was intentionally designed to be language-neutral (it can do a few things that C# can't), and whereas the JVM bytecode was designed to be executed (e.g. it is structured so that it is easy to interpret), IL was designed to be compiled (e.g. it is structured so that it is easily JIT-consumable).
--
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Re:It can do most of what they say...
by
arkanes
·
· Score: 1
Why should a method have to declare that it throws an exception? Thats the compiler placing a burden on the programmer. I'd disagree really that it's been dumbed down any more than Java has been.
Re:It can do most of what they say...
by
gcaprio
·
· Score: 1
Hmmm... Handle yes, but most of the times, handle means just letting it bubble up.
For example, if I change something in my data layer that throws a new exception that I want bubbled up into the ui, why should I have to recompile the business layer that sits in between the data and ui layers?
Re:It can do most of what they say...
by
BigGerman
·
· Score: 1
In Java, I have seen people declare local,specific Exceptions like hypothetical "DataLayerException".
In this case, the Exceptions thrown inside the layer are always caught and sometimes re-thrown as DataLayerExceptions. So your business layer wont have to be recompiled because it already knows what to do with this general DataLayerException.
Re:It can do most of what they say...
by
scrytch
·
· Score: 1
> I'm not sure how many times I've seen this single point refutued, but your not tied to a single language to use the the JVM. Want proof, here you go. That's COBOL to Eifel with all the good bits in the middle.
Sure, as long as you don't mind the the language either lacking some basic features, or having to use slow kludgy workarounds to get said features, because all the JVM can understand is the java object model. Try implementing a language with tailcall elimination in the JVM. Or multiple dispatch.
-- I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Re:It can do most of what they say...
by
vbweenie
·
· Score: 1
If Mono ever finishes, the platform-specific CLR can run most code. Even though Java's done it for a long time, you're tied to one language: Java
Any language that can target the CLR can target the JVM. Take a look at Jython, JScheme...
The only problem is that they've made the damn IDE too simple and now every Tom, Dick, and Sally thinks they can program. Writing code and actually developing applications are vastly different.
I doubt that the ease-of-use of the IDE is a major factor here. Once you've dragged and dropped those controls onto the form, you still have to write the code to handle what happens when the user starts interacting with them; and that gets hard just as quickly as anything else, in proportion to the complexity of the application. The proliferation of code monkeys is more likely to be due to the popular romantic image of the coder as a dressed-down whizkid flipping his PHB the finger and earning mega-$$$$ in his early Twenties - it suits the universities, for instance, to go on pretending that the job market for "Business Information Technology" graduates is the same as it was five years ago.
This week my department's interviewed several candidates for a technical post. None had any discernable talent or experience as a programmer, but all had expectations of high status and salaries - based on a half-digested module on C++ they dozed through eighteen months ago...
-- Experience is a hard school, but fools will learn no other.
Re:It can do most of what they say...
by
gcaprio
·
· Score: 1
True, that is one option, but then you are losing any specific exception information about the exception that was thrown.
You could solve this by using inner exceptions, but it bring you to a casting problem. If I create a DataLayerException with an inner exception to house all the specific exceptions I may throw in my layer, I would have to type the inner exception as the base type 'Exception' so that all possible exception could be passed as inner exception.
Then in my ui layer, I could extract the inner exception from the generic DataLayerException, but then I would have to cast the base Exception to the more specific exception.
I think this is a much less elegant solution, though it is possible and it does get around the recompile that would be required.
Re:It can do most of what they say...
by
ClubStew
·
· Score: 1
You definitely have a point there with the so-called "glit and glammor" of programming. Perhaps entry-level courses at colleges and Universities should show the every-so-true "Office S[ace"! I'm sure many people wouldn't return the next day.
The IDE problem is real, though. I have to put up with it here at work. Visual designers aren't the only problem. Microsoft's IntelliSense (and whatever other implementations exist, like whatever they call it in Kdevelop) is also troublesome. I'm a senior software architect that has to support a bunch of industrial engineers - most of which have never programmed before - that rely upon visual designers and IntelliSense. Do they ever bother to read the documentation or do research to find what's available or to find more efficient ways of doing things? Hell no. The IDE makes it so simple. They just click "." or "->" and down comes some functions that they know nothing about.
Re:It can do most of what they say...
by
erasmus_
·
· Score: 1
I'm going to ignore the bashing in your post, since you can't see the difference between an academic design pattern for a double-linked list and a real-world design pattern for a specific piece of technology (.NET). Since the specific piece of technology did not exist until a few years ago, it probably would have been tough to have design patterns for it 30 years ago. Now granted, some design patterns, like creating singleton objects, have been around for a while, but most of them are more like how to choose web services or remoting for a solution.
-- Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
Re:It can do most of what they say...
by
Sanction
·
· Score: 1
And try implementing a lot of the same things in.Net. Both of them tie you into a framework where you can write code in any language, but the underlying (virtual )machine does not use any of the language specific goodies that make them valueable.
-- Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
Yep, that's correct. C# doesnt have java-style inner classes. It does have nested classes though.
Different thing.
Re:It can do most of what they say...
by
GrantZ
·
· Score: 1
Even tho this post is late, it's just to proove a point...
I am not sure this is what he was referring to. The URL was not a M$ URL, but rather a.Net pet store type thing, but not the pet store. He spoke of singleton-type patterns and how new they were and how M$ thinks of everything, etc.
Yes, the URL you refer to is the.Net version of Sun's J2EE design patterns, and yes, I do understand the difference between academic design patterns and technology specific concepts. I am finishing my software engineering Masters thesis on the topic, so please don't lecture me on what I may and may not understand.
.Net
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Funny
At least it's doing slightly better than GNU/Hurd.
Re:.Net
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That's Debian, right? Give them a few more years. Or decades.
I understand they have got Rolf Harris helping them work it out.
Re:Question
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I have. I'll summarize it for you.
.NET is the next generation of Windows system services designed to brig innovation and other advanced technology to the web services and distributed dynamic application runtime deployment industry. It also allows middle tier application service providers to deliver their solutions in a timely and innovative fashion. In addition, it is a game platform designed to revolutionize the ability for developers and end users alike to interact with their systems in a dynamic and innovative way.
Now do you understand?
Re:Question
by
Schnapple
·
· Score: 2, Informative
If you can tolerate a Tripod popup, I have an article here.
Thanks for that. I've spent the last three years wondering exactly the same thing (WTF is it?) - assuming it was some of the things that you point out it isn't. Very in depth, and now I know, and have half a clue what to say to people when they ask me was.NET is.
Definitely worth reading for anyone as clueless as I was 30 minutes ago!
Andrew
.NET was a success, Microsoft-style
by
shoppa
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
By announcing.NET as vaporware, Microsoft prevented any other vendors from doing anything similar. Not only that, but because ".NET" was going to be The Next Big Thing, they prevented other software houses from making any sales of existing working software while everyone waited for.NET to come along.
This is hardly a new strategy for Microsoft. And in the.NET case they succeeded on a collosal scale.
This was modded 5: Interesting?! FIVE!?! INTERESTING?!?!
I humbly submit, it reads like the same old reheated pseudo-wisdom from another person who doesnt really know what.NET is.
[now awaits the inevitable being labelled as a troll by nasty slashdot modding system:-( ]
Re: .NET was a success, Microsoft-style
by
Black+Parrot
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
> By announcing.NET as vaporware, Microsoft prevented any other vendors from doing anything similar. Not only that, but because ".NET" was going to be The Next Big Thing, they prevented other software houses from making any sales of existing working software while everyone waited for.NET to come along.
> This is hardly a new strategy for Microsoft. And in the.NET case they succeeded on a collosal scale.
Yep. In particular,.net was launched at the height of the.craze to prevent people from switching over to Sun, who promised the same things MS did with.net.
Those with memories three years and one day long will remember that right up until the day MS announced.net they were ridiculing Sun for suggesting the very same thing. Some of us called attention to it at the time.
Classic application of vaporware, folks. And Sun didn't jerk the carpet out from under MS's feet, to chalk.net up as a rip-roaring success, even if no-one uses it.
-- Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:.NET was a success, Microsoft-style
by
pmz
·
· Score: 1
And in the.NET case they succeeded on a collosal scale.
And, tactics like this over the past decade and a half have damaged the software industry on a collosal scale. Consider a plausibly entertaining scenario: all the younguns are running around barking vaporware, business try to buy into, essentially, nothing, get confused why they aren't going anyware, a whole budget just got blown, managers are wondering what the hell is happening, saving face is no longer possible, a manager is fired and has only vaporware as his recent resume entry. This make for a pretty good tragic comedy.
Re:.NET was a success, Microsoft-style
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> [now awaits the inevitable being labelled as a troll by nasty slashdot modding system:-( ]
that would because they don't have a 'tard label.
Re:.NET was a success, Microsoft-style
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> a manager is fired
You haven't worked in the industry very long have you? managers don't get fired.
Re:.NET was a success, Microsoft-style
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
And in the.NET case they succeeded on a collosal scale.
And, tactics like this over the past decade and a half have damaged the software industry on a collosal scale.
Wow, NEITHER moron managed to spell colossal correctly.
I know K5 is down and all
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
so I'd hope that D..., er, PG's trolling would be better since he has more time to focus on what he posts here. Just a thought. I just hoped for better quality than that (and your troll is much the lamer).
...virtually none of the promised advantages have come true
.NET was announced when it was still just an idea to counter the growing Java threat. Announce then design; that's MS' way of countering a perceived combatant.. err.. competitor. The world holds back on the competition as the Might MS FUD Machine has announced something that will cure cancer, clean your windows and leave your breath minty fresh.
-- Trolling is a art,
Re:Advantages only for MS.
by
zero_offset
·
· Score: 1
Completely false.
.NET was in development for several years before it was announced (three years, as I recall). This is common knowledge. Try again. (Here's a tip: it was originally named Next Generation Windows Services, or NGWS. Go look it up.)
--
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Speaking for myself
by
m00nun1t
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
As a pretty experienced web developer, I've worked at some level (some more than others) with most of the popular platforms: ASP, PHP, Cold Fusion, JSP and ASP.NET (very little perl, which I've always regretted if just for completeness).
From that perspective, ASP.NET just totally rocks my world. I can debug more easily. Performance is better. It encourages good architectural practices. And my productivity has gone through the roof - I haven't done any formal tests but based on personal experience I'd say I can develop at *least* 30% faster with ASP.NET compared to any other platform, possibly more. The difference is most pronounced in more complex systems where it really shines. For less than, say, a thousand lines of code it probably doesn't save as much time, but I rarely work on that anyway.
So, maybe.NET has "failed" and maybe not, but for me, ASP.NET has improved my working world radically. Don't knock it till you've tried it.
Re:Speaking for myself
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
and you are astroturfing. we all know it.
Re:Speaking for myself
by
pubjames
·
· Score: 5, Funny
From that perspective, ASP.NET just totally rocks my world. I can debug more easily. Performance is better. It encourages good architectural practices. And my productivity has gone through the roof - I haven't done any formal tests but based on personal experience I'd say I can develop at *least* 30% faster with ASP.NET compared to any other platform, possibly more.
I absolutely agree. Since discovering.NET my life has changed! I can concentrate for longer, I'm more confident with girls and my armpits have a wonderful spring morning freshness..NET, because you're worth it!
Re:Speaking for myself
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
MILF anyone ?
Re:Speaking for myself
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I concur as well, effendi! Because of.NET, I don't smell like curry anymore! And my pubic hair has stopped falling out!
> From that perspective, ASP.NET just totally rocks my world. I can debug more easily. Performance is better. It encourages good architectural practices. And my productivity has gone through the roof - I haven't done any formal tests but based on personal experience I'd say I can develop at *least* 30% faster with ASP.NET compared to any other platform, possibly more.
I absolutely agree. Since discovering.NET my life has changed! I can concentrate for longer, I'm more confident with girls and my armpits have a wonderful spring morning freshness..NET, because you're worth it!
<
Re:Speaking for myself
by
truthsearch
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Other than Cold Fusion I've also worked with all of these. The largest learning curve definitely goes to ASP.NET. My overall preference is easily PHP. One factor is many things can be done with far less code in PHP than ASP.NET. The only advantage ASP.NET has over anything else is the tool, VS.NET. It's not the technology that's saving development time. It's the tool helping to write the code and debug that's the real time saver. So from a business point of view it may be the right choice since the tool's good enough to make up for some overly complex platform requirements. But if you get good at manually typing PHP it's far and away superior based on my experiences and from others I've read.
Re:Speaking for myself
by
barryfandango
·
· Score: 1
How dare you disagree with the general consensus! But you nailed it right on m00nun1t, i've experienced the same thing with ASP.NET.
--
In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. -Oscar Wilde
Re:Speaking for myself
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Translation: I don't like what you said but I don't have a good argument against it.
Re:Speaking for myself
by
barryfandango
·
· Score: 1
Personally, I develop in asp.net using a text editor. and my objects are written in SharpDevelop, a great open source c# IDE that also has a WYSIWIG windows forms builder. wouldn't do it any other way, and certainly wouldn't shell out all that $$ for VS.NET.
--
In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. -Oscar Wilde
Re:Speaking for myself
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Its been a while since I've used PHP, but I don't remember anything equivalent to the DataGrid control in PHP. That control alone has cut weeks off some development projects since we've switched to.NET, as most of the projects I currently work on are all database driven.
Re:Speaking for myself
by
m00nun1t
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You are right about the IDE being a big part of the advantage of ASP.NET (and I should have mentioned it), but it certainly can't take all the credit.
IMHO the biggest thing in ASP.NET that leaves PHP for dust is the separation of code from layout. The other big one (and closely related) is easy componentisation. These two make life so much easier, and speak to much of the architectural niceties I mentioned in my original post. Not only can it be done, but it's easy to do and the flow *encourages* you to do it. I love a tool that makes it easy for me to do things the right way.
I do agree ASP.NET has a steeper learning curve than PHP (or any of the others listed, with the possible exception of JSP). Based on my experience, it's a price well worth paying.
For a small project, PHP would usually be my first choice, but anything medium to large, IMHO, ASP.NET is just miles better. Not trying to start a religous war as I do respect PHP, but I thought this was interesting, a comment from a respected member of the PHP community: http://www.edwardbear.org/blog/archives/000189.htm l
Disclaimer: ASP.NET is the one piece of.NET I haven't used to any great extent. I have used ASP a fair bit though
Serious question: How does ASP.NET encourage good architectural practices?
As I understand it, ASP.NET still suffers from the fundamental architecture problem of ASP in that it encourages you to mix presentation and business logic. This is a nightmare for design and ongoing maintenance.
Is this correct, or have I missed something?
Re:Speaking for myself
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You have missed a HUGE thing. ASP.NET is the best platform for separation of presentation and business logic. If you're not using code behind (which is the default via VS.NET), don't bother.
You should try Apple's WebObjects if you want to see a productivity increase beyond what you see for.NET
Re:Speaking for myself
by
scrytch
·
· Score: 3, Informative
.NET and php are orthogonal. There's one effort underway to port PHP to.NET, for one. I recommend getting some understanding of the ASP.NET architecture before making statements like this, because it's like saying "php is better than fastcgi" (considering you can run php as a fastcgi).
The main problem I have with PHP is that it's not OO. Objects are syntactic sugar for grouping functions, but objects are by default copied by value, and worse yet, always compared by value, not by identity (so when $a === $b at one point, it might not later, even with the same objects, because they got the implementation so wrong). PHP5 is supposed to fix that, though things like its error handling still leave much to be desired (try eval'ing code with a syntax error -- your script will die, and you can NOT stop it. sort of defeats the purpose of eval, don't it?)
But that's all off the topic of.NET, which is a platform, whereas PHP is simply a language.
-- I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Re:Speaking for myself
by
truthsearch
·
· Score: 1
I had actually read that post and its comments a while back, too. I think it's a matter of perspective. Everything that can be done in ASP.NET (separation of code from layout, i.e. templates, and componentisation) can be done in PHP. The biggest difference is that ASP.NET forces the developer to work with these features, if I want to do something simple. PHP lets me use a template engine (to create something like aspx files), but I'm not forced to do it. I just personally don't like a platform that forces me to work too much in a certain limited way. I'd rather have a simpler platform that's flexible enough to expand when needed, which is how I see PHP.
With this particular discussion it's just a matter of how each person looks at things, rather than any technical merits.
> There's one effort underway to port PHP to.NET, for one.
Got a link? I want to read more, but it's difficult to search for "PHP.NET" or "Microsoft PHP.NET" on the likes of Google and Teoma:
Re:Speaking for myself
by
gh
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
ASP.NET does not force the developer to use those features. You can very well write pages much in the same way one use to write pages for ASP/JSP/PHP. The IDE, Visual Studio.NET, pushes the concept of code behind pages and using controls.
Regardless of the tool involved, you do not have to work with those features.
Re:Speaking for myself
by
m00nun1t
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Hmmm, I thought you said you'd used ASP.NET? It doesn't force you to use those features. It's certainly the default way of working if you are in VS.NET, but if you want to do inline code like old style ASP, be my guest, you can do it with ASP.NET, no problems.
I've heard that the free editor MS provide, Webmatrix, defaults to inline code but never used it myself. I wouldn't be surprised as that's aimed at low end developers, inline is conceptually much simpler than code behind.
Re:Speaking for myself
by
truthsearch
·
· Score: 1
My first project I tried to do something I thought should be simple. Without using frames I just wanted to dynamically change the controls within a page. Basically we were creating a "wizard." Well after a week of trying to get a single page to work with or without doing everything in code I couldn't get it to work. We gave 3 others a chance at it, two of them full time and true Microserfs. They'd already worked on another ASP.NET project, read books, and took classes. It took them 3 weeks to trying to get.NET to do what they wanted before they barely got it working. All of the work was in getting the platform to do what they wanted, not in solving the business problem. They finally agreed it was not as flexible as they originally thought. Since then I've tried other things and come to the same conclusion.
Re:Speaking for myself
by
sheldon
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Without using frames I just wanted to dynamically change the controls within a page.
Huh? There are multiple ways to do this, at the simplest level you throw a number of controls on the screen, possibly grouped with panels, and then change the Visible tag accordingly to display the one you want.
On a more complex level, you can create a number of controls which all inherit from a base class, and then instantiate the one you need into the main page. I've been working with the Dotnetnuke framework, and this is the entire basis of how it operates, as custom controls inherit from PortalModuleControl and are loaded dynamically at runtime according to database criteria for the page.
We gave 3 others a chance at it, two of them full time and true Microserfs.
Microserf? What is this, a contest to see who can act most like a child?
Since then I've tried other things and come to the same conclusion.
I guess it's nice that you came to a conclusion, it's just unfortunate that you are trying to extend your technical incompetence onto others.
ASP.NET has rocked my world as well, and I am barely even scratching the surface of functionality.
Re:Speaking for myself
by
onion_breath
·
· Score: 1
I'd have to agree. I'm employed as a programmer within a software development/solutions company and.Net has closed in on much of the development. We actually have clients asking for the software to be developed in.Net. Also, I should add that at home I use Linux with gcc/Emacs exclusively, I'm not in any way a Microsoft fan, yet I still find.Net a very nice product. Just being truthful.
You must not be using Visual Studio.NET... I sit here in front of that wretched beast at this very moment. Dear god does it ever drive me insane.
At first I thought I was coding faster than ever before with this wonderous.NET. Well, that was while I was just fiddling around with it. Now that I'm actually using it make programs it just drives me up the wall. Every time I touch ASP.NET and throw in some C# codebehind, I can think of multiple different ways that would be easier/faster than what I have to slop together with those two.
I must say, I am not impressed.
-- - I love animals. I try to eat at least one a day.
I was looking for the familiar site, but the project appears to be dead. It was never that far along anyway. I think PHP is more likely to choose interoperability using SOAP and DIME than in compiling to MSIL.
-- I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Re:Speaking for myself
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No... what you are really saying is "[My RAD tools rock! I can do things soooo much faster... blah blah blah]"
I can conceive the new RAD tools being better for you, but you are drawing the wrong conclusion when you say "ASP.NET has improved my working world radically". Having a great RAD isn't the work of the language but of the engineers and programmers who designed the tool in the first place.
Freudian slip??? You said "...working world RAD-ically"
Need I say more? It's ALWAYS about the RAD tools not the language.
.Net was never clearly defined
by
cait56
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Three years in and I believe it is fair to say that most
people do not understand exactly what.Net is --
other than a vague "trust me" monolithic solution.
Which I believe is the core of its problem. While there
are some fools who will buy anything that fill in
the name of their favorite supplier offers, more
of the market wants to make decisions for themelves.
From the little I've had time to study.Net, there were
a few aspects of it that were indeed superior to what
had proceeded it on the market. But the information
to make a cohesive strategy was just missing. What
if I liked the characteristics of the run-time engine,
but needed to stick with CORBA interfacing?
The most telling flaw in the strategy, for me, was
that you could find entire racks of books on.Net.
But absolutely none that explained the basic wire
protocols used. They were all "How to Program a.Net application inside one box using language Y".
When I'm designing a system, the language used
on each box is the last detail that I
consider. I want to understand the interactions
of the remote systems, how dependent they
are on each other, how they evolve seperately,
how the failure of one will affect the others, etc.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Why not buy a book on.NET Remoting, then? Or Web Services, if that's a better solution for you? Or use your old COM libraries to interface to CORBA if you really must? All this stuff is simple to do and there are many many books on it.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Good idea but it'd never work. Your solution would require the anti-MS zealots to actually learn something about that which they bash so often.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
zero_offset
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
You are exactly correct in that most people don't know what.NET really is, and that includes people using it, and Microsoft itself. Once again, Microsoft marketing has screwed the pooch. They were so hot and bothered to tie.NET to the buzzword of the day (Web Services) that they overlooked a great deal of important features and capabilities.
If you ignore the marketing noise, though, it is itself a cohesive strategy, but it's quite a wide-ranging thing and it's hard to get the right perspective on it. The problem is that you probably started looking too early. The first round of books were all written based on the betas (I reviewed many of them for various publishers), and they were all targeted at teaching the world the basics of.NET.
There are now many books that explain the guts in great detail.
To continue with your specific example, there are MANY projects which support or are working to implement CORBA remoting for.NET. A simple Google search for ".NET CORBA remoting" yielded tons of results.
Microsoft marketing is Microsoft's own worst enemy...
--
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
johnmckeon
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Three years in and I believe it is fair to say that most people do not understand exactly what.Net is -- other than a vague "trust me" monolithic solution.
It seems to me that this has been a problem whenever MS introduces a new technology (COM, COM+, ActiveX). I can find plenty of people using these terms, but no one can give me a two or three sentence summary of what they are. Unfortunately, it seems like.NET is having the same problem.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
RoLi
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Three years in and I believe it is fair to say that most people do not understand exactly what.Net is -- other than a vague "trust me" monolithic solution.
No matter what the MS-bootlickers say,.NET can be summed up easily:
.NET is like Java, only incompatible with everything other than Windows. The only added feature is language-neutrality (you can use more than just C# to code.NET objects) although that exists under Java, too, although to a lesser extent (There are many compilers that take many non-Java programming languages as imput and put out Java bytecode, however those are not very widely used and supported)
To sum up, there isn't a real reason to use.NET over Java. The Microsofties who have overrun Slashdot already will crucify me for doubting the invincibility of Microsoft, but Java is *the* standard programming language, and the only language that runs on every major and most minor platforms.
75% of webservers don't run Windows. 100% of cellphones don't run Windows. 60% of PDAs don't run Windows. Let's face it:.NET is just a desktop solution, nothing more.
Using.NET and artificially chaining yourself to one vendor and platform and shrinking your target market is a stupid idea.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
OneEyedApe
·
· Score: 2, Offtopic
Actually, I think C is a language that will compile and run on damn near every platform. Yes, given the appropriate runtime environment, Java will run on an amazing number of platforms, but C fits into far more strange platforms.
-- Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all.... --Thomas J. Kopp
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
Raven42rac
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It is supposed to be some sort of "Java alike" for the internet, a sort of universal programming language, and by universal, I mean Windows boxes. But universally accessible over the internet, I have actually seen two websites use it, www.microsoft.com and www.vue.com (the test registration site), other than that it really has not caught on like MS thought it would. When you have 90% of the world's computers running Windows, that is a pretty big built in group able to use it, but the developers (developers, developers, developers, developers) are not buying into it, and are just sticking with Java.
-- I hate sigs.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
cait56
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
On a point-by-point comparison,.Net frequently is superior to Java. It falls short on the fundamental
points you raise: interoperability, and more importantly
seperability. Using Java you know exactly which technologies you are embracing, and which you
are leaving out. Java/XML, Java/RMI, Java/Corba...
It's all your decision.
The other feature that.Net has is superior native execution,
it was designed to be translated to native code. The.net
virtual machine is better defined than the JVM is. But I
agree that on whole, the tradeoff is not worthwhile.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Let's take all the cellphones, PDAs, and webservers that run java... that's less than the number of windows xp boxes Dell sold in the last half a year. Now who's looking at a small market?
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
buckinm
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Let's take all the cellphones, PDAs, and webservers that run java... that's less than the number of windows xp boxes Dell sold in the last half a year. Now who's looking at a small market?
Two points here:
(1) The overall size of the market is different from the actual opportunity in the market. So, yes, there are a bazillion windows desktops. On the other hand, everybody else, including Microsoft, is writing software for them already.
(2) The possible future size of the market is important too. pda's, cellphones, and webservers usage is growing. The pc market is starting to drop off.
-- This isn't any ordinary darkness. It's advanced darkness.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
penguinblotter
·
· Score: 1
On a point-by-point comparison,.Net frequently is superior to Java.
Didn't Microsoft just take time to clean up their core classes and run-time engine? They took steps to get rid of DLL Hell. I agree that such an undertaking is a big deal, and that MS Marketing confused everyone. But I wonder what would happen if there were an effort to
clean up Java.
-- Mind the gap
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
HeadDown
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The language-neutrality is just a lure. MSIL is essentially highly-compressed C# code (much like Java.class files are pretty much highly-compressed Java source files). Any language other than C# must go through awkward hoops to match its model.
Multi-language is not all it's cracked up to be -- would you allow people in your team to just pick the language of their liking 'because it all compiles to MSIL anyhow'? Of course not. You'd have a humoungous support problem, peer-review would be a mess, etc.
What is going to happen is that people will get on board because they can keep their fav language, and after a while everyone will migrate to C# because it will simply be better supported, and hey, it's a pretty decent language.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
IamTheRealMike
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
.NET is going to be used heavily for Windows desktop apps anyway. People will use it, and love it.
The fact is that Win32 is a steaming cowpat of an API. This is rammed through my head time and time again whenever I am forced to use it. It has some of the most braindamaged behaviours in the world - it's so bad that practically nobody uses it in fact. It's kind of sad, but it's not really possible to write Windows programs without a (usually expensive) IDE and wrapper library to help you.
Well,.NET is mostly just Microsoft creating yet another wrapper, albiet one that doesn't suck quite as much as their previous attempts did. That's just as well, perhaps one day the sheer hell of Win32 will be banished forever, much the same way that nobody pokes the BIOS anymore to print stuff to the screen. To be honest, I think that'll happen more because of Linux than.NET replacing Win32 entirely, but only time will tell.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
Lord+of+the+Wazz
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
FatherOfONe
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Seeing that you posted Anonymously, I doubt that you would be willing to provide any proof of your data. A heck of a lot of cell phones have been sold... Most families I know have multiple cell phones but only one computer... (Even our family follows this, 3 computers, 2 cell phones, 2 pda's)
Now more to your lack of a point. Java runs GREAT on Windows 95-XP. Hmmm how does.NET run on win95, 98 or Me? So the previous poster who said that Java is THE standard is mostly correct, however here is what I see.
1. All Microsoft shops will use ONLY Microsoft solutions. It comes from Bills mouth to their hands. They will live and die by that motto. Unfortunately there are quite a few shops like this, and these types of morons is what allows Microsoft the time to correct major flaws in products.
2. Everyone else will use the best of breed approach, or what their developers currently know or whatever cost the least amount.
Currently Java does a great job of running on multiple platforms, but in my opinion it isn't the language for complex math, or very simple scripting apps. It is also bad at very simple apps that can only use a small amount of memory.
Microsoft's biggest competitor isn't so much Java with IBM or SUN or BEA or Oracle, but it is Linux+JBOSS+FREE_DB. Microsoft has made a bundle, by offering similar products at a significantly lower price-point. They have been able to do this because they have a monopoly on the desktop, and can allways count on that profit; but they will have a near impossible time of undercutting FREE. Some people base their entire decision on cost! So they are starting to loose that marketshare now. They also have a major issue in that the desktop market is FLAT now. The growth that they came to love is gone. I am by no means supprised that they want to go to a leasing agreement now! They need those consistant revenue streams!
-- The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
Morgahastu
·
· Score: 1
Of course C source code is portable. The the binaries are not.
Java binaries are cross platform compatible.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I would hazard a guess and say that Java didn't run on those systems prior to its creation. So why is it okay for Java to be ambitious and not.NET?
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
RoLi
·
· Score: 1
AFAIK the Orange model was only offered in Great Britain and no other country and isn't even offered anymore. (In your shop it is also listed as "out of stock" and that's not because it's selling so well, it has been reported being very buggy and unfriendly)
And it's just another failed try to release a Microsoft phone among many. The Taiwanese maker who was working with MS at first already dropped Stinger and so did T-mobile.
Never heard of the other one and your link leads to an error-page.
So while there may be some prototypes and a handful of people stuck with a buggy.NET phone, close to 100% of cellphones don't and never will run.NET because all major cellphone-makers have chosen Symbian and Java as the platform.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
scrytch
·
· Score: 4, Informative
.NET is the new ActiveX. ActiveX by itself was this nebulous definition, but what it boiled down to was nothing more than COM..NET boils down to three things behind the marketing umbrella name:
* the.NET Virtual Machine: Basically the same idea as other bytecode compiled languages, like UCSD Pascal (ooh you thought I was going to say JVM, well sun didn't invent the idea). Write once, deploy anywhere where windows (or mono) is. It has some features not seen in JVM's, like cached JIT code, so it doesn't have to rerun the JIT every single time you run the app.
* The.NET Common Language Runtime, including the system library: This is intended to replace the Win32 API with something as easy to use as most Visual BASIC libs, getting rid of HWNDS and HRESULTS and __farcall lpzsFoobletch and so on.
* Web services: Really just the first application of the first two, but Microsoft is plugging this SOAP-based stuff like the second coming. I somehow don't see it replacing RPC for communication with system services, but there it is.
-- I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
RoLi
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Let's take all the cellphones, PDAs, and webservers that run java... that's less than the number of windows xp boxes Dell sold in the last half a year. Now who's looking at a small market?
First of all, while there are surely more desktops than Java-capable devices, the figures are not as out of proportion as you suggest. There are millions of Java devices already out and soon almost all cellphones will run it which means BILLIONS of devices.
Secondly, for desktops, allmost all the software already exists and there isn't really that much to develop. So for a developer, Java sure as hell is the more interesting platform than.NET.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
saden1
·
· Score: 1
I know what.NET is. It is a trap that will bind you to Microsoft until the universe collapses.
--
----- One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
First off, I would just like to say that I am not an `MS Bootlicker'... I prefer the GNU/Linux platform for pretty much everything I do, except for videogames (and even then... I run a hell of alot of them on WineX). I am a student at Drexel University who has attended more than a few talks about the.Net archetecture. While this does not make me an expert, It does give me some knowledge about how and why to use.Net.
Second, some definitions of.Net in general can be found here.
.NET is like Java, only incompatible with everything other than Windows. (sic)
That statement is false. Microsoft only relesed the finished Common Language Runtime for Windows, but they also relesed a good portion of the source code that makes coding the Common Language Runtime possible. There have been several ports/versions, which include Rotor, Mono and dotGNU.
The only added feature is language-neutrality (you can use more than just C# to code.NET objects) although that exists under Java, too, although to a lesser extent (There are many compilers that take many non-Java programming languages as imput and put out Java bytecode, however those are not very widely used and supported)
And That is not one of the marketing points of Java. Many advocates of Java that I have spoken to (Which, in this case, is not many... most people I know despise it) have a `one language to solve all' mentality. They would program everything in it, given the chance..Net, in a sense, is revolutionary in this respect. It makes it possible to easially integrate several languages together, as long as they can all compile to MSIL (Microsoft Intermediate Language). How many of you people have tried to integrate C and Perl together? What about Visual Basic and C/C++ (VS6-)? (and before anyone says ``why the hell would you want to do that?'' to me, it is much easier to build windows interfaces in VB than C/C++... and in come cases, it is much easier to write faster or Object Oriented code in C/C++). The amount of work neccesary is close to prohibitive in some respects. When it isn't, slower interpereted code is produced instead. Not with.Net, though. Just compile everythign to MSIL, and then when you run the program for the fist time, *poof*... it changes into actual, optimized executable code.
Java is... the only language that runs on every major and most minor platforms.
Such as... ?? The only reason that.Net isn't on a system (that I know of) is because Microsoft is trying to be competitive in that area, and the actual manuacturer doesn't wish to convert the code itself. (e.g.: Micrsoft is competing with PalmOS for the PDA Market, so it obviously won't relesese.Net for that environment. In addition, Palm might not have relesed the programming specs for PalmOS, which would make it hard for microsoft to do so. However, what is stopping Palm from releasing the CLR for PalmOS? Not much.)
75% of webservers don't run Windows. 100% of cellphones don't run Windows. 60% of PDAs don't run Windows. Let's face it:.NET is just a desktop solution, nothing more.
You don't need windows to implement the.Net CLR. The code has been published and is available for free online. Anyone who wants to can make their own version. Even comes with documentation, and builds on Windows, OSX, and FreeBSD.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I would hazard a guess and say that Java didn't run on those systems prior to its creation.
Thank you, Captain Obvious. Do you have any other insightful comments you'd like to share.. perhaps that the sky is blue? Or maybe you'd like to inform us all that cows say "moo"?
I think that most people realize that it's impossible for anything to run if it hasn't been created yet.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
alext
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
.Net has is superior native execution
I'd be interested in some benchmarks. My experience in fiddling with some numerically-intensive code is that Sun JVM 1.4.1 is about 4 times faster than a Dotnet release of 18 months ago. I haven't tried a more recent version.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
Lord+of+the+Wazz
·
· Score: 1
Sorry about the second link. Try this one instead. While I agree that the SPV is crap, the reason it's out of stock is because Orange have stopped making them now that they have a nice shiny new SPV v2 coming out (I think there was information about it if you follow the first link).
I wasn't saying that these phones were very popular. All I was doing was pointing out that the "100% of cellphones don't use Windows" statement was a bit of a sweeping generalisation.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
jpu8086
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
I agree with most of the things you just said. However, I whole heartedly disagree about Microsoft's biggest competitior being Linux+JBOSS+FREE_DB.
I am so sorry, I am not completely sold out on the Open Source mechanism. I mean the solutions are good, but they aren't great (yet). Before you flame me, the above mentioned triad solution do not provide many features found in other enterprise level software. They are also quite slow (overall). The only Open Source solution that performs at an enterprise level is Apache.
When you are a BIG-ASS, Inc. you care little if you save a million on licensing fees, if your software is guaranteed to work. i.e., Oracle, IBM, BEA. (And yes, if they could save money and get 8 sigma uptime...they'll use Open Source software) Plus, there are a billion more folks who know this stuff then the ones who know Open Source solutions.
Yes, these alternate ideas are great for small companies, but, they don't contribute to the massive licensing profits.
And, please let's not go over this one more time: Open Source software is good. And, CTOs aren't all dumb. They *do* want to save money -- you know.
-- now supporting:
cmdrTaco for president '04
michael for oval office intern summer '05
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What language do you think Sun used to write the JVM ? Yep, good old C.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
johnnyb
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Actually, ActiveX is a self-registering COM object. Notice how a slight variation gets a whole new market-drive name!
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
fitten
·
· Score: 1
I haven't done extensive testing but I've generally found that.NET C# code runs typically with less than 5% of a decrease in speed compared to compiled C code on numerically intensive things (basically doing the simplest of ports from C to C#). i.e. Compiled C app runs in 100 seconds, C# runs in 105 seconds.
If you have an app that runs for the first time, you have to pay for the JIT translation but even that is usually pretty fast. Again, this is numerically intensive apps with no GUI or really any I/O either.
I've seen similar performance with Java. When you get down to it, C# is basically just Microsoft's version of Java. If you know the syntax of one, you can get the other one pretty fast (within minutes). The only significant differences are in the class libraries and both have libraries with similar functionality. If/When Mono solves the portability issues, it'll be a six-to-one/half-dozen-to-the-other type argument and will only have political/religious arguments to keep the fire going.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
RoLi
·
· Score: 1
All I was doing was pointing out that the "100% of cellphones don't use Windows" statement was a bit of a sweeping generalisation.
Well, I could have said 99.9%, but that would have been an understatement, because it's more like 99.99999% or so.
Also, if you are outside Britain, it is indeed 100%.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
sploxx
·
· Score: 1
Yes, and that is nearly the same for C++.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
On a point-by-point comparison,.Net frequently is superior to Java.
Assuming that you mean.NET the platform, I would love for someone to do a fair comparison of the platform. This includes things like database clustering (not partitioning), stateful/stateless application server, options for webservers, object persistence layer, standard O/R mapping drivers, clustering data access drivers, language features, embedded support in databases, robust messaging server that can handle thousands of message a minute or second and true time-sharing POSIX threads.
In my own comparison,.NET is appropriate for small scale, low concurrency server applications. It is not scalable for web applications that need to support 300-1000 concurrent requests if SOAP and schema is used. I've been running benchmarks with IIS on a single processor system to see what kinds of web service loads it can handle and the max for a 3ghz box is around 40 (100% cpu usage).
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
cait56
·
· Score: 1
To clarify: my evaluation was as an architect examing
the inherent definitions of the different runtime
environments. In my opinion, a.Net runtime
environment should be able to approach "native
code" efficiency more readily than a JVM.
That said, keep in mind that most applications
that require portable code are more bound by network
interactions and/or the speed of supporting libraries.
A numerically-intensive application is more likely to
be dependent on the quality of the run-time library.
That's something you have to evaluate each specific
virtual machine on.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
RoLi
·
· Score: 1
[.NET on non-Windows platforms]
Well, sorry, but so far all those are "in development", not really complete, not stable and most importantly completely unsupported by Microsoft.
Show me one organization that is using.NET on a non-Windows environment in production use. Just one.
Micrsoft is competing with PalmOS for the PDA Market, so it obviously won't relesese.Net for that environment. [..] However, what is stopping Palm from releasing the CLR for PalmOS?
You answered your own question. MS is competing with PalmOS and will therefore not release.NET for it but neither will PalmOS for the very same reason. That would be just digging their own grave. Also, there are no important.NET apps for PDAs anyway, so why not stick to Java? Why should anybody use.NET to write for 25-30% of PDAs when they can use Java and cover almost all existing PDAs and more importantly all PDAs that will be released in the future?
So far, Microsoft has failed miserably on everything that doesn't run on x86-desktops. I don't see how.NET should be an exception.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
Lord+of+the+Wazz
·
· Score: 1
Yes but the 100% statement is still wrong if that's the case. The SPV is also available in France (and possibly other countries in Europe where Orange operates). Don't know about the XDA. Also I forgot to mention the Neonode - a very nice looking Windows CE based phone from a Swedish start-up (apparently some of the guys behind the Sony Ericsson P800).
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
oldwarrior
·
· Score: 0
...language that runs on every major and most minor platforms.
"runs" is optimistic on some of the projects I have had to deal with. MS VC++ still beats Java hands down and can easily be written to be portable with linux/bsd gcc.
-- If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly... MacBeth
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No matter what the Sun-bootlickers say, Java can be summed up easily:
Java is like Python, only owned and dominated by Sun. Sun claims write once run anywhere, but it is usually write once run once, debug/tweak everywhere else. Java VMs are big, slow beasts.
To sum up, there isn't a real reason to use Java over Python. The Sunserfs who have overrun Slashdot already will crucify me for doubting the invincibility of Sun, but Python is *the* standard programming language, and one of many languages that runs on every major and most minor platforms.
Using Java and artificially chaining yourself to the whims and ravings of one company going down the tubes is a stupid idea.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
oldwarrior
·
· Score: 0
multi language enviros enable reuse of existing components from other languages. It's important. It save (big) money. It's why java, even with the crappy JNI option, is not universally used. If java could easily call legacy systems without a performance (and mental health) hit, it would conquor all others.
-- If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly... MacBeth
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
Dr.Zap
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft did a study that determined just that... noone understands what.NET is. They even announced that (and it was posted on Slashdot) A friend of mine was involved in the research. I wonder why the changed thier mind(s)? Is this Chairman Bill's pet project? MS marketing still got no clue how to market this differently? Interesting none the less. I like the idea of calling the thecnologies.NOT, and never using them.
-db
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
oldwarrior
·
· Score: 0
>>>Using Java and artificially chaining yourself to the whims and ravings of one company going down >>>the tubes is a stupid idea.
Is so cogent that it chills my blood.
-- If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly... MacBeth
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
alext
·
· Score: 1
How does this architectural approach lead you to conclude that Dotnet (an example of a statically optimizing system) must be superior to the JVM (a dynamically optimizing system)? Most academics have concluded the opposite.
I'm afraid I'm unable to 'keep in mind' your observation on what you imagine the execution-time dependencies of applications to be since
a) those writing Dotnet or Java applications are not primarily motivated by portability, and will not accept a big performance tradeoff from native code
b) in Java the supporting libraries are mostly written in Java
c) applications bound by I/O affect only response time, not throughput - performance of the code is still important for those threads that are not waiting
Lastly, I think you'll find that numerical libraries for Java are, like the general libraries, still written in Java - there is no native-code Linpack for Java, nor is that the direction of projects like Java Grande. The VM and its language are therefore the dominant factors in all aspects of performance.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Not really. Note that your "New ActiveX DLL" in Visual Basic still requires one to run regsvr32.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
AndersDahlberg
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The other feature that.Net has is superior native execution, it was designed to be translated to native code. The.net virtual machine is better defined than the JVM is. But I agree that on whole, the tradeoff is not worthwhile.
Mod parent up as overrated...
The java virtual machine was designed to be *both* interpreted and just in time (JIT) compiled to native form as this is the best performer.
You maybe don't believe it - but most of the time methods only used one or two times during an applications life time they are actuallay faster *not* to compile to native form (insert long CS hardware and virtual machine explanation and proof here).
The.NET CLI have the problem that it was *not* designed to be efficiently interpreted - thus any dynamic language will perform very bad on it (i.e. compare benchmarks of python.net python on java (jython))
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
AndroidCat
·
· Score: 1
No different than most any other COM object. The only difference was that a couple extra interfaces were slapped on. Microsoft loves to rename their tech every couple years: DDE, Object Linking and Embedding, OLE (which doesn't stand for anything), COM, ActiveX, add-ons like COM+
What was Windows DNA again? I fell asleep at that point.
-- One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
Aureal
·
· Score: 1
__farcall lpzsFoobletch
roflmao!!! Excellent!
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
>>Java binaries are cross platform compatible.
Java does not compile to binaries. If it did, you would not need the JVM.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
imtheguru
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The most telling flaw in the strategy, for me, was that you could find entire racks of books on.Net. But absolutely none that explained the basic wire protocols used. They were all "How to Program a.Net application inside one box using language Y".
This brings to mind something mentioned by a professor, Dr. Puder, in a seminar/discussion i attended about.NET. The questions addressed were:
-- what is.NET
-- what problems does.NET solve
-- haven't technologies such as CORBA already addressed these issues.
The discussion was preceeded by a presentation by another professor (a.NET zealot IMHO).
During the critiquing of.NET, Dr. Puder mentioned that a distributed architecture should offer transparent, well documented access to two interfaces. The first interface is the Horizontal interface, better known as the API. The second interface is the Vertical interface which documents the protocols being used over the wire.
In the specific case of.NET, the vertical interface is documented (to some extent), which is what the mono team are using as reference. However the horizontal interface (API) is horribly obscured and a vendor of a.NET environment may choose to hide some of the APIs from the programmer. The primary reason for this obscurity is product lock-in. A vendor can choose to lock u in by providing or not providing some of the interfaces that other vendors provide.
To address the question put forth by the parent post,.NET uses XML encoded messages sent from the service requester to the service provider. This is typically done to keep the messages simple and human readable(?) -- however CORBA sends code (binary) in its communication protocol and achieves the same task with a large reduction in the number of bytes actually transmitted. From examples i have seen it is it is typically between 25:1 and 40:1.
Dr. Puder is a CORBA Demi-God and an author of MICO (MICO Is COrba). MICO is an open source, fully compliant implementation of the CORBA standard written in C++.
-- Yet Socrates himself is particularly missed.
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
los+furtive
·
· Score: 1
I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It was aimed at the parent. The first statement was obviously sarcastic, and it drilled the point for the second question. Learn something about rhetoric.
And most people mustn't realize your obvious point, if the parent was modded so high up.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
Psiolent
·
· Score: 1
...Object Linking and Embedding, OLE (which doesn't stand for anything)...
Ummm..."OLE" in fact stands for "Object Linking and Embedding". Or maybe I missed some subtle humor, sarcasm, or irony? Weird.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
SN74S181
·
· Score: 1
but Java is *the* standard programming language
Except Sun won't permit it to become a standard. They prefer it to be their proprietary little beastie that they can change whichever way they like.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
SN74S181
·
· Score: 1
What he means is that Java compiles to a obfuscated binary file. That's important if you want to close the source. It further enables cross-platform closed source, which appears to be a priority for some people.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
cait56
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Yes..NET uses XML. Use of XML as peer-to-peer
protocol remains, IMHO, a very stupid idea. It is
very nice for documents. But binary encoding of
wire messages, such as is done by CORBA, is
clearly superior. I remain opposed to definition
of "new" XML services that merely duplicate
existing CORBA and/or RPC solutions with
the sole benefit of consuming more bandwidth
while circumventing network security by pretending
to be a "web" protocol.
But saying that.NET uses XML is like saying
NFS uses RPC. Neither is complete documentation.
I found available open specs on *how*.NET uses XML,
and how to generate your own compatible messages,
to be conspicuously absent, or at the minimum insufficiently indexed and highlighted.
Clearly, the developers of the documetation did not
believe that "typical users" would have to be "burdened"
with these details. (Which, I suspect, is the most charitable
interpretation likely to be found on/. for these actions.).
Personally, I do not like the "convenience" of being locked
into a single solutions provider.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
johnnyb
·
· Score: 1
I think that Microsoft discontinued the use of OLE as an acronym, and made it just a name that doesn't stand for anything. I could be wrong, but that's kind of what I remember. Kind of like what happened to SOAP.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
mbogosian
·
· Score: 1
From the article: "I think it is important to emphasize that.Net is our Web services strategy across the company and is fundamentally something we are absolutely committed to," said Neil Charney
Does anyone ever get the impression that a lot of MS employees who are allowed to talk to the press learned to speak at one of those "Become your own boss by buying and selling real estate" seminars advertised on late night television?
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
AndroidCat
·
· Score: 1
After OLE 2.0 or so, Microsoft said that OLE is just the name, it doesn't stand for anything. Riiight...
-- One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
TheLastUser
·
· Score: 1
Its a binary format just the same as an x86 binary, except that the target plaform is the Java VM not a specific piece of hardware.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
Eric+Damron
·
· Score: 1
Although what you say about C is true, you need to recompile on every platform. With JAVA you don't. Well as long as the target PC isn't using the Microsoft version that was made incompatible in an attempt to hijack JAVA.
--
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
SpryGuy
·
· Score: 1
Of course C source code is portable.
That's hilarious. Do you honestly believe that? You can't have ever tried it, if you think that's an accurate statement.
Porting C source code between Unixes can be problematic, never mind between Windows and Unix, or other platforms. And that's staying on all 32-bits. Try going from 16-bit to 32, or from 64 to 32, or vice-versa. It's never trivial to port any non-trivial C source to another platform.
Java is a lot more portable at the source level than C.
--
- Spryguy There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
saskwach
·
· Score: 0
The only Open Source solution that performs at an enterprise level is Apache.
What about sendmail, ssh, and countless other well made programs? Make your point, but overgeneralization is just unnecessary.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
abradsn
·
· Score: 1
Java bytecode is very easy to disassemble.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
but, but, but that's on msnbc, so it's microsoft telling us that.net will not chain us till the universe will collapse, cause it's not going to collapse. ITS A MS LIE!!!
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
jpu8086
·
· Score: 1
Oops, definitely got carried away with "web services" paradigm, completely ignoring the millions of other projects. GCC and perl, for example.
BTW, are you sure about sendmail?;-)
-- now supporting:
cmdrTaco for president '04
michael for oval office intern summer '05
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Of course C source code is portable.
Riiight... that's why we need autoconf. It's just a script with a bunch of sleep commands in it to make the build process look more impressive.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
$exyNerdie
·
· Score: 1
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
saskwach
·
· Score: 0
did I say sendmail?
I meant...no, actually...once it's up and running it's pretty good (we've been having some problems with MDaemon's LDAP support at work...and exchange is a bloody waste of twice the poor little NPO's annual grant money).
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
Raven42rac
·
· Score: 1
touche
-- I hate sigs.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
fitten
·
· Score: 1
To address the question put forth by the parent post,.NET uses XML encoded messages sent from the service requester to the service provider. This is typically done to keep the messages simple and human readable(?) -- however CORBA sends code (binary) in its communication protocol and achieves the same task with a large reduction in the number of bytes actually transmitted. From examples i have seen it is it is typically between 25:1 and 40:1.
Wrong on all counts.
First, you have the option of using a number of representation ranging from binary to XML representations for data in.NET. The purpose of this is in no way meant to keep the messages simple or in a human readable form and has nothing to do with either (not to mention that you don't have to use XML if you don't want - you typically would actually need a reason to choose XML as your representation). The reason why XML is an option is for interoperability. Using XML as your representation, you can talk to anything across the wire and it can understand what you are sending. It doesn't matter whether it is big/little endian, uses 2/4 bytes for an int, is hosted on a Linux box, a Sun box, or another Windows box. *IF* you decide to use XML, you are doing so for interoperability (pretty much only for web services, IMO). *IF* you are developing just about anything else, you'll use a binary protocol for exactly the same reasons as you mention using CORBA above.
As the developer, you have the choice to specify how you transfer the data. For a Windows only app that is basically using remoting, you would chose binary as it is the fastest and most efficient for that platform. If you wanted to write a web service that anyone in the world could use, you'd use XML. XML is particularly useful when you don't care what the receiving machine is. For many interoperable binary representations, you have to communicate to the receiver to figure out what each other are, at least in terms of endianness and data sizes (int = 4 bytes, double = 8 bytes, etc.) and either the sender or the receiver is required to translate the data before it can be used. In XML, you really don't care. You just formulate XML and send it, the other side only has to have an XML parser (which is nasty in itself) to reassemble the data into a native form.
Besides, parsing XML is work. You not only take a hit in how much data you send across the wire but you have to have an XML parser to turn the stuff into a native representation on the receiving sides in order to manipulate it. Again, the only reasons you'd use this is for interoperability, not for performance, and definitely not to keep them simple (XML representations of data can get quite complex) and definitely not to have it in human readable form (who cares if humans can read it?).
If you want performance and are only on Windows, you use native. If you want interoperability and performance, you use a different binary form. If you want maximum interoperability, you use XML.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Bingo. What I'd like to see is interoperability between all the OS's and applications that are already out there, and that doesn't mean "my way or the highway" monolithic solutions. It means "don't reinvent the wheel". If a de-facto standard already exists and still covers what most users need and want, stick with it.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Where, oh where are the Java-based spreadsheets, word processors, webbrowsers, games etc.. or are they all stuck in some far off webserver or relegated to those mostly annoying applets?
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Perhaps you're just not looking at the right bookshelf.
Don Box's Essential.NET is an indepth look at what ``wire's up'' the.NET Framework and Common Language Runtime.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
LPetrazickis
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I fail to see a contradiction between proposition
A:.net will bind you to MS until the universe collapses
and proposition
B: the universe will not collapse
If I am not mistaken, logic dictates that.net will bind you to MS forever.:P
--
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
stoborrobots
·
· Score: 1
Windows DNA
Since I first saw this token (much) AFTER the launch of.NET, I thought that it was the secret codename for Windows Dot Net Archtecture.
Then one day I stumbled across a site referring to the Windows Distributed interNet Application Architecture, i.e. ActiveX and COM, etc...
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
zero_offset
·
· Score: 1
You got it pretty close for somebody who (I'm assuming) doesn't use it and hasn't studied it much.
First of all,.NET has nothing to do with ActiveX -- but I think the point you were trying to make was that the marketing name.NET is analogous to the term ActiveX used as a marketing term, so I'll not hassle you on that point.
.NET's virtual machine *is* the Common Language Runtime. You're right that the CLR is a major piece of.NET, but you're fuzzy on how things are split apart. There is the Intermediate Language (IL), the CLR, and the CLI (a specification on which the CLR is based). For the sake of breaking.NET into its various important parts, you can more or less lump all these together (along with many utilities like the assembler and disassembler, and so on). This perspective effectively masks many important features of the CLR such as its excellent reflection support, the local component model, security features, the wide array of runtime compartmentalization options, and so on.
The language C# is part of what is covered by.NET. Contrary to popular belief, C# was largely developed independently of.NET, although there was a lot of collaboration during the final year or so. The best evidence of this is that the CLR can do things that C# can't do. While it's common to state that C# is just Java warmed over, anyone familiar with a wide variety of languages knows most languages have a lot in common. Frankly Java is just C warmed over in terms of syntax. I personally believe C# programming "feels" more like non-.NET VB programming than Java programming (and I mean that "in a good way", to whatever degree that can be said about VB programming).
Finally, there is the rather enormous class hierarchy which is built on top of the rest of.NET. As you allude to, this can very generally be viewed as a replacement for Win32, although it's functionality actually covers much more than Win32 ever did. The nice thing about the class hierarchy is that it was all designed from the ground up -- unlike previous Windows APIs (not just Win32), it isn't the result of years of changes, improvements, fixes, and new ideas all lumped together. It's quite powerful and very feature-rich. While web services has received a lot of hype from the Microsoft marketing machine (disproportionately so), web services is actually just a tiny sliver, just one of several remoting options. It doesn't replace RPC with system services unless, for some reason, the programmer (or in some cases the admin) decides they want to do it that way.
That is probably the most high-level way possible to break down and understand what constitutes the group of things collectively referred to as.NET.
--
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
NulDevice
·
· Score: 1
Hey, I can get "Hello World" to compile on almost any platform.
Still having a little trouble with the OS X port, though...
--
----
"I used to listen to Null Device before they sold out."
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
NulDevice
·
· Score: 1
Now more to your lack of a point. Java runs GREAT on Windows 95-XP.
Well, provided you don't have directDraw enabled or aren't using the java2d package...
(lemme tell you how painful it was to discover *that* little incompatibility...)
--
----
"I used to listen to Null Device before they sold out."
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
FatherOfONe
·
· Score: 1
Wow, I wasn't aware of that issue. Could you explain it a little more.
I still think that my point stands though... 'Most' applications work well on any version of Windows as long as you have a consistant JVM. To be honest I have found that most of my apps (business apps) need no work at all to port them to Novell/Solaris/AIX/Linux/Windows.
I hope to get a Mac soon to try out development on OSX.
-- The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
$exyNerdie
·
· Score: 1
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
Raven42rac
·
· Score: 1
double touche
-- I hate sigs.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
scrytch
·
· Score: 1
> You got it pretty close for somebody who (I'm assuming) doesn't use it and hasn't studied it much.
Written a bit of C# for kicks, wrote a vb.net mode in emacs (alas it's gone so don't ask me for it), played with webmatrix, but i can't say i've done anything serious with it. The whitepapers that I never got to reading much of gave me the impression that CLR was more of a calling convention, linker format, and type conventions that worked across languages, but that it could be in the realm of either IL or native code. OLE3 I guess, and that the IL was actually a subsystem of it, so that the CLR would underpin everything, the VM ran on top of that, and web services (the most dubious of "technologies" as opposed to marketing hype) would be implemented on top of that.
Maybe.NET is like the Tao. The.NET that can be named is not the true.NET...
Anyway, I learned what I did largely because I was very excited about the possibility of languages like haskell and ocaml running on it. What we're getting now is Mondrian and F#, which are so stripped down as to be useless compared to their capable parent languages. At one time I was defending.NET against uninformed detractors, but I'm afraid that it's just going to end up as web services, glorified heavyweight RPC, and that all sign of innovation that really makes a difference to any other programming approach will be ruthlessly crushed. And that goes for Java too.
-- I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
NulDevice
·
· Score: 1
I discovered, while running a few different Java apps (SunOne, Eclipse, and a java image viewer I was playing with) that DirectDraw (with some video cards, not all, which is what makes this a really nasty bug) conflicts with the java2d package. Conflicts to the point of causing video to freeze or other nasty little bugs. For instance, you can't quit out of a java app. It just hangs there and eventually your system freezes.
however, running dxdiag.exe and disabling directdraw before running a java app seems to have fixed the problem.
--
----
"I used to listen to Null Device before they sold out."
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
OneEyedApe
·
· Score: 1
I did not say that it was perfectly easy, but if you are careful at the beginning, it is not that hard to port.
-- Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all.... --Thomas J. Kopp
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
ratfynk
·
· Score: 1
Actually a better description of.NET is as a Reusable Object Linking Format or ROLF..which is what I do when my browsers gets.NET popup disease.
-- OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
VE3MTM
·
· Score: 1
I bash Microsoft on a regular basis *because* I know what I'm talking about. I code in C# on.NET every day at work. Sure, it makes it all nice and pretty to make a GUI and all that jazz, but when you get right down to it, there's very little that's truely innovative. It's not the "anti-MS zealots" that need to get their heads out of the sand, it's those like you who hide behind a veil of anonymity
Re:.Net was never clearly defined
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Wait for another 2 years and then you will see. When longhorn is released you will see how Microsoft has positioned.Net, its a huge gamble for them. But it just might work for them. Most older applications on longhorn will work as legacy applications. Only newer managed applications will be supported. And that is when.Net will really work out.
It's time to move on. Microsoft needs to concentrate more on their operating system's security rather than a stupid internet framework that never took off. Sure, it's interwoven with some of their later OSes, but it's crap. Move on.
Troll explained
by
metamatic
·
· Score: 4, Informative
1, 2 and 4 are things UNIX has been able to offer for years.
3 is highly dubious. What's the connection between SOAP, virtual machines, and ping times?
5 is pure Microsoft marketing--look at their ads. Fact is, time after time independent analysis shows that TCO is lower for non-Microsoft solutions, both closed and open source.
-- GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Re:Troll explained
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
1,2, and 4 have existed in Windows since NT 4. To analyze his post point by point is a waste. He is a troll plain and simple. A moderator how wasn't smoking crack would see right through it.
Move On? Hardly
by
grennis
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Roughly half the jobs listed in Windows want at least some.NET or C# experience. The majority of the others are J2EE/Java.
This article is just more FUD. There is no doubt that.NET, and ASP.NET in particular (aspx pages) is the future of software development on Windows - on Linux also, if you believe Mono...
I agree. Where I work, we're switching over to.Net this year, although we're not migrating our legacy apps just yet (we have a LOT of legacy apps; we're a state agency, we still have mainframes running old COBOL apps around here somewhere). All new development is going to be.Net. It's a godsend for people who've been suffering under VB6 -- finally, some OOP! Now, if I could only get my boss to admit that C# is better than VB.Net... Sigh...
I think you have to keep.Net in perspective. As long as you only expect it to be a solid development environment that makes certain useful things easy to implement (web services, etc), you won't be disappointed by it. If you try and frame it as some kind of super-technology that'll cure all the ills of IT, well, you'll be disappointed. It's all about perspective.
With.Net, Microsoft has given applications developers the tools they need -- finally. Java got there a couple of years ahead of Microsoft, of course, but what can you do? Better late than never, right?
I was in the audience of one of the.Net Presentation some months ago... I must admit I was quite impressed by Web Services, OO, Program Once/Run Anywhere, etc...
But, Web Services are absolutely not related to.Net, even if it's marketed as such (J2EE Business in the target... say hello!!:) ).
C# is interesting but too much inspired by Java... nothing so new or useful at this time.
This f*****g CLR is not portable, because old.COM is included in!
And finally ASP.NET is lol!
It could be great, if you keep your eyes closed , and whisper... but it sucks.
Re:From "Great" to old ideas
by
zero_offset
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
C# is too inspired by Java? Java syntax was inspired by C. Big deal. C# is still a better language. The devil is in the details. Show me boxing in Java.
.COM is not "included in" with the CLR in any way. The CLR supports something called COM-interop, but that's just backwards compatability. You can make a fully compliant CLR on another platform which never goes near COM but still runs full.NET applications.
And finally... "ASP.NET is lauging out loud"? What the hell does that even mean? I personally don't like ASP.NET, but at least it's far more consistent than PHP is or probably will ever be.
Return to class, you obviously have some catching-up to do.
--
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Re:From "Great" to old ideas
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Does anyone actaully understand what.Net represents?
Some say web services, some say CLR, some (MS marketeers anyways) say "A method of reducing project costs and development times" (informative or what).
Half (or more) of the problem is that the marketing department at MS went into overdrive and announced that everything they were making was.Net.
What does this mean? Isn't this just more FUD?
Re:From "Great" to old ideas
by
OpCode42
·
· Score: 2, Funny
The devil is in the details.
Damn right... it's in the details... And like details in Java are not used, detaisl in C# too. Details don't represent a big improve, because if you use details, that most of people don't know (remeber, most of people comme from VB!) then your code is much more difficult to read.
You can make a fully compliant CLR on another platform which never goes near COM but still runs full.NET applications.
You wish! Even the M$ representatives say, you can't be fully compliant, because the API is not public. Just take a look at Mono !
...but at least it's far more consistent than PHP is or probably will ever be.
PHP5 should be equivalent to ASP for OO, but please ASP.NET is not really interesting, compared to PHP: facility, ease of use...
Return to class, you obviously have some catching-up to do.
You should attend to one!!:)
I have achieved it! (MsC)
Re:From "Great" to old ideas
by
goodviking
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
When Java was first released, umpty squat years ago, it introduced a lot of good concepts to the wider programming community (yeah yeah, smalltalk blah blah blah). The good news is, the language is adapting and evolving based on a community input process, and real world feedback. There are some things that maybe should or could have been done in different ways, but all in all, I keep comming back.
Re:From "Great" to old ideas
by
anshil
·
· Score: 1
How about learning the details of the english language?:o)
comme -> come archieve etc.
--
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
Not really interested, I think I handle it quite well... when I type correctly.:D
So I should learn to type... but I don't pay attention to comments which don't really impose it.
(Surprise, i payed attention to my reply to your post!:) Enjoy!:c) )
Re:From "Great" to old ideas
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's a fun read.
And 24 months late.
IHNBT
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Who is this? (Also, I'm working. Which means IHBT after all.)
It should be patently obvious that I am
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
rusty. Truth be told, I spilled some monocle polish on the MySQL server. I'd clean it up now but I got yacht lessons later today. K5 will be back then.
It's like neocons and Clinton
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Don't you guys think it time to move on?.Net is not the everything that Microsoft wanted it to be and that's fine. Passport sucks but the Net environment kicks ass for development. I think the haters need to move on.
That's what they said about Windows CE
by
cloudscout
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Remember when Windows CE had been out for a couple of years and everyone was declaring it a failed technology? Look what happened after that...
Now, I'm not saying that.NET is still bound to be a success, but it's still too early to count 'em out. We're not talking about BOB here.
Re:That's what they said about Windows CE
by
zulux
·
· Score: 1
Remember when Windows CE had been out for a couple of years and everyone was declaring it a failed technology? Look what happened after that...
Microsoft is still proping up Pocket PC 2003 (what CE is now) - it doesen't make the company any money.
Basically, MS gives away PPC 2003 to the OEM for almost nothing. Rumor has it, that it sells for $3 a pop - Palm charges around $25 for high end units as an example of of a real business harging mone for vale.
--
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Re:That's what they said about Windows CE
by
civilizedINTENSITY
·
· Score: 1
Pardon my ignorance, but isn't Windows CE a failure?
First,.NET is NOT "rebranded VB"..NET isn't even a program language, rather a development platform.
Also, there is no cost to use.NET, only to use the development tools Microsoft produces. Hell, use the sdk that they give out for free.
I can't personally comment with complete confidence on php, as I have only used it sparingly. But from what I've seen, at least in terms of development time, any.NET web dev technology would be far faster to develop any decent sized site.
You might want to use the.NET technologies, and get a better understanding of what it is, before you start making comments.
java
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's been ten years since we were first introduced to java and virtually none of the promised advantages have come true. Is it time for Sun to move on?
What do you mean, none of it's promised advantages?
Java applets do work on MS Windows based computers, but you have to install a newer version of Microsoft Internet Explorer and a Sun JRE yourself.
Essentially Microsoft screwed Sun by "enhancing" Java so that MS enhanced Java is NOT CROSS PLATFORM and MS also deliberately kept behind on Java technology. When Java was up to Ver 1.3, which is VERY ADVANCED, MS only supported 1.1 on I.E. 5+
I could go on all day about the bullshit I'd been through working with Java on MS products... but I'll work myself into a rage and probably go look for a dog to kick.
Let's review. Sun's claims for Java -- and this is all about CLAIMS -- were that we'd have feature-rich client applications that we wrote once and they magically ran everywhere.
This has failed to happen.
Why? Two reasons. Java applets were HUGE when users predomaninantly had 28.8K connections and 56K was still considered fast. Write-once/Run-anywhere was a lie -- deploying a Java applet that worked reliably across multiple platforms was an expensive and time-consuming task. Consequently, it didn't get the consideration it probably deserved.
MS had the absolute flat-out best performing JVM and JIT in the industry for a LONG time, and even Sun did not dispute this fact. The controversial Java extensions that landed MS in court did not affect a Java program which didn't use them. MS did not ship a JVM compliant with later releases because they were NOT ALLOWED due to Sun's own legal action.
Finally, if you had real-world Java experience in the early days, you'd know it was the Mac JVMs that were the worst and most buggy (well, and some UNIX versions, ironically the Solaris JVM was awful). I had a room full of machines for applet testing, and it was extremely rare that we had to code work-arounds for the Windows JVMs...
So, in conclusion, according to the standards being questioned here -- whether it delivered on it's initial promises -- Java fails miserably.
Clearly Java has excelled elsewhere, but the earlier poster has made a good point.
--
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
The controversial Java extensions... otherwise known as "breach of contract".
And history is irrelevant to the current state.
Re:java
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You beat me to it! If you look further down, you'll find I made almost exactly the same comment except I said 8 years instead of 10. For a minute there I thought somebody was editing my post.
> Java applets were HUGE when users predomaninantly had 28.8K connections and 56K was still considered fast.
The Java Runtime Environment is currently 10MB as a one-time download, but the applets themselves are typically ~10-50KB
> Write-once/Run-anywhere was a lie -- deploying a Java applet that worked reliably across multiple platforms was an expensive and time-consuming task. > it was extremely rare that we had to code work-arounds for the Windows JVMs
If you write to the MS standard, you do work-arounds for the rest, but using the Sun's Offical Java Developer Kit to run on Sun's Offical Java Runtime *does* work with "write one / run anywhere"
-- I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
Applets are typically 10-50KB today for that exact reason -- the types of full-scale applications we were sold on in the early days were too big. Remember, back then there wasn't much server-side to rely upon except early, simple ASP, CGI, ISAPI, and things of that nature.
Keep in mind the discussion here is about what was promised when it rolled out. The way things are today is just as irrelevant here as speculation about what.NET might be in seven or eight years.
--
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Microsoft's intentions were good -- get everybody using the same runtime environment and libraries, but their execution was poor,.net was surrounded by a cloud of "what is it?" and "how does it work?". They should have spent more time explaining what it is and how it works and less on "look it's like magic".
-- "Talent does what it can; genius does what it must."
Re:they have ZERO chance
by
Malc
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Have you actually developed ASP.Net pages? It doesn't sound like it. It's certainly not restricted to rebranded Visual Basic. It's language neutral. I've worked with some developed with C#. Visual Studio.Net is an excellent tool too... it's fantastic for debugging multiple binary and scripting processes, and stepping almost transparently straight in to database stored procedures and then back out to the web page. PHP4 might be good, but the current ASP.Net and its supporting tools are pretty good too. You have to pick the right tools for the right job, and sometimes that means ASP.Net rather than PHP4.
.NET = Windows API 2.0
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
.NET has little to do with anything.NET. It's a new Windows API designed to turn Windows into a virtual machine like Java so it can be architecture independent. That's what CLR and C# and all the rest of that stuff is about. It's about MS getting off x86-32 and into a larger world of ia64, amd64, and maybe even ppc64. CLR is the new Windows runtime. Once the move is complete, Windows will be able to run on anything and apps will not have to be recompiled at all. This will make Windows more portable than *nix.
Re:.NET = Windows API 2.0
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
not to throw a monkey wrench into the works, but the only reason the windows platform stays around now is inertia -- people have legacy apps they can't live without. How will those run under.NET? if they can't, people won't switch. And if they use an emulator, then why not go with a lower TCO system? (being held captive to MS is becoming less and less appealing to many businesses.)
Re:.NET = Windows API 2.0
by
StrawberryFrog
·
· Score: 1
The parent comment is correct and insightfull..NET is MS's System API, done better with hindsight and OO
not to throw a monkey wrench into the works, but the only reason the windows platform stays around now is inertia -- people have legacy apps they can't live without. How will those run under.NET? if they can't, people won't switch.
Legacy Apps that are compiled to x86 machine code by definition don't and can't run under.NET.
people won't switch
Not entirely no, but it soon will be the default way to write new windows applications. Considering that it's on a VM, insulated from the hardware, this means that say 5-10 years after that, most windows programs will be portable by default (say it softly: just like java!).
And if they use an emulator, then why not go with a lower TCO system
You are refering to that "open source" malarkey, aren't you? No seriously, I'm sure that some will, and some won't.
being held captive to MS is becoming less and less appealing to many businesses
I'm sure that they have enough sense not to cut of thier own money supply.
--
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
Re:.NET = Windows API 2.0
by
Ender+Ryan
·
· Score: 1
Hmmm... That's interesting, but entirely wrong. Windows will never be as portable as Unix. Windows will run on whatever Microsoft decides to support. Unix runs on everything..NET will run on whatever people write a CLR for, but.NET is not the whole of Windows. Windows apps will only run on Windows, and will have to be ported to other.NET systems that don't support all of Windows' features.
-- Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Given what we hear about the internal state of the OS code, which I admit is gossip, I think the likelihood of MS porting the Windows kernel to other machines is pretty damn low, just on the work-for-return equation.
I'd say.Net was an attempt to destabilise Java, as Java kinda naturally leads to Unix.
Justin.
-- You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
What? This is and will be only one Windows from one company. Portability isn't even possible. Programs will still have to be written for Microsoft's runtime using Microsoft's APIs and Microsoft's operating system. Customers will still be locked in. Nothing will change.
As far as platform support is concerned, please consider these kernels: Linux and NetBSD. Between those, has any platform been missed?
Re:.NET = Windows API 2.0
by
blakestah
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It's a new Windows API designed to turn Windows into a virtual machine like Java so it can be architecture independent.
That statement is a laughable sham, and I am sure M$ is glad you brought it up. Windows controls the hardware, and not the other way around. It has been this way for a long time - Windows killed Alpha, for example..NET is all about providing a web programming interface that fits better with Windows than Java, to force lock-in on the operating system AND the network interface. It is like Java without platform independence, so that Microsoft can make even more money. Predictably, the developer tools are so simple even a Visual Basic monkey can make a web application. Predictably, the bytecode interpreter is buggy and insecure - this is not what will win the battle. Microsoft will make life REALLY easy for developers, they will make development costs low for web companies, and.NET will attempt to throw Java out the window.
Re:.NET = Windows API 2.0
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It is interesting that you mention this. Microsoft has begun a project to port.Net to some Unix platform(s). I know this because I interviewed in Redmond for an SDE position on the development team doing the porting. They were looking for experienced engineers with a strong background in Unix, possibly with some.Net experience thrown in. I didn't get the job, though--apparently they cared more about solving all the little puzzle questions as quickly as possible rather than whether I'm a good developer or not. Perhaps that's why too many of their software products are not well-received: they are too intent on making sure new blood thinks and acts exactly like they do as opposed to actually making stuff that works well (i.e. being a good, practical software engineer).
(Didn't even get asked a single thing about Unix, which was definitely a surprise.)
Re:.NET = Windows API 2.0
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
This will make Windows more portable than *nix.
For shame, everyone is misunderstanding your comment. This doesn't mean that Windows will run on anything you want it to. It means that Windows will run on anything Microsoft wants it to, with minimal effort.
You see, before.NET, if Microsoft wanted Windows to run on a new machine, they have to recompile the whole OS, then recompile all the apps. Now it's just the base OS and the CLR. Half of the OS and all the apps would run unchanged.
Re:.NET = Windows API 2.0
by
DuncMan
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It's a new Windows API designed to turn Windows into a virtual machine like Java so it can be architecture independent.
[snip]
It's about MS getting off x86-32 and into a larger world of ia64, amd64, and maybe even ppc64.
Windows NT was billed as cross-platform, portable, Windows. Microsoft dropped platforms, even DEC's excellent 64-bit Alpha, until they were down to just Intel's pedestrian 32-bit 80386. If your claims are true then explain why Microsoft woudl repeat something they already tried and abandoned?
This will make Windows more portable than *nix.
Er... *nix can be, and has been, ported to pretty much anything which has a C compiler and a pulse. I find it very hard to believe that;
Microsoft care at all about portability (beyond their prescribed platforms)
Windows can ever be as portable as *nix.
Apropos all this, if the world is so desperate for 64-bit CPUs- or Windows on 64-bit CPUs- why did everyone walk away from Alpha? A perfectly good 64 bit platform which was available around a decade ago.
Re:.NET = Windows API 2.0
by
maraist
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Sorry to be a repeat post. But a quick summary: 1 MS wants to be a monopoly on software
2 MS needs to squash all other forms of hardware (including hand helds) to accomplish 1.
3 Cross platform stands in the way of 2. Thus must be squashed.
4 In accordance with 1, MS buys/recreates most/all forms of software especially compilers.
5 In accordance with 4, there is a MS java compiler/environment. To facilitate 3, the MS environment squelches cross platform capability through market share of ms-specific tweaks for applets / java applications.
6 SUN doesn't allow MS to enhance the java language (instigated by 4), thereby thwarting MS's efforts to obliterate cross platforming.
7 MS realizes some benifits to a common API (a la MFC / java.*), and sees a benifit to customers if they only have to learn a single API, but can share code between different developer types (simple ASP / VB, corporate C++). Moreoever, COM is too complex on the C++ side. MS's particular solution to a common environment was to literally have a shared execution space between differing programming widgets. This makes a simpler replacement for COM.
8 MS already has a working and somewhat industry proven java-engine, so only a few minor tweaks are needed to make it CRL/.NET. It is likely that the decision to make CRL was in the middle or possibly even the beginning of the MS java initiative.
9 With the release of.NET, they now have a new product with which they can innovate to the same degree as COM/DCOM, or any other nifty MS technology that I've happily ignored for over a decade.
10.NET will run slower and consume more memory than well written c/c++ code, and with.NET (a la java.*), it's likely that people will write highly inefficient C# / VB code which will formulate the bulk of our future application bases on the windows platform. Thus hardware requirements will go through the roof, thereby instigating hardware upgrades. All of which require new licences of MS Windows and all other MS software, thereby continuing More's law.
So there you have it.. A completely logical motivation chain. As you can see, cross-platform is in violation of some of the steps, so you are very likely to see frustrations in the independent porting process. Moreoever, with somethink is centralized as.NET, it's even more likely to have back-doors known only to the MS camp which provides unfair competition. If you make a good IDE (to compete against Visual Studio), or a word process, but use C# (I'm assuming we're not crazy enough to consider VB.NET), then MS can easily add to the next version of.NET some purposeful slowdowns for the competing software... Unlike some previous issues (DR DOS having issues with win 3.x thanks to explicit breaks in their code),.NET can simply forget to activate certain optimizations for competing software at intermittant times with hardly a notice to the developers.
Making development costs low for web companies is a *good* thing.
Now, I'm using Java in my job exclusively, and I'd be the first to admit that it has a high learning curve.
From COBOL on, the promise of programming languages has been to merge the programmer and user. HTML and VB have been two of the closest that we've seen. If.NET can allow a user to go to a week long class and be able to get a few small issues done without paying someone a thousand bucks or pestering the poor admin (who does all his work in perl and has no clue on guis), I'm all for it.
Heck with the Shared Source CLI and/or Mono you can run some.NET apps on Unix/Linux. While currently the apps that you can run are mostly simple and pretty much restricted to the commandline it does show that with a lot of work it may eventually be a viable platform under Unix/Linux.
"truth be told", huh
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Sweet mother of crap, I know who this is!
Re:"truth be told", huh
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No no.. verily is that not me. I mean, that is to say, I don't adhere to the whole posting anonymously thing, well, with the one exception here for the obvious reasons and all that.
Warmest regards, --Bob Abooey
If Sun didn't invent Java would .NET exist?
by
wukie
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If Apple didn't implement Xerox's windows would Microsoft have created a version?
If Apple hadn't invented multi-media for micro-computers would Microsoft have it's own implementation?
Microsoft haven't done any (apart from Word for Mac, then later Windows) inventing of their own, and what they have done, has always been a poor copy!.NET is a perfect example.
Re:If Sun didn't invent Java would .NET exist?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Amiga was doing multi-media before the phase was termed.
Re:If Sun didn't invent Java would .NET exist?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
When has the "Open Source" community invented or innovated ANYTHING? Every claimed success (that's not just a clone of ancient stuff) was done either by an individual or by people paid as part of their job and THEN the project was turned into "Open Source".
Re:If Sun didn't invent Java would .NET exist?
by
the_rev_matt
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Word was preceded by WordPerfect, WordStar, and probably dozens of others. Microsofts innovations have always been and will always be in the arenas marketing and licensing.
Re:If Sun didn't invent Java would .NET exist?
by
wukie
·
· Score: 1
You obvious didn't use MS Word 4 on a Mac circa 1986.
Trust me, it rocked, but not as much as laser printers or the Mac OS.
I hear suff like this a lot. I used WP4.2 back then (currently use WP8) and it could not hold a candle to the MS offering.
As for marketing Dell is the hardware equivalent to MS. They don't innovate jack!
Re:If Sun didn't invent Java would .NET exist?
by
wukie
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Open Source: Apache, PHP
I didn't mention Open Source, and I'm not sure what your implying. Without FreeBSD and Linux, we would be stuck with Microsoft and the orginal Mac OS, so you could say Open Source helps push proprietory software along...just look at Mac OSX
Compared to MS Windows, Open Source provides: STABILITY, SECURITY
Open Source does not need to innovate, although it does in virtually every field. Even if Open Source did not innovate, we have lots of great products, we just need to get the bugs out!
Re:If Sun didn't invent Java would .NET exist?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Um... Java was not the first system to use cross platform byte-code.
A poor copy?? Har, har, but C# &.NET is way better than any buggy and nonfunctional Java crap.
Downloading, burning to CDs, giving copies to friends, but not buying.
Re:I'm not buying it either
by
ClubStew
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Exactly, which is why it takes forever to develop and so many OSS jobs fails - it doesn't make any money! That is the point of business now, isn't it? Or have we finally switched to a utopian society, because that's what it's going to take for most OSS companies (ex: linux vendors) to profit).
Re:I'm not buying it either
by
finkployd
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Exactly, which is why it takes forever to develop and so many OSS jobs fails - it doesn't make any money! That is the point of business now, isn't it? Or have we finally switched to a utopian society, because that's what it's going to take for most OSS companies (ex: linux vendors) to profit).
Remember, open source came about and was very successful long before it became a buzz word on wallstreet. Most of us could care less if anyone makes money on OSS, just like before. If the Johnny-come-lately corporations figure out how to make a buck on someone else's work, more power to them. If not, no skin off my back, I'll keep working on OSS and using it. So will, I suspect, many others.
Everyone tries to measure the success of OSS by corporate standards. OSS will live with or without corporate support. Sure the corporations have made it more "legit" in the eyes of some larger companies, and have certainly raisied awareness by bringing the concept into the open. But hey, if they all pack up and leave tomorrow you think OSS will go anywhere? Sure it will be smaller. It will also again be primarily comprised of folks who genuinly care about what they are doing and enjoy it, and well no longer have the wannabe coders and con men just trying to make a quick buck.
Besides, Redhat seems to be doing ok (considering the economy right now). Mandrake filed for Chapter 11 but appearently they are back on the right track and just signed a large deal with HP. IBM is...well IBM. What is changing is every yahoo that thinks they can write a general utility (or internet client, or database, or whatever) and make it rich off of that is getting a rude awakening.
OSS software in many cases is not quite up to par with commercial offerings. However the rate at which OSS software is improving is staggering. The commercial world seems stagnant. I don't see much improvement or innovation coming from there at all. Most just seem to be reinventing existing tech or adding useless eye candy. Microsoft Active Directory? I liked it back in the 90s when it was called DCE and Kerberos..Net? A common runtime library for multiple languages? OS/390 has had that for a good decade as well also. SOAP? gee we haven't seen RPC with discovery features before. And let's face it, there is almost nothing that commercial software can do that a determined OSS coder (or team) with enough free time cannot duplicate. Baring some kind of global ban on the concept of Open Source, I just don't see it going away or losing momentum.
Finkployd
Re:I'm not buying it either
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
And let's face it, there is almost nothing that commercial software can do that a determined OSS coder (or team) with enough free time cannot duplicate.
Great! Where can I get an Open Source version of Diablo II? or even Diablo I?
Re:I'm not buying it either
by
finkployd
·
· Score: 1
Great! Where can I get an Open Source version of Diablo II? or even Diablo I?
Nowhere yet. Remember I said "time" was involved. There are open source replacements for warcraft and civII, it's been a while since I tried them but they were pretty playable when I last did. Is anyone going to try to write "freediablo?" Maybe, maybe not. If you want it badly enough why don't YOU start the project. It would be a great (albiet tedious) way to learn programming if you don't also ready. And assuming enough people want the same thing you so it should attract some more developers.
I also said "almost" nothing. Games seem to be an exception lately due to the amount of almost movie like "production" that goes into them. That, and they frankly are not not important in any sense of the word. Most coders do not feel a need to write games when there is actual work to be done:)
Finkployd
Re:I'm not buying it either
by
ClubStew
·
· Score: 1
As far as personal / community projects go, I can't disagree that OSS is good for such things. I was speaking in the context of corporations, however. Yes, RedHat is doing OK, but they are one of the few.
As far as reinventing things and adding "eye candy", I have to agree and disagree. Yes, things have been a little stagnant lately; but, nothing is good / correct / efficient the first time around (i.e., regarding milestones and not continuous development projects). Active Directory is more akin to Novell's NDS, but is improved and a little more extensible (not like it's easy, though). SOAP is a lot like XML-RPC, but deals with lifetime managed a little better, IMO. And, of course, it's not just MS that's reinventing the wheel. There are many, many corporations out there besides MS.
I don't believe that OSS will go away or that it should. As I said, its great for community projects and what-not. It just doesn't make for a good business model. Like it or not, business are in it to make money (if we're really lucky, they also care about their clients). If they don't, they won't exist.
Re:I'm not buying it either
by
jazman_777
·
· Score: 1
Most of us could care less if anyone makes money on OSS, just like before.
"Spelling and Grammar Patrol on deck!" When will you people learn to say what you mean, not the opposite of what you mean?
-- Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Re:I'm not buying it either
by
fitten
·
· Score: 1
Well... I agree with you to some degree. However, the number of folks who like to play games is an extremely large number. In fact, I've seen CNN and other sources state numbers as high as 40% of the population of the USA play video games, I think. Anyway, there are a lot of folks who want to play games simply as the number of game players shows. The problem is as you state... it takes money to develop games - production costs and paying programmers. Game shops are usually sweat shops, requiring 80+ hour work weeks. This means that you have to do it for a living which means you have to get paid by it as a programmer, you can't work for one job and let that subsidize your hobby as some folks do for some OSS software.
Re:I'm not buying it either
by
johnnyb
·
· Score: 1
But SOAP and XML-RPC are both far cries from CORBA.
SOAP is terrible because it's name is totally wrong. Although they finally stopped using it as an acronym, SOAP originally meant Simple Object Access Protocol. However, it wasn't simple, there were NO objects in sight (SOAP is NOT object-oriented - it's RPC-based - any Object-Orientation in SOAP is a vendor extension), Access is true, but it's not really a Protocol since there isn't even a standard wire protocol - there's a suggestion of how to marshall/encode data, but noone's required to use it.
For OO stuff, CORBA remains to be the butt-kicker. In fact, it's kind of funny, the hard parts of OO (you know, the ones that the SOAP spec specifically says it doesn't handle) are pretty much handled automatically by CORBA.
For non-OO stuff, or simple OO stuff that you don't mind accessing in a non-OO manner, XML-RPC is much simpler than SOAP.
Re:I'm not buying it either
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Please take this off-topic history lesson elsewhere. We're talking.NET here, not OSS, OS/390, or Kerberos. This is not a compare and constrast exercise.
Re:I'm not buying it either
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"A common runtime library for multiple languages?OS/390 has had that for a good decade"
Yet everyone is still trying to invent a workable CLR. Why? Two reasons. First, because machines that run OS/390 doesn't fit on your desk or your wrist or your pocket. Second, because nobody from AT&T (C) to Control Data (PCD2) to IBM (various projects) to TopSpeed (a Borland spinoff) to Sun (Java) has gotten it right yet. Once they get it right, we'll stop talking about it and just use it.
They must be doing SOMETHING right
by
chia_monkey
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Think about it...for three years they've been talking about this amazing.NET thing. And every year the masses go "what the hell is this?" and each year it gets a feature here dropped and a feature there dropped. And yet, after three years, people still talk about it. People still want to develop for it. People are still holding out from developing with any of the other options because of.NET.
So...it may not DO anything just yet, but in terms of stalling development on other platforms and continuing to put MS in the news, I'd say it's a success.
--
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
Re:They must be doing SOMETHING right
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So...it may not DO anything just yet, but in terms of stalling development on other platforms and continuing to put MS in the news, I'd say it's a success.
What does this even mean?
it doesn't DO anything? Silly comment
Stalling development on other platforms? Why, becuase people that are using it have/chosen/ not to user whatever language you are pushing?
Re:They must be doing SOMETHING right
by
jsab
·
· Score: 2
For a long time my general MS antipathy kept me from checking out c# and.Net, but then I discovered Mono and realized that MS had created something great that everyone can benefit from.
The existence of Mono really allows free software coders(in Gnu/Linux) to use mainstream(or emerging mainstream) development platform for the first time. Whether the "software as a service" model works out for MS, the.Net framework has a very bright future as a development platform in both the commercial and free-software worlds.
Re:They must be doing SOMETHING right
by
Sven+Tuerpe
·
· Score: 1
...for three years they've been talking about this amazing.NET thing. And every year the masses go "what the hell is this?"...
I remember that, when I first read about.NET it was described as a strategy. That's probably the most correct description of the key underlying concept.
Re:They must be doing SOMETHING right
by
zero_offset
·
· Score: 1
Let's start with the easy one: What features were dropped, O resident.NET expert?
--
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Funny, I just jumped in on the thread,
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
don't know who parent's parents are. Truth be told, if rusty doesn't get his act together I'm going to cancel my subscription.
Does it matter?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
".NET" was, and still is, a marketing moniker. It's just a euphemism for "synergy", which is itself a euphemism for "monopoly" (think AOL-Time Warner).
Linux is still setting the pace in the industry..NET would actually be something special if it weren't for the open source community pointing out the utter hypocrisy coming from Micro$oft.
Re:Does it matter?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
".NET would actually be something special if it weren't for the open source community pointing out the utter hypocrisy coming from Micro$oft."
I guess by your logic,.NET IS something special to those who are not aware of what the open source community is saying.
finally...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Finally a topic so that all the zealots can bash this morning.
YOU FAILED IT!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You hit the fail on the head!
.Net a total flop
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Aftere using.Net we found out it is no better than VB to us..Net has some major issues still and dont expect it ever getting fixed.
The breadth and depth of your argument is utterly convincing.
Fine work. You're probably on the management fast-track, too.
--
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Re:.Net a total flop
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Sounds like you were already rather predisposed to a certain solution. I doubt you would have switched no matter your findings.
Isn't this the same Microsoft who...
by
youngerpants
·
· Score: 1
insisted that the internet would never be a part of their strategy
OK, not a direct quote, but hey, flame me
EWeek is just upset because
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
their name change from "PCWeek" to "EWeek" has provided "none of the promised advantages" they claimed when they tried to cash in on the "e" craze just before the bubble burst.
All our development is in.NET now, and it's a blast! We have never had this high productivity with any other language or platform. It also runs rock-solid.
.NET is here to stay..NET is the shape of things to come on Windows for a long, long time.
sometimes we go for weeks without rebooting
by
wukie
·
· Score: 1
And other times, how long do you go for?
This is a joke, right?
When business' that lose over $50,000 a minute due to down time this simply is not good enough.
Try running X windows on clients to a Solaris/Linux/Unix box.
For MS Windows, using Cygwin, it's free if you don't need support. If you don't need apps that run on Windows, then you can use Linux/BSD on client computers which is also very cheap if you don't need support.
Platform shmatform....users don't care.
by
zerofoo
·
· Score: 1
.net is a fine development platform for web services, but there are MANY others out there. Joe end user/business manager doesn't give a damn what his/her applications are built on. They only care about ROI.
Most end users and business consumers are not developers. They want to buy products that solve real-world problems. The problem with.net is that the applications have yet to be built and marketed to the end users (on a scale large enough to notice). Even after this happens, most people won't notice that.net is there under their applications.
"...adding that.Net has now almost vanished from Microsoft's vocabulary."
What are they talking about? Next time you're signing out of hotmail, take a good look at that "Sign Out" button! It says "Sign Out (.net)"! And to think i used to sign out using outdated technologies.
--
In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. -Oscar Wilde
The FUD starts in the article
by
beavis88
·
· Score: 1
.Net has now almost vanished from Microsoft's vocabulary
(quote from the article)
What, is he basing this on the rename of the "next" server OS to Windows Server 2003?
Like it or not,.NET is squarely in the middle of EVERYTHING microsoft is offering in the forseeable future. Even if they're not blathering about it in every sentence.
Re:The FUD starts in the article
by
x0n
·
· Score: 1
With you there 100% mate. Everything else aside, the article is an absolutely waste of time -- vaguaries and fud. I was just trying to preempt the inevitable vacuous exchange of misinformation that follows.
Moderators should be able to mod a top level article: this would surely go down as a troll. It seems worse than that even -- the powers that be know they'll get a flurry of postings with a title like that, and that can't be bad for advertising revenue either, can it?
...but as an improved Win development environment, it *is* step forward. Our key in-house app is being written as a standard two-tier app, but using the.Net frameworks and our developer (a former VS 6 guy) is *really* happy with the new APIs...
So it's not the total lost that it may seem.
It's more just a total loss in the MS hype department:-)
A few days ago it appeared in Dutch webmags that QuoteOffice (a.NET based virtual office tool, offered for free in a basic version and for some 20 euros in a PRO version) stops. Not because they ran out of money, but because of technical problems. (see WebWereld (Dutch).
They didn't completely disclose what kind of tech probs they had though. Funny thing is the case is still listed on the MS site as a good example on how to use.NET.:)
-- ---
Woohooo!
In my Experience . . .
by
Badgerman
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The results are really odd..NET adaption went slower than I expected. It was crammed down our throats . . . and no one really seemed to care.
Then, recently (last year) I've seen a real explosion in.NET. Literally I think 75% of Microsofts pushing the tool was useless or even backfired. Time seemed to be needed.
As a developer who has worked in a variety of languages, OVERALL,.NET has some good ideas mixed in with some unexpectedly lame ones. In general I'm able to develop faster and more efficiently (In some cases I've developed ASP.NET applications over twice as fast as ASP, yet with far less ASP.NET experience), but there are moments of strange and odd roadblocks.
Do I think.NET will rule the world? Not really. It's just one of many options. Web development and related technologies seem to be in a phase that's a mix of overcautious and overenthusiastic, and I don't think anyone is sure where things are going right now.
Will Microsoft give up on.NET? I don't expect they will - too much of an investment, too much behind it. It'll get altered and poked and prodded and integrated, but it'll be around in some form for awhile.
-- "The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Re:In my Experience . . .
by
Malcontent
·
· Score: 1
Your post and many others on this topic seem to indicate that.NET is used mostly for web apps.
I find that interesting..NET has been lumped into the web app ghetto where it competes with php and perl.
--
War is necrophilia.
Re:In my Experience . . .
by
Pfhreakaz0id
·
· Score: 1
... web app ghetto?
Man is *ANYONE* doing client server anymore? There isn't any in my neck of the woods. ALL the jobs listed are for web development. All of my friends who have jobs are doing web development. I just checked last sundays classifieds and there was no developer job listed that wasn't web development.
trying to type this despite paroxysms of laughter
by
chasebase
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
I understand that slashdot users generally have an axe to grind against MS, but after reading this most laughable article, which was almost completely devoid of fact, I could not resist replying to this most ridiculous comment. Understand I am not trying to start a big platform flame war, just to point out that this article and comment are devoid of anything remotely resemebling an argument.
The "evidence" that Microsoft's.NET initiative is so flimsy I don't know where to begin. Let's see, something like 200 of the Fortune 500 companies have mission critical apps in.NET. There has been example after example of.NET beating the pants of J2EE in terms of performance (if you don't believe me, download MS's free VB command line compiler and start with a prime number algorithm, then move on from there). And speaking from personal experience I have not yet met a developer who has any depth of experience with.NET who would NOT agree that it is their all time favorite development platform.
The argument that.NET "has almost disappeared from MS marketing" seems like an intentional misstatement of the truth - the fact that some bad marketing people at MS got reigned in, and that they now only call things.NET if they actually involve... you guessed it,.NET. What a straw man argument, pretending as if MS is somehow hiding in shame from some imagined defeat. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The statement that.NET is a rebranded Visual Basic is simly fabricated... even VB.NET was a complete rewrite from the ground up and breaks compatibility with previous VB's, but that is only scratching the surface.
The allegation that PHP4 blows.NET out of the water is ridiculous. With PHP, we are talking about a language where "objects" (and I use the term loosely) are copied by value - that's right, assigning an object causes the entire object to be copied. A language that lacks any kind of modern exception handling. A language that does not include a debugger, and for which the for-pay debugger's remind my of 1987. And IMO, scalability and PHP don't even belong in the same sentence.
Folks, all I am getting at here is that MS is no straw man. If you want to crap all over them, please make sure you're qualified to actually COMPARE the products. And let's all try not to make stuff up.
.NET affecting ping times
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Part of.NET is network architecture. Now that I've drawn you a picture, how that affects ping times should be obvious (unless you are a longtime Slashdot reader, in which case how to tie your shoes may be non-obvious). HTH.
Re:.NET affecting ping times
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
.NET has nothing to do with network architecture. Nice try, though. Anybody who can tie their shoes as well as you can (and I am sure mommy is proud) should know that.
.NET Proof Of Concept
by
Ilan+Volow
·
· Score: 4, Funny
.NET proves without a doubt that it is possible for an entire industry to fake an orgasm.
3 You can pretty much do anything w/ C#, including DirectX stuff
Java is too complicated sometimes: if I use the Sleep function, I have to try{}, and some things are just too confusing (like graphics/images/imageobsevers etc.)
C# is also nice if you want to do a quick W32 app. I think ít's as good as Python (maybe Python is better) Win32 API? You might as well have to build a car just to test an engine...
B-sides the SDK is free as in beer and as.GNU people improve their port, it begins to be as free as in thought... IL is open,BTW (not that java isn't)
Another good thing is taking your APP and using it as an ASP.NET w/ almost no work...
Ok, but that was my opinion...
I think you've got part of it
by
Badgerman
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
First, let me note that I actually do develop in.NET and feel there's a lot of good things there.
However, I think you're onto something here. By pushing.NET, Microsoft really did get everyone to pay attention. Even if people wanted to move on, if they weren't sure what to move on to, they at least stagnated and didn't move on, maintaining some status quo.
I think they got the best of both worlds - a decent product they paired with FUD. That's a pretty tough combination.
-- "The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Re:I think you've got part of it
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
hmmmm,
Shit
Sninola
bias
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
When I'm looking for unbiased news about Microsoft, I always turn to slashdot!
Not bad
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I've been doing software development for 15 years. I use mainly GNU's tools for development (including EMACS which I've used for more than 10 years). I tried Java for a year or so in 96, and It was ok, but required just too much hardware for something serious. Some months ago I needed to use C# in one of my projects. I don't know about.NET, but C# is just beautiful. Also the ability to program in multiple languages is a major plus. At least for me. I'm used to program in multiples languages in a single project (e.g. C for the communication bits, perl for the data massaging, TCL/TK for the presentation, etc). The IDE is not too bad, once I changed the key bindings to behave like EMACS'.... Just a developer's opinion
Well they screwed up with the name slightly
by
rabtech
·
· Score: 1
In reality, there were a whole bunch of things that got swept into the umbrella of.Net, and none of them were relayed.
The next generation of Windows Server (2003) dropped the dotnet name. But by all accounts, IIS 6 is faster and more secure, not to mention it has some awesome new features regarding webfarms, app domains, et al. [It is a total ground-up rewrite]. The OS itself has new tools focused on security out of the box. From what I have seen, I can't wait to get all my 2K servers upgraded so I suppose you can call the "server" side of.net a success, even though it dropped the name. Plus Exchange 2k3 was just released and SQL Server 2k3 is just around the corner, so that part isn't even complete.
The major win has been VS.NET and the runtime. Developer productivity has never been higher on the Windows platform. But all indications are that VS and the CLR may drop the.net name in a future revision, but who knows.
What has been a failure is the whole web-services angle. Hailstorm and the other planned services have not panned out quite as Microsoft might have hoped, but this isn't unexpected.
-- Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
You're insane
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Logic was the toothpick of the last century.
.net web services
by
blowdart
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Microsoft did a bad job marketing.net. First it was web services, then came SQL.net and Windows.net. Even now article like the quoted eweek one talk about.net as it it's simply web services. Add to this the weenies that talk about passport as if it's the be all and end all of.net.
So what have they delivered for the developer? (what follows is my opinion, as someone who has used it and is still using it)
Well there's Visual Studio, an excellent IDE for those that use IDEs.
There's C#, VB.Net and an architecture that has allow Python.net, Perl.net, Fortran.net, Cobol.net and others. The multitude of languages comes into its own when you realise that objects written in one language are easily used in every other language, so you can have 1 developer using Perl, another using C#. Try that in Java. Try any cross language development in Java.
There's the.net framework, an nice OO library which is, of course, available to any.net language.
There's ASP.net which makes development of event driven sites a hell of a lot easier than embedded your own hidden frames and attaching page loads of those frames as javascript events trigger.
There's WinForms, yet another forms interface, but as it's usuable in any language there is no more bodged MFC.
Of course you do have web services, easy SOAP libraries, really nice XML support, remoting and other funky stuff.
Should MS give up? Hell no, they've produced a wonderful environment for developing for windows. Developing more than web services.
I don't think you can comment on.net unless you've used it. Journalists need not apply, nor should MS marketing people:)
Re:Hey, at least they are consistent - give them t
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You should be promptly bitch-slapped...
In the alternate universe where EWeek is objective
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's been eight years since we were first introduced to Java and virtually none of the promised advantages have come true. Is it time for Sun to move on?"
"The first phase of.Net targeted the developers--delivering the tools and technologies to enable them to start building solutions--while the second phase, over the past year, has been providing businesses with an understanding of the value of back-end integration and why it is important to their business."
Phase 3 = ???? Phase 4 = Profit
Do you really think about .Net as a missed goal?
by
C0deJunkie
·
· Score: 1
I mean that the "market momentum" that is evaporating (as insightfully reported by a user below) is already becoming "industry momentum", as in the best plans on the Redmond giant.
I remember a few days ago a post on/. reporting something like Evangelism is War Here's a link to a copy of what has been compared to a MS internal memo about.Net Evangelism.
Dude, even for windows "a few weeks" ain't nothing to brag about. I have a five year old machine sitting right next to me that runs win2k, is connected 24/7 only via a VNC desktop server, and the only time it gets rebooted is when the power browns out - and even then it takes a pretty good brownout.
Heck no they shouldn't be moving on....
by
Asprin
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
There are some compelling advantages to.NET -- REAL compelling advantages. The thing is that it's takes a boatload of time for a new development platform to get to the mainstream: You're looking at two or three years to get the developers comfortable enough to start working with it, then another two or three years to get their apps ported over and another year or two to roll those out to customers.
I figure we should start seeing real concrete examples of the advantages of.NET in, like 2005-06.
Don't believe me?
USB.
Or even better, how about Win32? We *still* have at least two industry-specific Win16 apps that are under a current maintenance contract. Hell, most of the non-MSOffice Win16 crap was just replaced around four years ago with the Y2K upgrades, so we're still in the process of depreciating it!
All of MS's apps will be.NET in November, but contrary to what the open source community believes, MS Office will only get you so far -- it is by far not the most important piece of software we run. The developers are the key, and MS understands this. You need to get **THEM** interested in developing on a new platform (.NET, MONO, Java, LAMP, ELF or whatever) about five years before you want anything to happen.
I think we should note that VS.NET and the CLR have only been released since Feb 2002, although betas were available for two years before that.
Of course development of Windows Server 2003 started right after W2K server was released.
I think the article in question was going on about web services, in which case 2001 ought to be the correct timeframe.
So this huge dubious.net umbrella actually catches a number of things, which each have differing timetables. They also each have different levels of success or failure. (VS.NET/CLR = great success, server 2003 = too early to tell, web services = total flop)
To quickly address #2, you do realize that System.gc() is a _suggestion_ to the VM and nothing more, right? Garbage collection in Java is completely automated, and System.gc() just says to the VM "hey, if you're not terribly busy, why not do some cleanup".
It's not in-line compiling that's slow
by
DrSkwid
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I use Inferno and it does (optionally) just in time compiling, the speed difference is discernable but not inhibiting.
If you are interesting in VM design you might enjoy this light read:
NOTE: Originally appeared in IEEE Compcon 97 Proceedings, 1997.
-- There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Microsoft Marketing Machine
by
quark2universe
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The MMM (Microsoft Marketing Machine) does not waste time, money, and resources on something they don't need to market any more. For example, MS Office, they have done any real marketing for it in years because THEY DON'T HAVE TO. It is now monopolized to the point that it markets itself.
The same applies to.NET. They no longer need to market it because it is now the default development platform for a WINDOWS environment. They accomplished their goal of getting everyone to believe that it is Microsofts internal development platform for all their products (whether it is or not is now irrelevant). That's enough for 90% of the bozo^H^H^H^Hmanagers out there to say "We should use.NET. MS uses it internally. No one ever got fired for choosing Microsoft." What a pity.
--
Believe in things of which no person has ever learned
mod parent to 3 and grandparent to 6...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No kidding... that is by far my favorite MS PR tactic. And, yet, people still seem to buy it. Bet the company? As if...
Re:.NET Opinion
by
BigGerman
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Respectfully:
1. C# JIT to latest Java JIT - about the same speed. Now, in some cases (encryption for example), c# is 100 times faster than Java (native libraries maybe?)
2. Java garbage-collects automatically as well. gc() simply forces the garbage-collection to happen.
3. "Doing anything" requires you to leave "managed" code and go native. Even for simple things - like opening the "Open folder" dialog.
4. Exception handling is there for reason. Makes larger projects much cleaner.
Having said that I do believe that c# is very good language and I use it personally for the reasons you stated.
.Bob
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
.Bob
'nuff sed
Re:.Bob
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
.Bill?
Catchy - with double meaning that just $ays it all, really.
Three years is just the beginning.
by
Simon+Hibbs
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
For a start, the article itself isn't as negative about.NET as the slashdot post blurb implies. Yet another example of a slashdot post missleading us about the article beign referenced.
The fact is that the.NET is a developer thing, not realy an application thing. This automaticaly means it's goign to take several years longer than an application level technology to make an impact because all those developers need to get skilled up before they can even begin developing the apps.
Microsoft's own apps are only just barely beginning to integrate the core.NET technology of the.NET VM and the associated web services and XML capabilities it enables. The core Longhorn services are all being built on.NET so anyone who thinks it's time to Microsoft to move on from.NET fundamentaly has no clue about Microsoft's development strategy.
The best comparrison is probably Java. How logn did it take before Java rocked the world, er, well some of us are still waiting for it. Actual it did have a big impact in some areas, but generaly not the areas it was orriginaly aimed at. Where are all the Java thin clients now? Perhaps the same will happen with.NET and it's ultimate destiny may lead it in different directions than Microsoft or anyone else can currently imagine. If Mono realy takes off, that could be one of the catalysts for disruptive technological change.
Well, it's a mix of both. There are alot of students there who have no clue when it comes to computers. These people usually don't get weeded out until the junior or senior year. The computer science program at the main campus has limited space and is very hard to get into, the computer science programs at the branch campuses are easier to get into, but hard to pass for someone without a clue.
They do teach basic unix skills, but that's not the focus of the program. The courses are mostly programming and math based (since CS is a branch of math, that's what they focus on).
" "One of the ways we are currently using Web services is by creating wrappers around legacy systems in our factory environment, which is allowing us to extract information from those systems and deal with the factory environment at a higher level," Scott said."
Apparently, "phase 2" of the.Net plan was to write grep.:)
-- Bowie J. Poag
.NET vs. Java and Free Software
by
Joey+Vegetables
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
.NET does not offer much of value over Java or Free Software alternatives, except a fairly nice IDE.
.NET is significantly better than previous M$ offerings (VB6, ASP, VBScript), although it shares the weakness of being more or less Windows-only and is somewhat hard to learn.
Web Services were a good idea that showed up at the wrong time. If not for the dotcom bust we would be seeing a lot more. The beauty of Web Services is that they allow for genuinely distributed computing using open standards and protocols. I have no doubt that M$ would have polluted this idea eventually, but, also thanks to the bust, it really hasn't had the chance.
I always recommend free, cross-platform solutions wherever possible (PHP, Perl, Python, Apache, Linux or *BSD, Zope, wxWindows, etc.), but if you have a lot of legacy VB and/or ASP stuff,.NET almost certainly is better than what you have now.
What .Net REALLY is
by
Trolling4Dollars
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
To misquote David Byrne, its, "...same as it ever was..."
Microsoft is simply taking what they already have and making some changes in the way these components work together and within the context of the internet. The end result should be a computing experience that is fairly smooth to the end user and provides a lot of what's already out there but with different names and faces. This is why they claim to "innovate". Innovation is taking existing "stuff" and using it in new ways. That's not exactly what they do though. Instead they take existing stuff and use it in the same ways they are already used but call them something else.
Examples:
In UNIX we have daemons In Windows they have "Services"
This provides enough of a distinction that the less technically inclined person is going to thing Services are somehow different. But they are really no more than daemons or backgrounded apps.
In X Window System we have "Window Managers" In Windows XP they have the "Theme Service"
Don't believe me? Go stop the theme service in XP and tell me what changes. Just the Window widgets and borders and the look and feel of the Start bar.
In UNIX we have "mount points" for file systems. In Windows 2000/XP they have the ability to mount a drive in an empty NTFS folder.
Microsoft is very good at taking these existing concepts, renaming them and then claiming them as their own innovations even though they haven't changed how the technologies are actually used. They've only renamed them..Net is no different. It will be internet services integrated into the OS with all the "new security" that Palladium will bring and a big happy Microsoft smiley face on the front.
Unix = Here's the internet. Go learn some stuff and have fun.
Microsoft = Here's.Net. It's all ready to go... have fun!:)))
Personally I prefer the Unix approach, but that's just me.
Oh, I almost forgot:
In Soviet Russia we only had two TV channels. Channel One was pro da. Channel Two consisted of a KGB officer telling you: Turn back at once to Channel One.
Re:What .Net REALLY is
by
zero_offset
·
· Score: 1
The end result should be a computing experience that is fairly smooth to the end user and provides a lot of what's already out there but with different names and faces.
That statement is exactly why I spend so much time explaining that Microsoft marketing is.NET's own worst enemy. That is how Microsoft marketing has explained.NET. Unfortunately, it is thoroughly unrelated to 95% of what.NET really is all about.
As for the rest of your post, well, there is nothing new under the sun. When I first learned about OOP, I was pissed. They weren't "methods", they were "functions". Or "procedures". Same argument.
--
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
As for the rest of your post, well, there is nothing new under the sun. When I first learned about OOP, I was pissed. They weren't "methods", they were "functions". Or "procedures". Same argument.
Actually, in OOP, methods can be described as message passing. Methods are just functions only in a few OOP implementations, such as C++. Contrast C++ with ObjC, where you have both function calls and pure message-passing between objects. While a runtime environment must be provided for message passing, it is possible to achieve the same effect with C++, or even C, through the use of threads and message passing mechanisms provided by the OS.
I though the TV channels had you in Soviet Russia.
Re:What .Net REALLY is
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Wow... someone with modpoints has a vendetta. Someone who apparently didn't like what I had to say. No matter. I love it when I get modded up and down over and over again. That must mean I'm doing something right.:P To anyone who modded me down: Fuck you. You can suck my ass for all I care.
Re:What .Net REALLY is
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Services: daemons that you can't disable, much less restart or change the behavior of.
Themes: bloat.
Drive letters: a stupid waste of time.
Re:What .Net REALLY is
by
Alan+Shield
·
· Score: 1
In Soviet Russia we only had two TV channels.
I though the TV channels had you in Soviet Russia.
No, he/she had it right. It's the US where TV channels have you:-)
Just another case of double-standards...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"EWeek has posted an article on Microsoft's.NET initiative. It's been three years since we were first introduced to.NET and virtually none of the promised advantages have come true. Is it time for Microsoft to move on?"
Okay, for starters, the article itself is not as one-sided as the above statement that follows and interprets it, and the juxtaposition of the two makes it seem like EWeek is lambasting Microsoft, when in fact the article is written rather reservedly and makes several concessions. Also, what do you believe the specific promised advantages of the.NET initiative were, such that "virtually" none of them have come true? A list of your own would be nice, since the article does not explicitly make this statement.
If/. covered an article that was as technically superficial, only regarding OSS, the spin would be flagrantly negative and dismissive, if not outright derisive. Yet all the PHP CTRL+C/V coders in the world come out of the woodwork to cheer this semi-criticism of.NET, which should only embarass those that:
1. Can actually code in PHP
and
2. Actually understand what the.NET framework is, how it is implemented, and what it represents.
And last but not least, what do you mean by "move on"? That's like saying "linux still hasn't managed to conquer the desktop arena - is it time to move on?" - which would be equally as ridiculous a proposition, in my opinion. They've released two versions of what many consider to be the best visual IDE on the market, totally centered around.NET, and delivered (where Java notably failed) on their promise of allowing coders with different backgrounds - VB, C++, Perl, whatever - to write to the IL and address the same base class library.
Their only main snafu was initially labeling everything but the kitchen sink with the ".NET" label, which muddled what's otherwise been the biggest positive change in Windows software development in a long while. And they backtracked on that and admitted their mistake.
Is the concept of credit where credit is due this TOTALLY alien to some?
Development good, marketing bad
by
boatboy
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
When.NET first came out, our development team took the plunge, and it has greatly improved development time and the quality of our code. Where scripts and hacks dominated our development before, it's now run off compiled, modular code..NET from a programming standpoint is a great tool.
The only problem I see is MS's marketing strategy of attaching ".NET" to everything. This just confused the term. There really was no reason to call "Windows 2003 Server" "Windows.NET Server", and they finally realized that. My guess is that their marketing geeks saw the success of the "development phase" and went overboard.
Whatever the case,.NET development is good, is here, and will stick around. Slashdotters should welcome it too- There's alot of open source momentum building behind.NET related tech. Take a look at the surge of C# projects in SourceForge, and the push to implement it in linux (Mono and Portable.NET).
From what I've read here, most of the objections fall into two categories:
I don't know what.NET is.
I don't like Microsoft as a company
On the first, if you limit the scope to.NET Framework and associated languages, it's pretty easy to grasp what it is, and see why it's good.
On the second, if this is your sole reason, you're being illogical. That would be like brushing off a good idea from a fellow developer because you didn't like his office.
Re:Development good, marketing bad
by
Sanction
·
· Score: 1
I think you have a handle on the first two reasons, but there is a third major one, cross platform portability. There are a lot of environments where you have to run your software on the platform the customer has chosen. In many shops, this means you need to run on something other than Windows. Sure, Mono is trying, but it will never do the job. C# is not the hard part, the libraries are, and by the time they finish porting them, they will already be obseleted by new versions.
I think a lot of people are nervous because they don't know what it is. How many technologies did people get excited about during the dot bomb era, only to see them fall by the wayside or get buried with a dozen other competing protocols? A lot of companies are very nervous about being early adopters now.
As to staying away from.Net because they don't like Microsoft, that is not illogical at all. It is not like not using someone's idea, using.Net means giving money to Microsoft. A lot of people are careful who they buy from, not wishing to support corporate behavior they find unethical. A second legitimate worry is the number of times MS has pushed people in one direction, only to drop the project and push something else when it doesn't sell like they think it should. This has been less of a problem in recent years, but many developers have long memories.
I think.Net is great for Windows developers, but there are a lot of legitimate reasons for devs working on projects to dismiss it entirely. The open source projects will never be allowed to catch up (MS is famous for the ever changing libraries, almost-but-not-quite standards compliance, and undocumented API's), the libraries are the important part, and lots of people don't like having a single vendor with a bad history controlling them.
-- Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
Re:Development good, marketing bad
by
Tony
·
· Score: 1
On the second, if this is your sole reason, you're being illogical. That would be like brushing off a good idea from a fellow developer because you didn't like his office.
Or more like not partnering with someone who has stabbed you (or people just like you) in the back so many times you feel like Lizzy Borden's folks.
-- Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Re:Development good, marketing bad
by
forgetmenot
·
· Score: 1
On the second, if this is your sole reason, you're being illogical. That would be like brushing off a good idea from a fellow developer because you didn't like his office.
No. It's more like, here's a company that simply cannot be trusted, has a history of screwing anything and everything, has committed crimes and walked away scott free, and here I am not wanting to reward that behaviour with my time or money. If.NET becomes so pervasive that I need to learn it to continue in my career as a software developer, then I'll switch profession. Hell, even living on an Amish farm masturbating bulls would be less distasteful.
I've done all of those things. Mind if I do some poo-poohing?
I'll happily admit that Windows 2000 is a definite improvement over previous Microsoft operating systems. Sadly, the release of XP indicates that they must have thought that was a mistake or something. But Windows 2000 is actually a pretty good business desktop. Of course, in settings like a university lab, you need to re-image the machines using something like Ghost on a very regular basis to keep them from degenerating into sludge, but you already pointed that out.
Equating Windows to the SUV would really be more appropriate here. It has greater hardware requirements, is less safe to operate, is the choice of the majority, is used in many situations where its features are overkill, and is in many ways a symbol of corporate culture. Meanwhile, you have the racecar: heavily tuned by enthusiasts, largely operated by professionals, plenty of customization possible (OK, here the analogy is not as strong, because you _can_ theoretically customize an SUV as much as a racecar, but you'd have a new car when you were done). It does exactly what it is supposed to do. It's interesting that you chose "compatibility" as the merit of Free software, as most people use that as a point to argue in Microsoft's favor.
As another poster noted, your post reads a bit on the trollish side. Microsoft has certainly made great strides in the area of stability, and I agree that zealotry is pointless, but your analogy is reversed.
As for me, I've done the Win2k clients/Linux servers office setup (.com job and current office) and found it satisfactory. But in a different office, where aging '98 machines needed to be replaced and I got to call the shots, I went with eMacs (still Linux on the server, because there's no way we could get the mileage out of our servers we do if they ran Windows, and a college newspaper can't afford an IT army or new server hardware just because).
1. Announce new technology 2. Keep saying it's just around the corner 3. If people start noticing it's vapor, go to 1
The sad thing is: the whole technology industry (not only MS) is centered around the management of expectations, not on delivery. The press is also to blame for this. The number of "reviews" of things that don't exist is staggering. According to the general press,.NET has been an amazing technology for the last three years.
MS realized that, instead of delivering, they can just come up with a brand new expectation for people to focus on. That's why I think MS will soon unveil a new vaporware.
I'd like to believe customers aren't that stupid and will not allow Microsoft to milk that cow forever.
If it's such a failure why is the mono project and dotgnu (or whatever they're currently called) franticly trying to implement a full.NET platform using OSS technology? It takes something cool for the OSS community to really embrace something like this from MS. I think calling this a failure is really turning a blind eye to the whole situation.
Because there is no lowend IDE like Dreamweaver MX for Linux! And IDEs like Dreamweaver make good business sense because they let real people make little usefull apps and let the programmers get on with the hard stuff.
But we already have Java and Beans we really don't need.NET. Microsoft would prefer that you buy VS.net rather than Dreamweaver MX.
I think that ColdFusion is a much better idea for those just starting out though
Mono has always been controversial, in the sense of "Are you fscking out of your mind, what the hell do you think you are doing?". I hardly think it is representative of the whole OSS community. Maybe it is that proportion of the OSS community that can be temporarily immobilized by an intentional plan of Microsoft to put up a tar-baby and then discard it later.
"even if they migrate workstations." you can see the point of failure right there
"even offsite" now your talking just plain science fiction, how can that even be possible, no no, it's just too amazing to be true
"weeks of uptime" would be considered a drastic failure in these parts.
"The TCO is 1/10th of what it was" I could only reduce TCO if I sold my equipment
"maybe this is the real reason the/. readership hates.NET?"
no, it's because it's just not the "Right Thing"
-- There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
.NET is hurting development
by
wandazulu
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I'm a Windows developer who in the year 2003 is using a product that came out in 1998. The venerable Visual Studio 6. The first version of VS.net gave absolutely nothing to straight C/C++ developers who were not interested in C# or windows forms or what-have-you, but instead wanted to write good solid code using an ISO-standards compliant compiler for backend work. VS.net gave us nothing new.
VS.net 2003, that's a different story. It does all the things I want to do in a C++ compiler, but apart from the cost, what do you suppose is keeping the bosses from approving it? That's right:.NET. I have told everyone that it actually has a decent C++ compiler, but everybody thinks that it can only be used for.NET work.
So here I am, about to go back to a compiler that has no partial template specialization, a version of STL that I have to patch *by* *hand*, and if I want to look something up? Well, I've got my msdn help files from October 2001 to explain it to me, because that was the last version that integrated with VS6.
By pushing.NET they've done a good job of alienating the core base of people who write the back end code where too-fast-is-not-fast-enough. Maybe it'll come to the point where if you want to write services or databases or anything where speed and size are most important, you'll use a totally different compiler, say, Borland or Metrowerks. But if you're going to do that, why not also look at other platforms, say, Linux?
Just my $0.02
Re:.NET is hurting development
by
MobyDisk
·
· Score: 1
I have told everyone that it actually has a decent C++ compiler, but everybody thinks that it can only be used for.NET work.
This so true - at my place of work, the company Architects design pieces in C++. But when the developer opens Visual C++ 7 (AKA Visual Studio.NET) their manager comes over and tells them to use C++ 6 because they don't want the risk/cost of.NET. Despite the developer's best attempts to explain that the project will be using straight C++, they are told to go back to the prior version. In some cases, people are installing unlicensed versions of old software because they are only licensed to use the current versions! It's propostrous!
Re:.NET is hurting development
by
kahei
·
· Score: 1
I'm in the same position as you, but I'm not as pissed off. More than half my programming work is with old MFC programs, and I have to stick with the VS version 6 that I've been using since 1998.
So what?
I use that to develop MFC apps, like I use vim to develop Ruby apps. I use VS.NET to develop.NET apps, which is generally a more productive experience than either of the above two.
One day maybe I will only develop.NET (although they'd have to bring out.NET for a lot of platforms first). Until then I use a different set of tools for each environment I program for.
I don't see the problem.
-- Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Re:.NET is hurting development
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The sad thing is that this could be solved by installing a shortcut that says "Visual C++ 7.1"
Re:.NET is hurting development
by
mr_e_cat
·
· Score: 1
On a related issue, they don't support VB now, and as far as I can tell you can't even buy VB6 from Microsoft anymore. This gives a general impression of lack of backward compatibility.
It seems that for once the awesome microsoft marketing machine dropped the ball (probably complacency after after the W95,W98 and XP shock and awe campaigns). They are still trying to turn it around.
Re:.NET is hurting development
by
awol
·
· Score: 1
have told everyone that it actually has a decent C++ compiler
Well then you told 'em wrong. I believe the VS.NET C++ compiler to be a piece of toilet. It is buggy and even when you, take Microsofts advice and "rearrange your header files" to get code to compile, you still have apply Microsofts magical unreleased patch to get the compiler to stop barfing on compiling the system headers!!!
Oh, and how do I know it is them and not us causing the problem? Well because _exactly_ the same code compiles just fine under g++ (2.9x and 3) , Solaris C++ compiles (5.6 and forte), HPUX aCC and Visual Studio versions 5 and 7 and even Tru64. I bet we could even make it work under AIX. In fairness, it may well end up a good compiler but it aint there yet.
-- "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
Re:.NET is hurting development
by
NMSpaz
·
· Score: 1
Well then you told 'em wrong. I believe the VS.NET C++ compiler to be a piece of toilet. It is buggy and even when you, take Microsofts advice and "rearrange your header files" to get code to compile, you still have apply Microsofts magical unreleased patch to get the compiler to stop barfing on compiling the system headers!!!
The original poster did say that the original VC++.net didn't offer much new. The 2003 version (7.1), however is quite simply one of the best C++ compilers out there. See, for example, the Boost Regression Tests to see just how well it complies (higher scores than g++!)
Quit it
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Stop your fucking whining you linux geeks. I'm so sick of listening to your fucking moaning about how you hate Microsoft product X, while your only alternative is some half-baked shitty-ass Linux wannabe app.
I've been working with.NET for over a year now, and I can happily say it's solved hundreds of problems for us and expanded the reach of our application more than 10 fold.
Just because you're too fucking stupid to see beyond your fucking little white box linux "servers" doesn't mean Microsoft has to be. Shut the fuck up.
It actually outperforms J2EE by a lot
by
SirPsychoSexyMD
·
· Score: 0, Interesting
I am a Java developer by trade, but I'm reading up on.NET because it just destroys J2EE on the benchmarks.
Re:It actually outperforms J2EE by a lot
by
Inf0phreak
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Consider this: Microsoft's EULA states that you may not publish a review of.Net's performerance without their explicit written permission. Now tell me if you really think that there will be any negative reviews of it?
MS knows it's a dog. It's as simple as that.
-- ________
Entranced by anime since late summer 2001 and loving it ^_^
Re:It actually outperforms J2EE by a lot
by
AstroDrabb
·
· Score: 1
Exaclty. This is the way it is with most benchmarks and especially MS with not allowing benchmarks for most of their applications. This benchmark also appears to be from from 2001. IMO, the 1.4.x JDK/JRE has some nice speed improvements in it.
-- If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Re:It actually outperforms J2EE by a lot
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Thats standard benchmarking approval requirements in the EULAs. Nvidia have them other people have them. Not because they suck.
Re:It actually outperforms J2EE by a lot
by
Hezaurus
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It's not the JRE improvements it's the code.
The java version had transactions on every freaking operation
MS code had transactions on only the most critical places
The java version used JDBC (which in itself is very good) but the statements
were not using prepared queries! So the oracle db had to 'reinvent' the wheel
on every query
MS version used highly optimized stored procedures
Java version was built as a 'demonstration' or school book implementation
which used lots of meaningless (and performance killing) design patterns
MS version was built by MS to destroy the java version
So ask yourself this:
A few programmers write a petshop demo app that shows one possible way of building such app. How hard it is for any given company X to best that performance?
Hey don't believe me - the sources are there (theserverside) for all to see. Grab both versions and do some comparison. You'll learn that it was a total waste of time to put those two implementations to test.
-- No matter how fast light travels it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it. (T. Pratchett)
Re:It actually outperforms J2EE by a lot
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Perhaps you're correct, but if that's the case then why has Oracle or Sun or some other group written a J2EE version that bests the.NET implementation? If you're so confident that Java will outperform.NET then make it happen...otherwise, concede the Java's slow performance and move on.
Re:It actually outperforms J2EE by a lot
by
icday
·
· Score: 0
MS knows it's a dog.
And it's name is Bob! Woof
Re:It actually outperforms J2EE by a lot
by
bunnyman
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft's EULA states that you may not publish a review of.Net's performerance without their explicit written permission.
MS knows it's a dog. It's as simple as that.
And don't you think that is a review of.NET performance right there? Did you get explicit written permission?
Re:It actually outperforms J2EE by a lot
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"It's not the JRE improvements it's the code. "
As a Microsoft employee said regarding the meaningless Pet Shop comparison at a meeting I attended a few weeks ago: "Obviously you can gain performance if you sacrifice architecture."
Re:It actually outperforms J2EE by a lot
by
TheLastUser
·
· Score: 1
If I remember correctly this comparison was largely discredited for a number of reasons. The thing was funded by MS, for one, then they did crazy things like using local objects in.Net and remote ones in the J2EE implmentation. The Java code was designed as a coding example to illutrate various facilities in J2EE, it was not designed to be a speedy implmentation, whereas the.Net "version" was just the opposite. The layout of the apps were dissimlar, with only the functionality being the same.
Re:It actually outperforms J2EE by a lot
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Wasn't a similar clause in a CA EULA thrown out in court as impeding on an individual's free speech?
Re:It actually outperforms J2EE by a lot
by
Hezaurus
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps you're a troll but I'll still reply:
This was originally about the MS benchmark against the sadly implemented Pet Shop demo. I made no claims about java performance in general. Sun and Oracle are just like MS when it comes to benchmarking, everybody wants to do their best to win a competitor at all costs.
I've no confidence about java being to outperform.NET. I've studied tens of meaningless and meaningful bmarks out there + done some of my own and the conclusion is that their performance is identical.
I can present you with cases where java runs faster than optimized C (if C is built with gcc -o2 -o3 + some other tweaks - java loses against intel's more optimized compiler). I can also present you with cases where C outperforms java by a big margin. I'd like to think that the C# performance is somewhere near C performance.
C# has few more features than java some of which include: (autoboxing, built in delegate syntax (very cool), unmanaged mode (not cool), for each loops, metadata,..)
Java 1.5 (available near the end of 2003) includes autoboxing, generics (generics are coming to C# later too), for each loops, metadata)
Where java loses is that MS can embed the.NET runtime in the operating system thus the faster startup time for.NET apps compared to swing apps. Hopefully the Tyger's (java 1.5) multitasking JVM will make startup times faster (only the first app takes the hit). OS X has java 'embedded' and in multitasking mode. I have not used it or seen how it performs but I'd expect it to be more close to the native app startup speeds)
Make it happen you ask? I code for a living, right now a java based server for industrial desing tool (Plant design + information management). Few months more when the next version goes public, and I can direct you to the company web page. So far the performance is ok to me. Simulated workload of 3000 remote server queries per second caused a 2% processor usage on the server (2200+ athlon, linux)
-- No matter how fast light travels it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it. (T. Pratchett)
Thanks for the heads up
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Posting anonymously is the New Terrorism. I'm glad you would never resort to such a thing.
I don't know how much platform independence has been a consideration, but they probably just got sick and tired of plain old Win32 and MFC. If nothing else, it gave them a chance to finally bring out a decent framework, just like everybody else already has. Must be so liberating for them to finally be able to code a dialog box dynamically without having to fool with resources and message map macros. Microsoft have finally discovered proper OOP and class frameworks. Welcome to the '90!
Something I forgot to mention - Mobile devices
by
D4MO
·
· Score: 1
Apps running on? - Java has that market
Server side webservices for mobile devices? - I'd say Java because I believe in using one toolkit.
--
Rocket science is easy. Neurosurgery, now *that's* difficult.
Cut off the Win32 API
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
and force developers to adopt.net and let the chips fall.
It WILL happen. Just a matter of when and what the outcome will be.
It's all about the Pentiums
by
Joe+U
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
We're all missing the real point of.net
The true reason behind the.net push is to create a bunch of easy to use high level languages to compile down to basically the same code, then let that code run on Win32 platforms and Win64 platforms without making changes.
When the 32 to 64 bit switch starts, the.net apps will be ready to go. The win32 apps will require a translation layer.
Combine that with the fact that the Windows (NT/XP) kernel already supports multiple architectures, win32, posix and os/2 are the 3 common ones. I'm willing to bet that.net will show up in the kernel in the next version of Windows.
Re:It's all about the Pentiums
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> When the 32 to 64 bit switch starts, the.net apps will be ready to go. The win32 apps will require a translation layer.
Well, let's see. I've been doing full 64 bit development on Solaris since '98 (and probably a year previous wrt. the filesystem). Since the 'switch' started 5 f'ing years ago, where is (and more importantly, *has*).net?
What is this point you keep talking about?
and then,
> the fact that the Windows (NT/XP) kernel already supports multiple architectures....
And what happened to the 'archetictures' of MIPS, or Alpha? Long, long gone. And don't even get me started on the aleged POSIX capabilities.
> I'm willing to bet that.net will show up in the kernel in the next version of Windows.
D'uh. What hasn't been added as 'a bag on the side' of their kernel?
Re:It's all about the Pentiums
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Well, let's see. I've been doing full 64 bit development on Solaris since '98 (and probably a year previous wrt. the filesystem). Since the 'switch' started 5 f'ing years ago, where is (and more importantly, *has*).net?
Solaris? I think the topic was operating systems that people actually use... you know, Windows. Over 90% of the market, you might have heard of it. No? Wait a sec, is this Scott again? Stop playing with the "Internet" Scott, it's too complex for you.
Re:It's all about the Pentiums
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Over 90% of the desktop market. Sun plays with the big boys, not SME fileservers.
Re:It's all about the Pentiums
by
profaneone
·
· Score: 1
Combine that with the fact that the Windows (NT/XP) kernel already supports multiple architectures, win32, posix and os/2 are the 3 common ones. I'm willing to bet that.net will show up in the kernel in the next version of Windows.
I'll bet you won't be able to see the kernel code to make sure the addition happens.:)
Since when has.NET been available for three years? Wan't v1.0 only released officially beginning of last year? Or is this one of those articles meant to justify employers requiring 3+ years of.NET experience (and no older than 12)?
If its time from Microsoft to move on from.NET then its time for Sun, IBM, Oracle, etc to move on from J2EE. They are essentially equal, but different platforms. You can drill into the details and semantics all you want, but the two are very similar.
If its time from Microsoft to move on from.NET then its time for Sun, IBM, Oracle, etc to move on from J2EE.
That's one company with the one technology, and three companies plus "etc." with the other. Wouldn't it make more sense for Microsoft to drop.NET and join everyone else with J2EE?
Please, no!
They are going to embrace and extend J2EE just like they did with desktop Java!
I don't want Supreme Court to tell me how to deploy my EJBs!
So they should drop their "competing" technology and join up with the J2EE boys? So there's only *one* solution? See where I'm going with this?;)
Re:J2EE
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Well... what you forget is the religion... it's OK that there is only one solution as long as it's theirs. (Can you tell if I'm talking about the Microsoft or Linux religions? Didn't think so...)
Re:J2EE
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Well, yeah, if the goal were to not make money, that just might work.
If you look at corporations building applications, there is a war between J2EE and.NET. Both are doing well regardless of what this article says and it will continue to be a war.
HAHA FUNNY BECAUSE NYET MEANS PUSSY
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
HAHA give me Some of That SiberIAN Pussy, a frEEzing slit waiting, snowed under And Vibrating SOFtly.
Wow!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The only funny "In Soviet Russia" joke for months!
dot Net? dot Not? how about dot GNU?
by
stuntpope
·
· Score: 1
dotGNU
More interesting than Mono, IMHO. But as I'm about to give it a whirl (I find C# more appealing than Java, yet I don't do - or want to do - Windows-only programming), I wonder -- what organization would use a free / open source.Net-lookalike? Seems that if someone is sold on the.Net path, they'll buy the "real thing", that is, Microsoft. Comments?
Re:dot Net? dot Not? how about dot GNU?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's really about the developer mindshare. MS knows that people who become proficient with their API in any *x implementation can develop in.net at some future point, that's why they tolerate it. They need lots of qualified developers to back up the marketing push, otherwise the whole thing fizzles. If you were a hiring manager, and couldn't find any.net developers, would you be able to convince HR to raise the salary for the position, or would you look at your shrinking budget and simply decide to switch to something else? If there are no.net developers, who will you be able to find to migrate your business to the Next Great Thing?
The fact that MS controls the underlying standards makes me nervous. They can pull the rug out from under your time investment in learning.net or related standards whenever they want. IMHO, if your time is valuable to you and you don't want to spend half of it figuring out what MS is up to, find an open standard and use that instead. Then, your experience will grow instead of shrink over time.
.net and the spoon
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm considering the idea that the economy, not the technology, may be at play here. Sure,.NET was overhyped, but if you look at the economy we've had for the past three years its hardly surprising.NET isn't everywhere.
The economy has been dog-slow, IT spending has been dramatically curtailed; people aren't spending money on IT unless they have to, and it seems to have had an effect on IT generally -- unlike the 90s, we're not seeing revision life cycles every 6-9 months and wholesale introductions of new technologies.
Although even if IT weren't slow these days,.NET may be something that just got drowned out in the noise of other new technology intros.
It's probably also been slowed by the lack of an across-the-board OS introduction that includes it "built-in". Loads of people are loathe to add this kind of functionality to a stable environment; maybe if they had released 03 server and workstation at the same time with these as built-in dependent technologies there may have been broader uptake.
.NET is NOT about vendor lock-in
by
JeffryG138
·
· Score: 1
.Net is about XML Web Services, and fixing all the kludgy COM, DCOM, Win32 API mess.
With.NET, I think Microsoft is actually trying to compete!
The joker who mentioned something about "no documentation for "wire protocols" is lost - how about HTTP? SOAP? Standard stuff. If I decide to build some software on a Windows machine, and I decide to use.NET to do it (which I often do), it can easily work with your Java/Python/Perl whatever software on your MacOS/Linux/BSD whatever operating system through XML Web Services. .NET allows me to write software for a specific platform (Windows) and make it play well with other stuff out there. It's not like Java where I have to pretend my machine is a Java VM for every peice of software I write.
I like.NET for writing applications I will run on Windows. Anybody that tries to compare ASP.NET to something like PHP, or even ASP is a) only seeing part of the picture b) writing piddly-assed software, which is fine, but not what I do for a living.
Love,
Jeff G.
it was clever...score 3, funny
by
mowo
·
· Score: 1
This post made me LOL. One thing is for certain: the price is always right with free software!
No, it is not time for MS to move on..
by
azzy
·
· Score: 0, Troll
but it is time for MS to move out!
Re:It takes insight to notice these things take ti
by
pmz
·
· Score: 4, Funny
You can't really consider C# or Hailstorm to have been around and competing for three years, can you?
With Microsoft, yes, we can. Anyway, I was suprised to read that it's been three years already. This means we're due for.NET's replacement next year. Perhaps, this time around, we'll see a microkernel architecture with XXML (extensible XML, yea!) all implemented within a web services-based virtual machine. With that in 2004, I can't wait for 2008!
Munchkins on Slashdot?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Is it true? Have the Microsoft Munchkins returned and infested Slashdot?
It surely would explain all the "Come on guys, stop bashing microsoft!" posts that appear here so regularly now. Who's pretending to be Steve Barkto this time?
(And this ain't a flame...check the Dweebspeak Primer www.pjprimer.com for details on the Munchkins. With the return of FUD-master Rob Enderle, it's probably not a coincidence.)
Re:Munchkins on Slashdot?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Is it true? Have the Microsoft Munchkins returned and infested Slashdot?
Yes they have.
And late to the party as always. Pranching around and touting their last year's clothes as the newest thing.
This has nothing to do with .Net
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You may be a physics genious but not much in software... All the things you described have absolutely nothing at all to do with.Net but a lot to do with general improvment in MS products (such as Active Directory you mentioned). At least bother to know what it is you are commenting about:.Net is a development platform that just didn't take off. While web services are used to some degree (ironically mostly in Java) they never really took off.
Compare with the first 3 years of Java
by
sfmarco
·
· Score: 1
With the JDK 1.0 and 1.1, hardly anybody (and gladly they did not) used java language for software production development. It took quite a few years before that got accepted by management/corporations. Even with the Jdk 1.2 release, I had difficulties to convince management of using Java.
The.NET framework, has a much shorter acceptance time. Just showing some Windows GUI (with XP look-and-feel) and management is confinced for 95%. I know this is only a little part of the actual coding, but it opens the door easily to start a development project.
Our team is full-time developing components in C# and this happens in other divisions of the same company as well.
Technological wise Java and C# really don't differ that much. But the effort it takes to write a good looking Java GUI compared to a C# GUI, it is clear that C# is much more productive.
So compare the initial 3 years of Java with the initial 3 years of.NET, and I clearly see a difference in favor or.NET
Re:Compare with the first 3 years of Java
by
BigGerman
·
· Score: 1
I did not thnk about it in this way...
Swing was not even available so the only option for desktop gui was AWT and it was awful.
Servlets had not appeared until 99 (that is 4th year of Java), JSPs even later. EJBs had not kicked in until 2001 (that is 6th year).
YAWN! .NET does nothing new
by
Tsu+Dho+Nimh
·
· Score: 1
From the article: "Some enterprise customers, such as Tony Scott, General Motor Corp.'s chief technology officer for Information Systems and Services, in Detroit, are already driving Web services through their companies. "One of the ways we are currently using Web services is by creating wrappers around legacy systems in our factory environment, which is allowing us to extract information from those systems and deal with the factory environment at a higher level," Scott said."
I worked on a tiny chunk of a similar project more than three years ago for a large chip manufacturer - well before.NET was announced as the latest in a long line of vaporvisionware from Microsoft. They were "wrapping" every legacy system they could with a web interface using whatever interface it needed. It was a frankensystem underneath, but if you had a password and a browser you could get to any system you needed to, from anywhere on the corporate intranet. My bit of the puzzle documented the interface that a process engineer get paged about errors, check the errors from the closest computer and either OK an override or head for the fab to fix something. It saved them hours of time.
MicroSoft pre-announces vaporware so that it can co-opt the initiatives of a competitor. Remember Windows was announced in 1984 to compete with Apple and other MSDOS GUIs like QuarterDeck. But it took MS nine years to deliver an usable version (3.1).
Which were delivered by Java years ago
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
.Net didn't deliver a single advantage over Java:
1. Web services were on Java roughly the same time (MS may have come up with the basics but IBM did a large part of the work).
2. Multiple languages to a single VM work better in Java. In fact there is a web page dedicated to languages compiled/interpreted on the Java VM and it is considerably larger than the one for.Net.
3. Open source/standards didn't bring anything. MS submited only a small portion of.Net to standarization. Without specific API's (like the Java API).Net is completely useless and so MONO is now implemented on top of Wine to allow it to run WinForms.
Essentially everything available on.Net was here WAY before it came out. It brought nothing new and most people who need that functionality moved to Java years ago, Java is now even further ahead of.Net in every aspect.
Re:Which were delivered by Java years ago
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
While I agree with the moderator that this IS interesting. It's also total and utter crap. Java VMs suck. Period. I have yet to see a Java app that handles being exported over X for remote display that doesn't run so slow as to be useless. I have yet to see an entire suite (Office, Internet, etc...) that is written in Java and doesn't run like 32 bit code on an 8 bit processor with 2K of RAM. Java could be so great if it wasn't under the control of that singularly horrible corporation: Sun Microsystems. Sun couldn't compute their way out of a paper bag if their life depended on it. And at this rate it may. I can't wait to see Sun go under.
Re:Which were delivered by Java years ago
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
sad huh... I mean... they did good hardware. Now they are burying thier company under a piss poor software solutions--- that happens to be designed such that it can't even make them money.
-C++ Troll
where-do-we-go-from-here dept.
by
mikeee
·
· Score: 1
Damn you. I just had a mental image of Bill Gates in a blonde wig, tight slacks, and tank-top singing.
It is far from time for them to move on. Longhorn will be entirely.NET based. The latest betas already have explorer.exe running as.NET managed code. The old, crufty Win32 that Slashbots loved to bash is finally being replaced, and all Slashbots can do is find new ways to complain.
This is just Slashdot getting its weekly naysaying in..NET is coming and will be here to stay with Longhorn, and enough people like.NET to have started work on a version for Linux.
True. And only a "troll" for those who refuse to acknowledge the need for a VM on Linux.
Of course, there are some excellent VMs for Linux. Observing Linux development discussions as their significance is slowly realized promises to be an interesting sport for/. spectators.
Re:Silly
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
This is just Slashdot getting its weekly naysaying in..NET is coming and will be here to stay with Longhorn, and enough people like.NET to have started work on a version for Linux.
Alas, that won't work on the long run, thanks to all those patent lawyers.
What would work would be to base an OS on the MHLL (most high level language) Common Lisp (no, Common Lisp is not 60's LISP 1.5). That would make an insanely powerfull, flexible, and easy to use OS.
I agree with you. The company has spent a lot of resouces on.NET (slashdot ads come to mind). And it will definately be using.NET technology for years to come.
But the real question this article is trying to address is How useful is.NET to end-users (not the company itself). Is.NET so cryptic that the only user is the company who made it? (and a few non-significant others)
Look at apple's inovations for example. Apple made Rendezvous, but it is being used by both the company and the osx software developers. It is also being adapted by hardware companies who built the technology in to their devices.
Re:Silly
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
.NET is not meant to be useful to *end-users*..NET is a set of technologies that are used by software developers to produce applications for the Windows platform (for now). Nothing cryptic here, in fact if you want to know what.NET is, browse the SDK docuementation and it will be quite clear.
The old, crufty Win32 that Slashbots loved to bash is finally being replaced
Not quite -- Microsoft can never fully "uncruft" Win32, because of the all important issue of compatibility. The popularity of Win32 is also a curse in this regard. It's not unreasonable to assume that any minor change to the core of Win32 will break someone's application. Win32 is full of hacks, but there are millions of lines of code out there in some rather important systems which rely on these hacks (whether knowingly or not).
Old Win32 apps will just call those old Win32 DLLs to run.
-- "Sufferin' succotash."
Re:Silly
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Oooh. Slashbots. That stopped being insightful six months before.Net was introduced. Looks like its either trendy to bash Slashdot again, or the MS astroturf department got moderator privilages.
Okay, so then in the new version of windows, explorer.exe gets replaced with a.net version which still runs the same old explorer C/C++ code as a COM component? If that is true, then explorer will not really be a.NET thing. I can make a COM container gui in Borland Delphi, that doesn't make internet explorer a Delphi thing.
Ok - now I get what you were originally talking about. Let me start by answering your original question by saying, IANAMSE (I am not a Microsoft employee) but when they say the new explorer will be managed, then they are going to rewrite mostly everything to be managed, and not just use COM interop.
What I thought you were asking is whether they were going to rewrite all (including third party) ActiveX components - which is kind of silly - hence my reply about COM interop.
I feel pretty much the same way. I've been in the industry and absolutely inundated with marketing-speak, advertisements, and all manner of evangelical whatnot, but it never seemed like anyone was attempting to sell a well-defined strategy. No matter the source, it seemed that the "monolithic" aspect of their sales-push was so pervasive as to make all of the information presented seem hokey.
In the end, that's fine with me. I'll not support any switch to a.Net framework. Hokey is hokey. If they maintain this approach with promises of e-panaceas and superbright futures, then it will only encourage the skeptics (largely, "us") to stand their ground.
I find ASP.NET rather difficult to work with - and avoid using it if there is a better alternative.
The amount of code required to output [X]HTML to the browser is in the order of magnitudes more than using ASP. More typing for less output is bad for productivity and deadlines. ASP can be adjusted with any txt editor, and does not need compiling.
The ASP engine in IIS6 has been rewritten for performance - so legacy applications will continue to run.
The features that come with.NET and not ASP can usually be accomplished in PHP, which is smaller, well documented and cross platform.
I can't give my opinion of.NET applications that are not hosted on a web server - they may be better than earlier technologies.
service httpd start
Mike
Re:Speaking for myself (question for you)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I do some web stuff but most of my work involves good old win32 gui apps. To me, the most appealing part of.net is that I will eventually be able to abandon the win32 api in favor of.net classes to do all the ui stuff.
Let's face it, the win32 api just plain sucks. MFC is no solution. It tries to hide the implementation details but fails miserably in that regard since it's almost impossible to do anything complicated without a detailed knowledge of the underlying system.
And that has to with .NET what??
by
Otis_INF
·
· Score: 1
Your complaints about C++ are perhaps legit, they have nothing to do with.NET. If your bosses are too stupid to allow you to work with a C++ compiler that works like you want to, that's a problem at your employer, not with MS or.NET
I'm happy C# is available and.NET matures over time, so I can ditch the VB/VC++/COM crap for the n-tier apps I develop all day.
--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
There's C#, VB.Net and an architecture that has allow Python.net, Perl.net, Fortran.net, Cobol.net and others. The multitude of languages comes into its own when you realise that objects written in one language are easily used in every other language, so you can have 1 developer using Perl, another using C#. Try that in Java. Try any cross language development in Java.
Then your Fortran.Net developer leaves, and you're screwed because your Python.net zealot won't touch his code with a 10-foot pole.
One of Java's strengths is that it doesn't allow multi-lang other than JNI. Sure, there's a learning curve, but language standardisation is good.
Re:Not all your base belongs to us
by
nick_urbanik
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Your sig (you may change it in response to this, I hope): chown -R us ~your/*base*
Sorry, but I think that you may have meant by your sig: find ~your -name '*base*' | xargs chown us
The problem with your sig is that you only change the ownership of the base immediately below ~/your home directory, not allyour base in directories more than one level below. The problem is that the shell will only expand the *base* in the home directory.
I hope you can further develop your base chowning skills further, so that all of it belongs to us.
better than com an vb6
by
avandesande
·
· Score: 1
.NET is certainly a much better way of building websites than with vb6 and asp. If MS didn't create.NET their webserver and server OS would of faded into irrelivence. How would you dissenters have preferred for them to enhance their server offering?
-- love is just extroverted narcissism
Re:.net web services
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> Try any cross language development in Java
Poor argument choice. Ever hear of BSF? http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/projects/bsf
Netscape Rhino (Javascript), VBScript, Perl, Tcl, Python, NetRexx and Rexx, plus many others.
I can slap in all kinds of languages that will compile to Java Byte Code, same as compiling to some other common byte code.
Is it more transparent in.NET? Probably.
By using the JVM am I having to write only Java code? Not even close.
Maybe you need to try out and "use" some other languages that compile to Java byte code before you "comment" on them.
MS marketing must be using linux....
by
patrik_reali
·
· Score: 1
Did you ever try to create a directory called simply ".net" or ".NET"?
Well, under windows it is just not possible: no file name error, because ".net" is the file extension, but there's no file name!
Obviously, this is no problem under *nix; so I guess Microsoft's marketing must be using linux or MacOS (which makes sense, since they are Microsoft's most productive departement).
-Patrik
Re:MS marketing must be using linux....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Somebody mod this up "Insightful". Really. No, REALLY.
Re:MS marketing must be using linux....
by
The+Bungi
·
· Score: 1
MS marketing is using Linux. "It's just not possible!.NET is the extension!!!". Gold, pure gold.
You 1337 hacker, you. So I guess your understanding of NTFS is limited to what you can see in the Windows explorer? How about:
C/C++ - CreateDirectory("C:\\.net", NULL);
VB - MkDir "C:\.Net"
CLI - mkdir.net
... and so on
Need I go on? No. So "obviously", there's no problem under Windows, so I guess you need to stop using the Windows explorer (let me guess - you can't survive under Linux without Konqueror, right?) and start thinking before you make yourself look stupid with "M$ sux becuz u cant create.net forlder, hahahaha!!" posts.
Thanks.
Re:MS marketing must be using linux....
by
spitzak
·
· Score: 1
You are an idiot for being unable to see an obvious joke.
You can also turn off the "hide extensions" control and see a.net file even when using Explorer.
Though it does point out that Microsoft could improve their design. How about only hiding "recognized" extensions? Or not hiding the extension if there is nothing before the dot? It would also help if they did not screw up with files that had any number of dots other than 1 in their name, for instance "foo" and "foo." conflict though many programs think they won't conflict.
Re:MS marketing must be using linux....
by
The+Bungi
·
· Score: 1
You are an idiot for being unable to see an obvious joke.
Was that a joke? My sense of humor must be failing me. I guess this post of yours is also a joke? Hahahaha! You so funny.
You can also turn off the "hide extensions"
Thank you for the lesson, but it doesn't work that way, Einstein. Extensions refer to files, not folders. The shell will not consider a folder that looks like an extension a file just because.
Though it does point out that Microsoft could improve their design
Yes, I'm sure it does. It's also funny, according to you.
How about only hiding "recognized" extensions?
That's already there, Einstein.
with files that had any number of dots other than 1 in their name, for instance "foo" and "foo."
How about you write a shell extension that does that instead, eh? The last thing I want is for the OS to play stupid tricks with my files. But you're welcome to put it on your machines. In any case I've never seen "foo" in place of "foo." A dot at the end of an extension?? Wow, that's a great idea!
Re:MS marketing must be using linux....
by
spitzak
·
· Score: 1
I don't believe this.
Okay, for the slow people in the audience out there. This has nothing to do with folders or with some problem with Microsoft's file system. This simply is a joke about the default settings of Explorer to "hide extensions" and the fact that their product is called DOTnet. Get it? DOT means that the "net" is an extension and is in fact hidden by their system as sold.
My god you are so stupid.
Yes it is true that it checks for directories before hiding the extension, but so what? I don't think he was talking about a directory, simply about a file called ".net".
And a quick check shows that "hide extensions" hides any text at all after the last period, not just "known" extensions. This is on W2K.
Re:MS marketing must be using linux....
by
The+Bungi
·
· Score: 1
I don't think he was talking about a directory
Read the original post again. Then read it again. Then again.
And a quick check shows that "hide extensions" hides any text at all after the last period, not just "known" extensions
My god you are so stupid.
Win+E. Tools->Folder options.
Switch to the View tab. Scroll down a bit. There's a "Hide extensions for known file types" (emphasis mine).
Now, you can continue to embarrass yourself, or you can just walk away. I suggest you do the latter.
And next time, think twice before attempting to play SuperDork, Defender of the Lame Post.
I know I'm going to get flamed for saying this, but it's true:
I like Microsoft's Visual Basic.NET. It's a fascinating development enviornment for certain types of apps. The language has been completely re-designed over prior VBs (and also has *no* relation to BASIC anymore.)
It has Syntax-directed-editing, edit and continue, true Object Orientation, support for threads, etc, and is based on the.NET framework.
Since the "barrier to entry" to VB programming is low (but getting higher), unfortunately there's a lot of crap-ware written in it. Don't let that make you think the language is bad.
If VB.NET came out of MIT's media lab instead of Microsoft, everyone in the/. community would say it rocked.
Language standardization is generally something that happens at the management level... with *real* people. The people managing the projects should be the ones to say "hey, we need to develop this whole thing in the same language so it can be easily maintained in the future". However, there are advantages to the interoperation of.NET languages... because developers *could* develop pieces in different languages makes it easier for a software company to develop multiple software packages in different languages that might share some pack of common code. But of course, its up to the project managers to ensure future maintainability.
.Net is fast because is is tied to Windows !
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That was the old time debate about Java (cf. the JNI history).
Speed or portability !
You can't have both. Java chose to emphasize the portability and MS the speed.
By choosing.net you are tied to windows, so IMHO there is no real reason you would go to.net because looking at speed VC++ goes even thousand times faster than its.net counterpart compiled code;-)
But .Net isn't about anything new....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
... it's about rebranding net services into their own image and patenting them. Couple that with the leverage Microsoft get's from their effective desktop monopoly and you have a strategy. Right now the only missing piece is the enforcability of software patents in all the worlds main economic areas, eg the EU.
>you can have 1 developer using Perl, another using C#. Try that in Java. Try any cross language development in Java.
Well, who didn't read the label before applying? Java is any object code that passes JVM validation, not the source code, which a little lawsuit from Sun should have made clear. See "about 165 different systems" that produce Java object code.
-- If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
"Use only the latest version of IE and IIS and.NET and C# and let us here at MS define the standards. No need for you all to worry your foolish little heads about any of it."
We're starting to use it
by
DoctorPepper
·
· Score: 1
Where I work, they are doing some.Net development, mainly using VB.Net, but also some C#. I don't personally do any of it (and I'm thankful for that), but the guy sitting in the cube to my right is swamped with.Net projects.
--
No matter where you go... there you are.
Article Sucks
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The writer of the article and people that feel that way simply do not understand.NET.
What points that out? The fact that people are in awe that the.NET name was dropped from titles such as Windows Server [.NET] Server 2003..NET is not the driving force of these products and that is the reason they dropped it. In the case of most things, aside from the.NET Server,.NET has NOTHING to do with the product and they wanted a cool name.
Sadly, cool names sell things and the people at MS know how to sell. The fact that you and your friend do not get that strategy has no basis in the argument; rather the fact that they used a technology to confuse not in-the-know techie people (most of this crowd apparently) is the argument. In other words, they aren't backing down from their.NET strategery (intentional), but they are dropping the misnomer on their other key products to SEPARATE them and provide a better consumer experience (as it could be probably be confusing if you had heard of.NET, but knew nothing about it). I'm sure decent computer users heard of.NET and considered compatibility problems between the versions, as.NET is this 'all new platform'... so one might conclude (if you had no real idea) that you needed something new from the store, and something expensive (as opposed to something free and probably included in the product if really needed it).
In Bureaucratic Germany...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
no.... that's HET in russian (pronounced nyet as the 'H'like letter is a n sound, the 'E' is a ye sound. and the T is as you expect.
It's too confusing to try to mix Cyrillic alphabet characters when writing in English. We don't try to use "B" as the German esset when writing German words using the English alphabet either, we just simply substitute "ss" because the sound is the same, it is the simplist way to communicate the phonetic sound of the esset consonant.
Don't be sheep, analyse MS ads ;-)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
web services : ok it is an interesting feature, but to be clear COM/DCOM was there much before;-) Another point is that web services do not scale (if you compare them to IIOP based architecture for instance). You can not build a multi-thier application with dotnet, it just not scale. Why did MS just forgot to put IIOP into dotnet ? This is just stupid even a child whould have guess it has to be done !
About multi language. This is just FUD. First you've got lots of language in Java that compiles to bytecode and they were build longtime before MS ever think of running away from Java to create they clone (the famous "COOL" project). Now point is that multilanguage is useless. Clearly, how can you beleive that a Cobol user will smoothly goes to Cobol.net ? Those languages are complete new paradigm that sticks to the platform (so cauled "flavorished" languages). Looking at Cobol.net and you will think of the C# counterpart. The real language of MS.net is C# and the other are just here to push some FUD. Ever seen a Cobol.net project in the place ? or blurb.net ?
As a conclusion, i will just said just look at where is.net in more than 3years, and will all the money invested by MS, then you will come to the question:
Will MS soon drop.net as a platform ? (i am not talking of the API or the tools but the core platform that use IL and so on..)
Anyway, day after day MS customer are moving to J2EE... and MS will have to react soon or later or the only project they will still have will be the small part.
Gartner forcasted few years ago, that MS.net and J2EE will be respectively 1/3 and 2/3 of the market but this dream for MS never happend. Because MS did not gained new customer but just transfered some of their existing customer to their new tech, and an important percent that are looking for alternatives;-)
SLK
Unfortunately in Korea....
by
chenGOD
·
· Score: 1
One of the major cellular providers, KTF is developing a browser with MS that will run on the phones regardless of sytem. How long until MS makes it inoperable with any other OS besides MS CE?
From sourceforge (which isnt the last repository)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
C# (835 projects)
and growing. Mono has a DEPENDACNY for WINE on Linux to run WinForms unless u use the less compatible approach and map to GTK#. GTK sucks shit. Therefore Linux is nothing on the desktop for CLR Managed code (C# etc) without WINE. Linux cant stand on its own 2 feet without WINE for appliations on this managed runtime.
Re:It takes insight to notice these things take ti
by
Smartcowboy
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Archie was a protocol to contact search engine for FTP. Realy usefull at the time. Some Archie servers are still online but you need a special client to do your search. In fact, it ressembles something like Kazaa if you replace the P2P thing by standard FTP.
Veronica was a tool to do search in the gopher space.
Jughead stand for "Jonzy's Universal Gopher Hierarchy Excavation and Display". I don't have a clue of its purpose.
There's C#, VB.Net and an architecture that has allow Python.net, Perl.net, Fortran.net, Cobol.net and others. The multitude of languages comes into its own when you realise that objects written in one language are easily used in every other language, so you can have 1 developer using Perl, another using C#. Try that in Java. Try any cross language development in Java.
Are you referring to Java the language, or Java the platform? If it's the former, this is a silly statement. If it's the latter, you are mistaken. There is no reason why another language could not be used to generate bytecode for the Java Virtual Machine.
...so you can have 1 developer using Perl, another using C#. Try that in Java...
Try having 2 developers write in Perl. That can be just as unmaintainable!
Seriously, even when it's just me writing in two languages, the result can be a hideously disorganized mess.
Where I'm working now, I use Java and JSP for most things, and we're trying to migrate shell scripts into Java and Ant tasks. We started out using Python and Zope, but Java seemed more natural for the task at hand.
The factors that drive my workplace decision making are:
If I'm hit by a bus, how long would it take for someone to figure out what I was doing? Java is highly structured for this, from Javadoc to the hierarchical layout of the source code. Perl and Python are not. C#, from what I've heard, is similar to Java in this regard.
Does the development environment support best practices? In particular: unit testing, version control, and object/relational mapping. Version control works for any language. Unit testing is arguably best supported by Java, given the breadth of tools and people working on it. I have yet to find an object/relational tool that works as well as NeXT's environment did, though Java is getting there.
Is code succinct, legible, and well-structured? From the samples I've seen, C# has a better getter/setter grammar, while Java has more succinct documentation grammar.
Does it run on whatever we have? We have some hardware that requires Sparc. However, most of our servers are x86/Linux-- they're cheap and our admin trusts them to be secureable..NET obviously fails in this regard.
How good are the support libraries? Java beats the pants off of everything else I've seen. My pattern is all too often (1) discover I need something (2) write a half-assed implementation (3) discover that the Apache Foundation already has a well-written, well-documented, open source implementation.
Every language annoys me in some way, but for the sort of server-side, cross-platform code I'm writing these days, Java is less annoying than the alternatives. But perhaps the thing I love the most is that best practices often show up first in Java. A vibrant open source community, which includes some of the best brains in the industry, is a dream to take advantage of. (Perl has CPAN, which is great, but it has the feel of a collection of weekend projects.) Java has the feel of a healthy capitalist economy, with everything from Wall Street (Apache) to kids selling lemonaide on the sidewalk.
get a load of this quote
by
golgotha007
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Rob Helms, research director for Directions on Microsoft, says this: The.Net platform itself has been hampered by immature Web service standards.
excuse me Mr. Helms, but what's wrong with the world not wanting to standardize on proprietary web services? just because web services are 'open' doesn't mean they're immature.
This is obviously just a cheap shot at open standards.
Re:get a load of this quote
by
NotClever
·
· Score: 1
I'm not a web service expert, but I know that one of the big concerns with the current specs for web services is a lack of security. Given that todays environments require consideration of security, to say that a standard that exposes data to other systems (either internal or external) and doesn't deal with security is immature would certainly seem to be a valid complaint.
-- Hell, there are no rules here. We're trying to accomplish something. - Thomas Edison
Re:get a load of this quote
by
reverendslappy
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
No, it's not a cheap shot. It's the truth. Though I can agree with you about the world not wanting to standardize on proprietary web services, the standardization efforts behind web services have been an absolutely assinine circus.
The issue is evidenced here, and here, and here. (I think/. might have had a article on it too, but I can't find it...) Those are just the first articles I was able to find, and I recall reading many others. This has been a pretty widely-reported and well-known issue.
You can debate who's to blame, but the SOAP standard has taken a long time in coming. Version 1.2 was FINALLY released like a week ago, but the W3C has been running around like idiots with it for half of forever. I can tell you from personal experience that corporations want to use web services now but are really hesitant to start using web services to build enterprise apps without real standardization. What it comes down to, in my view, is that as a developer, I need these tools now, and I've been waiting for them for far too long because Tim Berners - Lee has been stroking his Semantic Web pipe dream for more than like 3 years.
What Mr. Helms had to say wasn't a cheap shot at open standards. It was a shot at some serious problems with the drafting of these specific standards, and he has a lot of well-documented history to back him up. IMHO, calling the web services standards "immature" was pretty gracious of Mr. Helms.
You should really read up on the topics you post about so you have some better knowledge of what you're saying before you start taking "cheap shots" at someone simply because of where they're employed.
(Mods: "Interesting"?!? Come ON...)
Re:get a load of this quote
by
golgotha007
·
· Score: 1
your response is well written and very informative.
keep in mind that the W3C is there to protect the interests of the consumer. instead of a peice, big corporations want to take this entire web pie. the W3C is there to help enforce some sort of ruleset to the fiasco.
but, ask yourself this: if the web services MS is trying to incorporate as web standards were open, then MS wouldn't be having a problem, thus, they wouldn't be calling current web standards 'immature', either.
Re:In Bureaucratic Germany...
by
gowen
·
· Score: 1
Thats OK. In Bureaucratic Germany they use the Plan Nein operating system.
-- Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
No thats Java...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That was what MS claimed, but it is not what they delivered so far and I doubt they ever will since no one ports their software to.NET (and why should they?) even those who try.NET run unmanaged code which is like using Java and calling C to do all the "heavy lifting". In order to "really" port to.NET you need a rewrite and then you might as well go with Java which is better in every way.
I've programmed in Java and C# and I have to say that I love C#. Java can't even come close to the ease of use you get with Visual Studio and C#. When I started with Java I would spend hours trying to figure out paths and dealing with all that nonsense. I tried the IDEs but they never seemed to work right. I fire up Visual Studio and it works great. There were bugs in the original IDE but most of them have been fixed.
Right now I am working on a multi-tier business application for the Fortune 1000 company I work for and the amount that two developers can get done with C# and.NET is staggering. We wrote the eCommerce site for the comapany and it does over $600,000 a day in revenue on Windows server and C#.NET.
If you are interested in developing web applications but don't want to buy Visual Studio give WebMatrix a shot. It is a great looking and totally free IDE.
A lot of people here would fall in love with C# and.NET if it had come from anywhere else other than Redmond. It's a shame since it really is a great platform.
I've programmed in Java and C# and I have to say that I love C#. Java can't even come close to the ease of use you get with Visual Studio and C#. When I started with Java I would spend hours trying to figure out paths and dealing with all that nonsense. I tried the IDEs but they never seemed to work right. I fire up Visual Studio and it works great. There were bugs in the original IDE but most of them have been fixed.
Is this a trolling attempt or something? You write software for a living and stopped evaluating Java because you didn't manage to get the classpaths right?
Come on, admit it: You're being paid by Microsoft (so is the guy who modded you up). The URL advocating FreeBSD.. it all figures:-)
I didn't stop because of paths but it was a source of frustration. I use.NET for my job but my experience with Java was frustrating. Java serves a purpose and others like it very much but in my opinion, it is not nearly as easy to use as Visual Studio and C#. There is a learning curve with anything and even after using Java for a while I was not comfortable with it. After using C# and.NET for a few months I was easily able to work with it and produce very complex applications. I think a lot of people on Slashdot don't give it a fair shake because it is Microsoft. Like it or not at least try it out for a while before judging it (I'm not say you did or did not but others did). I tried it out and I would not go back.
I use C# and.NET because the company I work for went that way. I'm happy because it makes my job easier and has yielded some great results.
BTW, the FreeBSD link is my site and it makes for a good hobby.;)
I thought you were supposed to ever call System.gc() in Java. Or that it was at least pointless, since calling it did not force garbage collection unless the JVM agreed.
When we use PHP (which we use for projects that we need to get out the door faster, amongst other reasons), we always write in OO. Given the choice we work in J2EE because of it's strong typing and enterprise features such as distribution, transactions, scalability etc..
While PHP4s OO support is far from all it could be (no default pass by reference...), you can still seperate out into nice data abstraction / business logic / presentation layers just as well as most other OO languages. Hell we even use the J2EE enterprise patterns in PHP4.
PHP5 is looking set to fix most of the annoyances with PHP4s object model, adding unified constructors, method argument hinting, interfaces, pass by reference by default and so on.
My point is, although a lot of people see it as such, you shouldn't write off PHP4 as a purely procedural language
When we use PHP (which we use for projects that we need to get out the door faster, amongst other reasons), we always write in OO.
Hey, if I needed to hang a picture I could always pop a porno into the DVD player and drive the nail into the wall with my little stiff wee wee. But really, I'm probably better off with a hammer.
Sure, but PHP is fine for coding OO, it's not like you have to hack at it. It works well, and it's quick to develop. So I think your analogy is a bit unfair:)
.Net is definitely a step up from COM/ATL and VB 6. When the.Net run time is distributed with the OS, I think you will see more and more.Net software..Net does not have the cross platform advantage of Java, but it does seem to have a significant performance advantage over Java. Theoretically it shouldn't have, since C#/.Net is so similar to Java, but it does..Net is the future for people who live in the Microsoft world.
what is .NET? +OT: PHP sucks
by
rokzy
·
· Score: 1
the only things I've heard about.NET is
1. it involves pathetic services like having every single piece of personal info on a MS server so they can eg. use your credit card to automatically buy concert tickets for you
2. C# is an evil MS ploy to get more control
btw OT: imo PHP sucks cos most of the errors I get browsing are PHP related, and usually on line 5 or something. in fact, apart from not actually being connected to the internet, or the website being unavailable, PHP is the only source of error I come across...
just use perl and cgi ffs
Why monopolies are bad
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The whole.Net phenomenon is a perfect example of why monopolies, or even a high concentration of market power in a single company, are such a bad thing. If some small company had brought out.Net with all that hype and lack of focus, it would have died quickly of deserved neglect. But MS has such incredibly deep pockets that it can afford to keep plugging away and redefining the product, until they get something that sticks to the wall.
My guess is that.Net will be viewed as a wide-spread succeess some time in the future, but that it will be significantly different from what.Net is today.
Interoperability and choices.....
by
big-giant-head
·
· Score: 0
With.Net you can have MS or M$.... (yes I know about Mono, but talk to when it's out of beta) With Java or PHP/Perl/.... You have a choice. Where I'm working now we develop on W2000 boxes, but deploy and run on Linux. Our server is Websphere. If we wanted to run on Solaris boxes we could get that up and running in a day or so. Most of the work would be installing configuring Websphere. Basically we can switch platforms in about 24 hours with Java.
With.net ?????? You have your choice of W2000, XP or ???????? you get the point. One is a completely closed solution the other isn't.
Just to clarify, win32, posix and os/2 are not kernel archetictures, they are API's for the kernel. (There's a document somewhere I read about 6 years ago that explains it better)
x86, alpha etc are the platform archetictures. At the moment, x86 is the only one in use since Alpha, MIPS and PPC seem to be non-viable, at least to Microsoft, but I expect to see some new ones as time goes on.
My point was that.net should be a native API in the next rev of Windows..net on Win32 will only be around until the older Windows revisions become obsolete.
Re:Technical Stuff
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The OS/2 1.1 graphical subsystem has not worked in Windows since NT 4.0 (at least, it will not install under 2000 nor XP). The OS/2 1.1 character mode subsystem no longer exists in any version of XP that I have used. If you have any 16 bit OS/2 software, you had better hope that it is bimodal (does the right thing when you FORCEDOS it).
is dead since more than a year. It was a cool concept. And it has the advantage that is *only* a VM, not a whole bunch of services, libraries, protocol definitions etc. pp.
Just imagine it: The gcc compiling bytecode, FAST, for every platform in every gcc input language. Wonderful:)
Mono
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Who is better qualified to evaluate a technology? Some jackass journalist or someone like Miguel de Icaza?
Windows95 all over
by
MGrie
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Did anyone else get the idea, that Microsoft is in effect pullig the same management/technology stunt it did with Windows95/98/ME all over?
E.G. Win95 mostly served the purpose of creating a middleway between DOS and the Windows Api. All DOS apps ran more or less, and all apps build in the "new" windows api worked a lot better (ofcourse). Then, after 5 years, when even the last software vendor had switched over, they could introduce Windows2000, that ran these Apps better than anything before it, and was build upon actually usable technology.
So... think about.NET and it's primary feature of machine independent code. Could MS be planning to have programmers create all of the smaller, not that speed dependent frontend apps to the.Net runtime, so they can finally drop the ever aging 80x86 architecture sometimes down the road?
Re:Not all your base belongs to us
by
JaredOfEuropa
·
· Score: 1
Nevertheless I will make a note of it *grins*
-- If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Evaporated; I think not
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
.NET has far from evaporated. Sure, the marketing has changed drastically, but that's because MS's marketing plan was hurting.NET in the beginning. The doctrine of sticking.NET onto every.NET enabled product was confusing people as to.NET really was. It's amazing how many well read and intelligent IT professionals today STILL don't know what.NET really is. Now that the marketing focus has laid off a bit, maybe people will start seeing.NET for what it really is.
Personally, I love.NET. I always loved Java from a macro perspective, but I hated it in implementation because it was too slow and various "features" of the language itself bothered me. If Sun switched Java from fully-interpreted to just-in-time compiled like.NET, increased the language interoperability, and got rid of those damned native types, I might be sold back. Right now, though, I'd rather support the efforts of the OSS community to port.NET to other platforms than hang onto Sun.
Re:.net web services
by
AndersDahlberg
·
· Score: 2, Informative
There's C#, VB.Net and an architecture that has allow Python.net, Perl.net, Fortran.net, Cobol.net and others. The multitude of languages comes into its own when you realise that objects written in one language are easily used in every other language, so you can have 1 developer using Perl, another using C#. Try that in Java. Try any cross language development in Java.
Yes, I usually use java and python (www.jython.org) - both which run excellent on the java platform.
The.NET languages have some problems though - the only one actually working as it should is C#...
Cross platform languages is a red herring (even more so than cross platform virtual machines) as the important part is the API's! What good is python.net to python programmers if they can't use their own api's?
You have GOT to be kidding me...
by
tenchiken
·
· Score: 3, Informative
It's posts like this that make me want to abandon Slashdot after 5 years of faithfully following, commenting and posting stories. Let's set some things strait:
(before anyone accuses me of being Microsoft marketting, I have no links to the company, and am a huge fan in OpenSource. I have both a windows and a Linux box, and I spend more time hacking on Linux for fun, and hacking on.NET to get paid....)
1) Microsoft has completly committed to.NET. Longhorn's new features are all managed code.
2) Microsoft's most profitable Business Aplications are being ported as we speak. BizTalk, Office, and the OS all have managed serviced components now, and the next version of SQL will have extremly rich CLR support.
3)My experience as a Technologist is the reverse. We have gone from no.NET projects (all perl and Java) to four this year, and my guess is that we will see as many as six or seven next year (smallish shop).
4) The knowledge curve works for you. My experience is that in Assembly 10% of stuff is "easy" the rest you need to look up, in C, 40% of the stuff is easy, the rest you need to look up, in C++ it's about 50/50, in Java it's closer to 75/25. In C# on.NET, it's about 90/10. That last ten can be a bitch, but no less then Java's 25%.
5) Having strugled with AXIS and several other varients of Web Services for Java, I have to say, they pretty much suck rocks (GLUE excepted, although at least the last version I was playing with still equired source access to code to generate services). On the other hand, the extremly rich API and Metadata abilities in.NET make web services insanly simple (maybe to simple, new developers may use them too much).
6) Interoperability rocks in.NET. Not just platform (mono is doing a great job) but also interop based on the WS-I stack.
7) Java is at best a niche platform. When was the last time you saw any non server/specialized software written in Java? Of the top ten software software packages (Windows, Office, SAP, PeopleSoft, Oracle, SQL, Quicken, Quickbooks, TaxCut, Microsoft Money) how many of them are actually written in java? 0/10. Microsoft owns 90% of the CPU market. Microsoft has decided to slip.NET until Longhorn, but it is out there in the hands of extremly productive developers.
8).NET has only been released in a non beta form for about 1 year. Since then Microsoft has already done a major upgrade to the development platform, and a major release of the CLR. Whidby will add more features.
9) Reflection, Inspection, Attributes and Events. Simpler in.NET, more powerful in.NET.
10) ASP.net is a solid step up from ASP. Seperate of presentation and business logic is much more solid, the rendering pipeline is more powerfull, and the security features rock.
11) ADO.net makes simple database projects (CRUD) easy. Will anyone use Datasets for a large enterprise application? Probably not, but it is still there and powerful.
12) Sun fails the Dogfood test. Number of critical applications in Solaris that are or are being ported to Java? None, ask Sun why that is (not scalable, not fast). How much of Windows is being ported? The whole Shabang (see Longhorn). I will be happy to re-examine Java seriously for ongoing work when Sun's rm6 utilities (including the command lines) are written in Java.
13) Not only that, Sun is now lifting features from.NET, clearly there is some new and cool features here to get the ever slow sun to actually change their precious language.
14) Compact Framework. Share code between WinCE devices and your platform. Tie them together via Webservices with a single click of the mouse.
15) Rich clients. Have the interoperability and accessability of the web without stateless programming enviornment and pretty graphics.
16) Integrati
Re:You have GOT to be kidding me...
by
sheldon
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Very good post!
It's posts like this that make me want to abandon Slashdot after 5 years of faithfully following, commenting and posting stories.
I have always generally found about 20% of the content on slashdot to be new and interesting. But in the last two years I've noticed an increasing trend for slashdot to be several days behind other news sources. Also the attempts to attack Microsoft are becoming more and more desperate.
But keep in mind that while slashbot did post this, the original article was written by some moron at eWeek. Not to lessen the responsibility of slashbot in contributing to this sad lie, but to help spread the blame of poor tech journalism.
I find the Open Source community growing up around.NET to be far more fun to be involved with than the zealots which surround Linux.
Re:You have GOT to be kidding me...
by
Tadghe
·
· Score: 1
Hey, Sheldon, I see you finally got the hang of ASP.NET, you still working for Microsoft? Maybe you should mention that before you start going off the deep end...
-- Bugs Bunny was right.
Re:You have GOT to be kidding me...
by
BigGerman
·
· Score: 1
ok here we go:
1. Just read somewhere that there will not be as much "managed" code in Longhorn
4. agree 100%
5 and 6. Just finished major project where c# clients were calling Axis servers, no problem
7. niche heh? just within last couple years I personally worked on: major pharmacy management system, shipping system for biggest shipper in the world (all Linux,Java,Oracle), major (terabytes) internal system for big and unpopular three-letter goverment agency.
9. True
12. do not know about Sun. But Oracle eats their own food with both Java and Linux
13. no more than MS lifted from Java. Natural evolution of languages.
14. J2ME worked fine for me
16,17 J2EE when used properly gives you all that and more: roles, messaging, transactions, threads,...
Unlike other people I wont comment on the things I know nothing about
Re:You have GOT to be kidding me...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You have a bug in the script you use to write comments - some of the occurrences of "slashdot" were not replaced with "slashbot". Please fix, kthx.
Re:You have GOT to be kidding me...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hey, Sheldon, I see you finally got the hang of ASP.NET, you still working for Microsoft?
Howdy Tadghe! Are you still providing gay prostitution services?
Re:You have GOT to be kidding me...
by
mr_e_cat
·
· Score: 1
It's posts like this that make me want to abandon Slashdot after 5 years
Maybe you should read the post more closely. The guy was criticizing MSoft for confusing his bosses who then won't let him use.NET 2003.
He is a fan of.NET.
Re:You have GOT to be kidding me...
by
figleaf
·
· Score: 1
About 1. Original poster was correct. Your source is incorrect.
I have a leaked alpha version of Longhorn. Some of the unimplemented new features in Windows Explorer raise a System.NotImplementedException exception (A.NET exception!) Even parts of internet explorer seems to managed. Go figure.
Re:You have GOT to be kidding me...
by
jo42
·
· Score: 1
> How much of Windows is being ported? The whole Shabang (see Longhorn).
Excellent!!! This means that our Unix-based skills will be that much more demand when Longhorn excretes as a massive cow pie...
.NET a definite upgrade, good competition for Java
by
shodson
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If you've been building Windows apps for a while you have welcomed.NET because it makes building Windows apps much simpler than the complexities of VC++ and rescues us from having to deal with the hoakiness of VB. As a long-time Java developer as well I am glad to have a full set of OOP features in a VM-like environment like there is in Java available to me. If Java supported the Windows desktop more elegantly and efficiently then.NET wouldn't matter as much, but Swing is dismally slow and cumbersome for Windows apps, though JDK 1.4.2 is supposed to be better. But look at the rift IBM's SWT has caused in the Java/desktop community.
And I don't agree.NET is just about desktop apps. It makes building distributed apps easier as well, if you want to use web services. I do believe, however, J2EE is still a stronger alternative for large-scale distributed apps. But let's face it, nobody cared much about web services until.NET. Not that a lot of people care too much now, but it's seen as the future of distributed computing, from an internet-scale basis, by just about everybody. What else is there, CORBA? RMI? EJBs? Puhleeze. Firewall unfriendliness is the biggest challenges for these protocols. And the Java camp has been working feverishly to add web services support to their platform and developers have been demanding it. See J2EE 1.4, Apache Axis, Sun's WSDP, BEA's "as-easy-as-VB" WebLogic Workshop IDE for building web services, etc.
The best thing.NET has done perhaps is light a fire under the pants of those in the Java camps. Since.NET's release Sun and the major Java vendors have been scrambling to "answer" some of the advantages of.NET and the cool features of C#. The JCP is trying to respond more quickly. The upcoming JDK 1.5 will have most language changes since 1.1 (generics, foreach iterations, attributes) in an attempt to meet or beat some of C#'s strengths over Java, etc. And the prospect of open-sourcing Java is becoming more of a reality as Sun's stranglehold on the standard has slowed the pace of Java's improvement and started to cause some splintering among some previously strong supporters of Java (aka, IBM, creating SWT, not showing up at this year's JavaOne, etc.)
(I'm sure this has been said 100s of times... but)
1. You can interpret Java, JIT it, or native compile it (have a play with gcj at some point)..NET might have a very well written JIT, and it might have some advantages that Java bytecode does not have - but this does not make life impossible, it simply makes it more interesting.
2. Java automatically garbage collects. System.gc() is a hint - for example, if you know you have created lots of garbage and you know you have time. The JVM can completely ignore you though.
3. JNI is there for a reason. There is OpenGl amongst other things implemented in this way.
4. The sleep function is implemented like that for correct handling in threading. If you want to cancel a thread, then you can call 'interrupt' on it, which will cause it to throw an InterruptedException. This allows threading to be a little safer than either allowing proper thread cancellation or just letting it sleep.
I've not really had enough time to play with.NET, but I'd like to. I think it's a shame that there isn't really a standard though. Seems a shame that all of these things will have to be rewritten.
Maybe a good project for somebody might be to write some standard APIs that can be used 'as is' from both C# and Java to do the same thing, so that the code can be broadly the same.
What did you expect
by
dot+niet
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
While I'd agree that in its entirety.NET has been confusing, my experience has been those of us that drink the MS kool-aid are pretty impressed with the development tools. I've personally think web-services on any platform have been overplayed, so criticisms of that effort are probably warranted as well.
I haven't seen anyone mention (forgive me, I haven't read all 522 responses) the features of Java in the upcoming major release as revealed by Sun are essentially in lock-step with C#. Yes, its a leap-frog game and Java was there first, but it certainly discounts wholesale rejections of.NET language features from the Java crowd. Sun has even hinted that they will put more effort into providing (*gasp*) usable IDEs for Java development and have specifically cited MS' DevStudio as a forerunner in this category (although MS was certainly not the first with decent IDEs - props to Borland, et. al).
Finally, it should come as no suprise that.NET is targeted to Windows. Let's face it, Office and Windows are cash cows for MS and it only makes sense to highlight your platform when providing tools.
Even with some of these drawbacks, if you are developing to an MS platform,.NET development tools are far and away the best that have been available to you and I know of more than a handful of situations, anectdotal as they may be, where they have proven to provide real productivity benefits, and that is huge for developers.
So I guess my point is, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, tying the OS (Win svr 2003) and Office and consulting services (and, and, and..) to.NET may have been confusing, but the development tools are top notch and solve more problems than they create.
I haven't seen anyone mention (forgive me, I haven't read all 522 responses) the features of Java in the upcoming major release as revealed by Sun are essentially in lock-step with C#.
I don't think that's right. Sure, there are some features like enums that are probably influenced by.Net, but in reality the major new features in Java 1.5 are probably generics, which are not in.Net yet and have been discussed a 'future' feature for Java long before the existance of.Net, and metadata which I don't think is a.Net feature at all.
As far as IDE's go, I like Eclipse just fine - It has some nice refactoring tools that are completely missing from VS.Net.
Actually it metadata sounds a lot like.NET Attributes to me. I may be wrong. In any case my point was there were more similarities than some were willing to admit. In some ways it feeds the "embrace and extend" critics but in others it can serve as a validation.
go-mono.com will be ready when/if .Net takes off
by
randall_burns
·
· Score: 1
Stuff like ASP.NET really isn't all that bad. I personally like being able to do both client and server-side programming in Javascript(for clients with less experienced people it makes for a less steep learning curve in situations in which minimal server-side coding is needed). Jscript is a nice language-especially some of the stuff they are doing with type inference are worthwhile ideas worth incorporating into other ECMA implementations.
I suspect that Micro$oft management can't afford for.NET to be a failure(from a standpoint of looking face)-they'll throw money at the problem until they have something inspiring technically. Do they really want to be a big joke like the eSpeak Project had Rajiv Gupta running? (i.e. hundreds of millions of dollars with nothing to show for it) Carly Fiorina burnt up quite a bit of credibility promising all sorts of stuff there that just didn't happen. The big significance of the.Net delays is Micro$soft have lost a lot of their lead here.
By the time the folks in Redmond get it together,.NET won't be nearly as proprietary as it was at first--if MicroSoft does set some worthwhile standards(and that is something where big companies can play a constructive role) they just won't be able to shut the Linux community out of that standard for very long. Micro$oft is caught between a rock and a hardplace here. Either they fall flat on their face or they produce a standard that compares Linux/FreeBSD with NT Server head-to-head(i.e. NT server will most likely come out looking like a dog).
Im sure there are a million arguments for and against.NET, Java, PHP/MySQL and any other 'internet' or otherwise language.
For my tuppence I use and love.NET for the following simple reasons:
1) It's Free
2) It's Powerful
3) It's easy
Sure other languages are Free,Powerful and Easy, but they don't generally come with the backing of the Microsoft Corporation - which from a commercial perspective - is not always a bad thing.
The big thing missing? Enterprise integration. Slapping a PHP app in a business running on Windows with a Wintel IT shop is going to be problematic. Trust me, I've tried this.
First off - you've got issues with migrating your programmers. ASP.NET has essentially an event-driven model, which is lacking from ASP, PHP, JSP, and CFM.
This doesn't seem like a big deal, right?
Well, imagine you've got a platoon of VB programmers on your staff, who've written apps with an event-driven model for 15 years. I've seen this, they tend to write awful, awful code in a request-response model. Drop them in front of VB.NET and suddenly it works pretty much the same. Repurpose your programmers!
Hey, I didn't say it always worked.
There're additional issues with desktop software integration. With remoting and web services, it's pretty easy to write a windows desktop app and a web app that do the same thing, and even share code. PHP lacks the ability to do that.
Again, I didn't say this was always a great idea, but if you're an IT manager with a dozen VB programmers onstaff...
Another problem PHP faces is one of support. When your windows admin has trouble installing PHP, who can they call for definitive answers? Who can they open a trouble ticket with? Well, okay, Zend, but most people aren't aware of that, and most IT managers know for certain that there's a Microsoft Licensed Support Partner just off the interstate, and 35 MS-partner consultancies they can call. It's a stupid reason to most of us, but to an IT manager, that's a very real concern.
Most people forget that ASP.NET is just a single component of the.NET strategy. Unfortunately thanks to MS's wonderful marketing department, it's become the most visible and is associated with the whole thing. There's.NET remoting,.NET Web Services,.NET Windows forms, etc. The big deal MS wanted everyone to see is that they're all interrelated and thus enterprise-ready. Problem is, nobody does, and continues to use ASP.NET as the only part of it. And in a mixed environment of windows apps, ASP.NET, ASP, dll hell, etc...well, of course it gets a bad rap. It was naive of MS to think that users would upgrade everything simultaneously, and it probably hurt their adoption.
It also didn't help that they branded every server, software package, and component something.NET regardless of what it was. Really didn't help their argument much.
I've had to write apps in both PHP and C#.NET. The PHP apps came together much faster, but...damn, ADO.NET has some sweetness there. No server-proprietary calls, everything's native in XML if you want to manipulate data that way, and web services, when they work, are pretty cool and super-easy to write.
--
----
"I used to listen to Null Device before they sold out."
Re:.net web services
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Except that it hasn't been done nor is anyone talking about doing it..NET does it NOW and works great..NET 1, Java 0. Next...
Sure, I use .NET on vacation...
by
Demodian
·
· Score: 2, Funny
... to get the.FISH out of the water...
Re:It takes insight to notice these things take ti
by
eastshores
·
· Score: 1
Maybe not Hailstorm, but therein lies the problem with.NET, it was so broad that MS realized they had just confused most about what their intentions were. If you are a MS developer (as I am) you know that C# is a very viable language and in our shop most of the.NET developers I have interviewed are writing in C#. In my opinion, you seem to be one of the confused that lump all of the initiatives of.NET together (with good reason since MS presented it this way) but I caution anyone that knocks their developer technologies, they are superior to anything that MS has produced, and are very attractive when compared to other technologies.
Re:.net web services
by
ClosedSource
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"One of Java's strengths is that it doesn't allow multi-lang other than JNI. Sure, there's a learning curve, but language standardisation is good."
Isn't that a bit like saying that one of the strengths of VB is that it doesn't allow you to run your applications on different platforms so you can standardize on one?
There is always a trade-off between standards and flexibility. This issue isn't exclusive to Sun or MS.
.NET's reflection capabilities strike me as a bit cooler than Java's. IANAJP and IANA.NETP, but it looks much easier to emit.NET bytecode on the fly to the CLR than it is to emit Java bytecode on the fly to the VM. If I'm wrong about this, I'd love to be corrected because I want to be able to do that in Java.
Isn't talking about Longhorn anti-naysaying? (If I can coin that phrase for the opposite extreme.)
I mean, Longhorn's been the rainbow of computerdom for quite some time now: constantly receding as you approach it. It's due out now in 2005? Maybe.NET will be the pot-o-gold at the end of the rainbow.
>A lot of things are "easier" than ASP.NET/ADO.NET coded using an OOP >language. For simple things you're better off using something like PHP >or ASP/VBS. Of course when project complexity reaches a certain >point you'll start to find real advantages to going with a modern >approach that seperates the presentation layer from the business layer. >Of course taking this approach can make writing a simple application seem >daunting, but in the long run it pays off.
Well, Zope is object oriented, has excellent seperation of presentation and business layer possibilities and once you know how it works, is very easy to get stuff done. Oh, and it is free.
Well, Zope is object oriented, has excellent seperation of presentation and business layer possibilities and once you know how it works, is very easy to get stuff done. Oh, and it is free.
free can also be achieved with.net. If you're prepared to deal with the EULA for the.net Framework SDK, then you can run with a variey of open sourced / Free IDE's or do the whole lot from the command line if that turns you on. Here's enough no-charge stuff to get you into a position to have a serious play with.net and get to know it:
Framework 1.1 redistibutable (23MB) The minimum requirement to get anywhere with.net, but you might prefer the rather more comprehensive:
Framework 1.1 SDK (106.2MB) All the commandline tools including the compilers for C# and vb.net, documentation as well as the framework libraries. If you don't want an IDE at all, this download is all you'll need.
Web Matrix (1.3MB) Free ASP.net IDE which fits on a floppy, requires only the redistributable rather than the whole SDK, and includes a working local-only webserver derived from:
Cassini Web Server (217kB) Open sourced, very simple web server for running ASP.net apps provided as a code sample. Only works on calls from the local machine but rem out one line of code and (if you're brave/foolhardy) this no longer applies. If you'd prefer to keep if Free as well as free (apart from the SDK of course), you could look at:
SharpDevelop (8.3MB source or 5.3MB executable) An open source GPLed IDE for C# with a little bit (so far) of VB.net support
That should be enough to get you straight in there (assuming you've got a windows box to run it all on of course, but if not, then why even think about it?).
Now personally, I'm very very fond of Visual Studio.net, but for running up a quick, not-many-pages data-driven web app, the Web Matrix can sometimes be the superior tool (the major difference is that VS.net pretty much enforces code-behind and has multi-file projects, whilst the Web Matrix works with inline code and a single file at a time. Certainly, the adoption has been slower then Microsoft would have liked, but then, my personal interpretation of the 'what is.net?' question is, at the moment, 'the win64 API, currently in preview on top of win32', and since the move to.net is essentially a move to a new platform, it's going to be no faster than the move to win32 from win16 before it. All.net questions seem to end up at 'it's the Common Language Runtime'
Give it a try, have a play around (esp. the web Matrix) and see what you like and what you don't. If nothing else, you'll learn to love some of the details of your favourite environment more than you did before.
The multitude of languages comes into its own when you realise that objects written in one language are easily used in every other language,... I don't think you can comment on.net unless you've used it.
OK, I've used.NET - so can I comment? There are improvements, but the runtime bloat and the ability to decompile is a real show stopper.
Have you actually used Fortran or Perl on.NET? Do you recall early on that Activestate was going to make a native.NET version of Perl, but it turned out to be so slow they had to go with native / unmanaged code and build a DLL bridge?
VAX/VMS from the 1980's had a common calling convention for multiple languages, including assembler, along with a rich OS API that is arguably much more reliable than Win32. That meant you could do your multiple language development back in the 80's.
Now consider, Microsoft's move to.NET is really brilliant. With the multi language FUD they give casual developers, managers and marketers the feeling that.NET is somehow open. Yet in the same swoope they render virtually all open source langauges such as GCC and Java as legacy.
Hmmm.
Defense applications
by
master_p
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I am glad I work for the Defense sector. Mostly C++, some Ada, some Java.
There are still a bunch of guys like us that want our application statically compiled, with direct access to memory, source-code compatible in Unix and Windows, and easy to program for with standard libraries for gui, database, io, strings etc.
But we are still waiting for that language (perhaps D ?).
With C++, we have static compilation and direct access to memory, but a lack of everything else.
With Java, we have standard libraries, but it lacks the speed due to the VM.
Re:Not all your base belongs to us
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Not that it matters, but insightful gives you karma. Funny doesn't (anymore).
.NET is properly engineered
by
Jinmoti
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Unlike earlier Microsoft languages/environments,.NET is properly engineered. It obeys all the usual rules of OO programming, and it has a class library which is consistent and makes the programmer much very productive.
Compare this to the ugliness of Microsoft's earlier C++, with macros everywhere and a totally illogical class library.
I like the fact that.NET uses much that is best from other object oriented languages - it means that it is very easy to learn if you are familiar with the best practices in software engineering.
My favourite analogy of.NET
by
Ridgelift
·
· Score: 1
Mono Will Be Useless When Finished
by
Vagary
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Currently Windows.Forms* is supposedly 56% done, and yet it is completely usuable to everyone but the developers. Why? Because to use it you must install a two-month old version of Wine, patch it with an obscure third-party patch, and then get the configuration just right.
As someone who's interested in doing some.Net development on Linux, this kludge is completely unacceptable. The Mono team made a grave mistake by tying the success of their project to the notoriously unreliable and difficult to configure Wine libraries. If they had have done the GTK interface layer first, then Mono would already be useful for something more than Miguel's monkey spanking.
* The reason Windows.Forms is so important is that there are already plenty of ways to make trivial console apps cross-platform. In order for Linux to tap into the Windows app market, we need the GUI, godamnit!
Re:Mono Will Be Useless When Finished
by
Joe+Tie.
·
· Score: 1
The whole thing with Windows.Forms killed any interest I might have had. If wine's needed it isn't crossplatform enough for me. And if the GTK interface is used, windows users are still going to be forced to download additional libraries. Java or Python bindings around WxWindows seems like a better solution for crossplatform gui programs.
-- Everything will be taken away from you.
Re:Mono Will Be Useless When Finished
by
Nevyn
·
· Score: 1
Currently Windows.Forms* is supposedly 56% done, and yet it is completely usuable to everyone but the developers.
This isn't true as long as the app. doesn't override the WndProc method. See miguel's comment
-- ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
Yes, but what the hell is it?
by
dacarr
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You know, nobody has made it totally clear on what exactly.NET was. To this day, my boss thinks it's a programming language and is the greatest thing since sliced bread - but then that's why he's the boss, because he knows how to sell.
-- This sig no verb.
Re:Yes, but what the hell is it?
by
jav1231
·
· Score: 1
I agree. No one has ever clearly defined it to me. Developers seem to define it as a "programming framework." If that's true then why attach it's name to a server framework? or an OS? It sounds to me like a programming toolkit designed to implement new software in MS's proprietary OS nest. (The fact that Mono is able to interact to me is frightening because some in the OSS community seem to think that the Dog that bites is suddenly going to not bite.)
It's from MS, and as a company I am suspect of everthing they do from now on. Yes, I might be blindly categorizing everything MS as bad. Well, you know only the ignorant or the stupid buy a whore they know has the clap.
BTW: Don't tell me how stupid I am if you can't even define it yourself. Ignorant? Well, that I'll give you.:)
>
Every dog has it's 15 mintues of fame.
by
Viduliya
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
For everyone that thinks.Net is the best thing since sliced bread, here is a reality check:.Net IS NOT Gods gift to programming! (unless, you consider Microsoft to be God?)
How can anything that requires MS Windows on both client and server possibly hope to replace Java ever?? I am not saying that Java is perfect, there is no such thing.
Can you really make a.Net application to work on anything other than Windows?? And No, the whole world is not using Windows and IE nor do they want to.
Yeah, I know about Mono but it's not ready and will not never be given any real support by Microsoft to become usable every time they change.Net, Mono will have to try and play catch-up. Have Microsoft ever made a truly platform independent software? It is not in their interest. It is in our interest to NOT support such things. If Micro$oft is involved in something sooner or later they will try to own and set the standards for it (Example: HTML/DHTML W3C or Micro$oft?).
I would not want to work/develop on any system where Micro$oft dictates all the standards. I'd rather stop using a computer and resort back to using an abacus for computing and carrier pigeons for networking. If I am not alone then.Net days are numbered and Java or something better is surly going to replace it. In the meantime if you are out of a job pick up a.Net manual and do some light reading and try to make some money off it.
Re:Not all your base belongs to us
by
nick_urbanik
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Oh dear, doesn't Slashdot value humour?
Re:Not all your base belongs to us
by
nick_urbanik
·
· Score: 1
Hey, you can comment on people's sigs without being modded as "offtopic"!
(Oh dear, spoke too soon!:-)
That's .Not from Microsoft...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
...Not gonna happen any time soon.
I also like their other tag line "Software for the Agile business"
Know what that really means? It means when your network crashes, your business must be agile enough to get the job done anyway.
So, is .Net now renamed to .NOT?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Since this was a bet the farm thing, too bad the farm didnt go down yet!
VA software - hello Java, goodbye .Net
by
kshkval
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The Department of Veterans Affairs is a large and influential health care entity... a lot of health care organizations look to the VA for software leadership. Last year, VA programmers started to develop the latest generation of new apps for the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS), probably the most widely distributed and multifaceted GUI-based medical record app in the U.S. The coders worked for about 6 months with.Net and then junked the whole thing for a variety of reasons, adopted Java for the newest and most innovative apps and have not looked back. Of course, many of the VA programmers are still in love with MUMPS, but there are not many MUMPS programmers graduating anymore. Bailing on.Net and adopting Java has got to say something about the relative ease of programming w/ Java or at least the cost of software development.
Take a look at what Blue Titan is doing to Web Services. A complete solution for managing and routing web services, all written using a Service Oriented Architecture.
Re:Not all your base belongs to us
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
xargs is for old hippies who wear diapers.
find ~your -name '*base*' -exec chown us {} \;
Stuck with Java? Get your facts straight please.
by
Dalcius
·
· Score: 1
"Even though Java's done it for a long time, you're tied to one language"
You might look into CORBA before you go making such claims.
-- ~Dalcius Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
Re:.net web services
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I have developed specifically in C#.Net for 5 months until our funding ran out. My group did just about everything: Com Interop, XML, SOAP, WinForms, MSHTML, Web connectivity stuffs. Now I have no job but i don't feel any bad about never having to code in.Net again. Let me tell ya, it's very frustrating.
First of all. Why is everybody raving about.Net being used in multiple languages? because most of the time we C# developer have to read documentation/postings/tips from VB.Net code. What kind of advantage is that?? I'm sure VB.Net people find it irritating to read C# code, too. And why is a primitive non-OO language like VB anything to do with the OOP style structure of the.Net framework anyway?
The most terrifying thing by far is the fact that.Net framework is very incomplete and poorly documented if at all. A lot of things(such as setting TCP timeouts) are simply not possible. you need to use the COM Interop and know COM. And COM interop is a terrible thing. In fact, COM is terribly complicated thing and.Net developers are forced to read cryptive COM related postings.
And then you have the bugs and lack of documentation. When developing with MSHTML lib, there's ZERO documentation in.Net framework. So basically we have to guess our way through what the wrapper does. This happens to just about everything we tried to develop with perhaps one exception of Winform.
Now Winform is nice and fast but not without problems. For example, MS insisted that the damn transparancy bug is a "intended feature." (a transparent form shows it's parent, but not other things that might be stacked under it.) And refresh problems, too.
"The wonderful Visual Studio.Net" that we subscribed thru MSDN is giving us lots of griefs with bugs, too. Once the binary project file is broken, it's a flipping mess.
To conclude, I believe that Microsoft have made a mistake for marketing hype of a technology that is simply not ready for prime time. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth for many developers. If you consider how fast MS dumped COM+, it's pretty scary to think that maybe.Net will be wiped out all of a sudden and we are again hijacked to learn another brand new broken system.
Why MS doesn't just flat out tell us that.Net is an effort to imitate/beat Java is beyond me. I guess the great thing about.Net is that you don't have to deal with MS's horrible COM interfaces. But.Net cannot stand on its own without COM, and.Net itself is simply not done yet.
"virtually none of the promised advantages"??
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How exactly did you figure that?.NET is already miles ahead of earlier MS technologies (and dare I say, OS stuff as well?) and C# alone is a major benefit regardless of any other.NET piece. Just ask Miguel de Icaza. If you are not very familiar with.NET, you shouldn't be making stupid claims about it.
Re:Not all your base belongs to us
by
nick_urbanik
·
· Score: 2, Informative
No, it is much more efficient than -exec... {}, since it calls... much less often than once per file, as -exec.. {} does. I use xargs a lot in my sysadmin work.
Okay, my hair used to come down to my waist, but I do not wear daipers!
Re:.net web services
by
Sanction
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think I can comment very easily, with or without using it. How about: I have enterprise customers, I need to deploy on Solaris or AIX,.Net is not portable, therefore any other perceived advantages to.Net are irrelevant.
For a lot of people, there are legitimate reasons for dismissing it out of hand. It is an incredible environment for developing apps on Windows, but beyond that problem space, it is not particularly useful.
-- Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
Re:.net web services
by
cfish
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
(repost: cookie was lost so previous post became anon.) I have developed specifically in C#.Net for 5 months until our funding ran out. My group did just about everything: Com Interop, XML, SOAP, WinForms, MSHTML, Web connectivity stuffs. Now I have no job but i don't feel any bad about never having to code in.Net again. Let me tell ya, it's very frustrating. Anyone who raves about.Net probably havn't coded extensively with it.
First of all. Why is everybody raving about.Net being used in multiple languages? because most of the time we C# developer have to read documentation/postings/tips from VB.Net code. What kind of advantage is that?? I'm sure VB.Net people find it irritating to read C# code, too. And why is a primitive non-OO language like VB anything to do with the OOP style structure of the.Net framework anyway? cross development is supposedly supported in god-aweful COM.
The most terrifying thing by far is the fact that.Net framework is very incomplete and poorly documented if at all. A lot of things(such as setting TCP timeouts) are simply not possible. you need to use the COM Interop and know COM. And COM interop is a terrible thing. In fact, COM is terribly complicated thing and.Net developers are forced to read cryptive COM related postings.
And then you have the bugs and lack of documentation. When developing with MSHTML lib, there's ZERO documentation in.Net framework. So basically we have to guess our way through what the wrapper does. This happens to just about everything we tried to develop with perhaps one exception of Winform.
Now Winform is nice and fast but not without problems. For example, MS insisted that the damn transparancy bug is a "intended feature." (a transparent form shows it's parent, but not other things that might be stacked under it.) And refresh problems, too.
"The wonderful Visual Studio.Net" that we subscribed thru MSDN is giving us lots of griefs with bugs, too. Once the binary project file is broken, it's a flipping mess.
To conclude, I believe that Microsoft have made a mistake for marketing hype of a technology that is simply not ready for prime time. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth for many developers. If you consider how fast MS dumped COM+, it's pretty scary to think that maybe.Net will be wiped out all of a sudden and we are again hijacked to learn another brand new broken system.
Why MS doesn't just flat out tell us that.Net is an effort to imitate/beat Java is beyond me. I guess the great thing about.Net is that you don't have to deal with MS's horrible COM interfaces. But.Net cannot stand on its own without COM, and.Net itself is simply not done yet.
It runs on Windows and Unix/Linux so you can stick it on anything
So does PHP
My Question EXACTLY -- MOD PARENT UP
by
_newwave_
·
· Score: 1
Version 1.0 was released in January '02.
Reminds me of the Internet hiring craze when job reqs would ask for "5+ years of Coldfusion" in 1998.
Re:My Question EXACTLY -- MOD PARENT UP
by
uradu
·
· Score: 1
> Version 1.0 was released in January '02.
That's what I thought. For a moment there I thought I had missed a few years of my life somehow. I guess they're talking about the FUD period of.NET, when they would occasionally mention it in public, leaving you to guess whether it was a new cookie or toothpaste.
It's been three years since it's been introduced to the public, and I still can't get a straight-forward answer on what it actually is... Someone should congratulate M$'s marketing people for giving it a catchphrase rather than, god forbid, useful information.
That comes from the NDA one signs to get access to *BETA* copies of MS software, because *BETA* releases are traditionally much slowly than the final release.
MS got burned years ago, when they passed out copies of the NT 1.0 BETA to journalists (which was a non-optimized build with lot of debugging code in it), and then they wrote (with comparisons to retail version of other OSes), how slow it was. Of course, when NT was finally released (about a year after that), it was considerably faster, but it took years for it to live down those initial ill-informed comments.
The name only reflected clarification of the target market.
".NET" is still attached to products targeted to developers. (Witness "Visual Studio.Net 2003" released a few weeks ago)
I know Linux Guys may find this hard to believe, by the people in charge of buying Operating Systems are (statistically) rarely programmers.
Re:Stuck with Java? Get your facts straight please
by
ClubStew
·
· Score: 1
What are you talking about? I was stating that with the JVM, you're stuck with Java. Apparently, though, there was some obscure projects out there that can target the JVM, but I was never claiming that Java's been the only one to do it up until.NET. I'm aware of CORBA and some of what it can do and that its been around a long time. I'm sorry if lead you wrong.
By the same token
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
It's been over a decade since we were first introduced to GNU Linux and virtually none of the promised advantages have come true. Is it time for the Open Source Community to move on?
But where does the business go?
by
gotr00t
·
· Score: 1
Although you may be right as to what.NET exactly is, you didn't mention how that ties in the advertisements that Microsoft literally plastered everywhere.
In Newsweek, for example, there were ads that had catchy slogans like "1 degree of seperation between you and your customers - that's the power of.NET".
They make it sound like some sort of fix-all do-all solution to business, when the product itself wasn't about business at all, but more about the technology behind it; the ads didn't mention anything about it. That's where it is extremely misleading, and giving people false impressions about it.
At first, I heard that it was a development platform, like you said, then, I saw the ads. I got confused as to what.NET really is, and being one who is skeptical about Microsoft, I speculated that it was nothing new, just hype, and lots of it.
Re:But where does the business go?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
.NET is just another layer of abstraction, not that much of a big deal, it has the advantage of cleaning up a few rough spots from the layers below, "stealing" ideas from and improving upon other competitive language(s) (java). Also, being at a higher level of abstraction, theoretically, it should be easier for people to learn and program in than if you learned how to program in all the layers it hides. So what this means for business is more lower cost apps, quicker development time of those apps, and easy to find programmers who are reasonably inexpensive since the platform is "easier" to program in and "interchangable" programmers should be easier to find and/or train. Not to mention that apps could be written in one platform, and communicate with legacy apps with no problem, and people with no programming experience could understand the xml config files...etc., etc.
Re:But where does the business go?
by
cait56
·
· Score: 1
Um, to be fair, Java had a healthy dose of hype too.
really nothing more than the.NET runtime (CLR), the associated libraries, and the associated languages that can execute on the CLR (e.g. C#, VB.NET, etc.)
And that's it....
It interfaces to a whole lot of things via web services, COM, various MS server products, etc. but that's all it is.
Microsoft's marketing people didn't do us any favors by clouding the definition of.NET. However, we should be used to that by now. They did the same thing to DDE, OLE, ActiveX, COM, COM+, and probably some others I'm forgetting.
Really, it's quite easy. Now go do yourself a favor and gain some perspective by downloading the.NET SDK and a good free.NET IDE (like SharpDevelop or Web Matrix) and just go play with it.
Oh, and if you just must maintain an open source angle on it, then try Mono (or that other.NET open source clone I'm forgetting the name of right now) and go from there. If you've ever worked with Perl, Python, PHP, Java or anything else like that it will be pretty easy. And it won't hurt.
I promise.:+)
--
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
Ballmer and New Concepts
by
Eric+Damron
·
· Score: 1
"There is always enthusiasm in our business for new concepts. So-called free software is the latest new thing. We will rise to this challenge, and we will compete in a fair and responsible manner that puts our customers first."
Wow Ballmer... Microsoft is looking at new concepts!
--
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
fyi,
you can AOT (ahead of time) compile your apps if you like, thereby making it much more difficult to decompile your apps. Otherwise, there are obfuscators available just like Java obfuscators. I had the same concerns with Java when I first started using it (in 1995). There really weren't any obfuscators back then either.
The real benefit of multilanguage support IMHO is not so much writing in whatever language you feel like, but making it easier to migrate existing code. Of course there are other ways to do that, web services for instance...
Re:Not all your base belongs to us
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Actually, in order to ensure that you get all of user your's base, you would need to do:
I agree that one of the key features of.net is it's full featured IDE. with ms visual studio, the vb "leisure coders" can still write their small apps utilizing countless global variables all with names like jkl1, jkl2, etc. But it's also easy (and encouraged of course) to write and manage large OO projects written in several languages.
If you're a real programmer, then you probably already know at least two languages and it wouldn't be too hard to migrate from, say, java to j#.net with a learning time of somewhere between a week and a month ( with a good book ).
Now, about the shared objects between languages, while.net makes this simple (as long as all the other languages are.net and the os is windows), there are currently models implementing cross platform, cross language object and interface sharing. The one that comes to mind is XPCOM.
Re:Not all your base belongs to us
by
statusbar
·
· Score: 1
The way you used xargs breaks if there is any whitespace in the filenames. Yeah, you probably don't make directories with spaces in them, but your users will. If you want to use xargs, use find -print0 and xargs -0
--jeff++
-- ipv6 is my vpn
Re:Stuck with Java? Get your facts straight please
by
Dalcius
·
· Score: 1
Besides the projects that compile java bytecode, yes, the JVM is specific to Java, but that by no means limits what you can get to work with Java. Without a JVM, you don't have WORA, but.NET doesn't mean that either unless the person considering this point can't see past the stained glass windows in Redmond. Basically, I didn't see much of a point in your mention. If I've missed something here, please smack me upside the head.:)
We're using CORBA at my office to cache remote (across-country) databases in separate processes so Apache child processes can access them quickly. IIRC, the CORBA ORB just uses local UNIX sockets to do the talking, so while I would guess there's a speed hit by not running the whole thing in a VM, you've still got effective language interoperability.
-- ~Dalcius Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
Dot. what?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What is dot.net? Isn't that a domain ending?
Yes I know what I am talking about, just thought I would throw in some flame bait...
Spoken Like...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
.. a true VM-monkey.
"hey, hardware guys, move over, leave machine designing to the real geniuses... that's us baby!"
- C++ Troll
It's all about independence FROM Intel
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
We're all missing the real point of.net
The true reason behind the.net push is to create a bunch of easy to use high level languages to compile down to basically the same code, then let that code run on Win32 platforms and Win64 platforms without making changes.
When the 32 to 64 bit switch starts, the.net apps will be ready to go. The win32 apps will require a translation layer.
Combine that with the fact that the Windows (NT/XP) kernel already supports multiple architectures, win32, posix and os/2 are the 3 common ones. I'm willing to bet that.net will show up in the kernel in the next version of Windows.
Actually, it's not only everything you said (with which I agree completely).
It also makes it possible for Microsoft to divorce itself from chips based on the Intel architecture. Thus, in the future, the applications that are written with.Net today could conceivably run on PowerPC, or future chips from Motorola, Zilog (still around?), or wherever.
This gives Microsoft business leverage over Intel, because Intel currently has a slight business leverage over Microsoft in the form of Linux, SCO (boo hiss), QNX, and other operating systems.
In other words, without.NET, if the Intel and AMD ship goes down (suppose there is some sort of crazy patent ruling), it takes Microsoft down with it.
3 Years...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Okay, 2000 was the introduction of.NET, 2001 had 9/11, 2002 was stock market hell, and in 2003 we're still praying for an economic recovery.
Tell me this: what the fsck year 2000 idea *has* fulfilled it's grandest expectation in the last 3 years?
Certainly not these two: LAMP: stagnant Java: stagnant
Has Anyone Else Wondered ?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Is it possible that Microsoft is producing.Net development tools with its intermediary language and JIT compilation so that the company can step away from the Win32 platform altogether (or at least step away from their current version of it) so they can
a) invalidate all existing pre.Net Win32 code b) lay the blame for Windows 'bugs' on Win32 c)... d) PROFIT !
??
Andrew
Re:Not all your base belongs to us
by
occupant4
·
· Score: 1
Actually I think the original chown was more legitimate. Your version would own things like ~your/bin/base, ~your/src/base, ~your/dog/base, etc. Us wants to be owning all YOUR base, not your dog's.
Good book on .NET IL
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
There's truth in Numbers
by
xtheunknown
·
· Score: 1
I think the mere fact that this post generated a staggering 800 replies proves that.NET is not.DONE yet. Many of the posts were actually coherent comparisons of.NET and other technologies and not just typical/. M$ bashing. There's hope for you Linux people yet.
--
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined : bullshit
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The other feature that.Net has is superior native execution, it was designed to be translated to native code.
i thought a write-once-run-everywhere program running in a VM could (per se) not contain native code?
The.net virtual machine is better defined than the JVM is.
could you give any reasoning for this? from what i know from.NET (not too much), you still have pointers to "real" locations in physical memory. should be fairly easy to break type-safety (compared to Java).
Only if you assume marketing involves providing true information, something that very few companies seem to believe. Microsoft has done a very effective job of using.Net as a catch-all brand name for everything from hotmail to server operating systems.
MS has done a bad job explaining the concept of the development framework and how it differs from Java, but marketing is about throwing around buzzwords (and sprading FUD), and MS is very good at that.
You can evaluate technology without having used it before. Of course this is normally better achieved by somebody with experience in the industry, but if somebody says I am multiplataform, open, etc. you can refer to the hard facts in order to state your opinion.
You make it appear like the only way to evaluate something is asking the designers themselves. What do you think they would say?
-- IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Web Services, Web Services, Web Services
by
awol
·
· Score: 1
Doesn't anyone open fscking ports anymore. For god's sake why are wrapping Remote invocation in a protocol that was designed to transfer text, just open a fsking port. This is just insanity.
-- "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
Re:Web Services, Web Services, Web Services
by
zero_offset
·
· Score: 1
No, people don't open fscking ports anymore because remoting handles the handshaking and retry and error handling and other BS that you'd have to write yourself, by-hand, every time. Depending on the protocol, it may also handle authentication and other security details, or queueing, or a wide variety of other things which a developer can then rely on transparently.
But if you wanted to open a port, that's also pretty easy under.NET.
--
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
>...objects written in one language are easily used > in every other language, so you can have 1 > developer using Perl, another using C#. Try that > in Java. Try any cross language development in > Java
You can't compare.NET with Java in this context; you need to compare it with the JRE.
I can and have written Python code that runs in the JRE, using Jython (a 100% Pure Java implementation of Python). It lets me mix and match Python and Java code, accessing objects across languages, and leverage the best of each language. I know you can run a LOT of other languages under the JRE; the number of available languages is at least comparable with those supported under.NET
Re:Not all your base belongs to us
by
nick_urbanik
·
· Score: 1
Absolutely right; the sig could be something like this: find ~your -name '*base*' -print0 | xargs -0 chown us
M$ 48 billion in cash
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
who cares what the open source community has to say about.NET or anything my M$.
money talks bullshit walks
m$ is the winner, open source is doomed to fail
The Real Story of MS and Vaporware
by
duck_prime
·
· Score: 1
This isn't anything new - MS practically invented the word "vapourware" back in the 90's.
Actually, they announced that they had invented vaporware during the 90's, but it never really shipped until mid-2002.
I mean, get your story straight, sheesh.
Um
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's been three years since we were first introduced to.NET and virtually none of the promised advantages have come true.
Give me a break! Wake up people don't knock it till you try it.
It doesn't matter
by
NullProg
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Not that Microsoft has done anything wrong,(IMHO I think the language neutral VM is great), but has anyone besides myself looked at the object files the compiler creates? My mother codes in VB (Excel) it doesn't make her a programmer, just a accountant who uses the tools provided.
It all still boils down to x86 machine code. With.Net you may loose the ability to choose the best optimizations for your program. Of course thats true with any assembler. Has anyone besides myself look into the MS IL layer? Good, but not great.
From a embedded programmers perspective,.Net stinks. Too much overhead on low CPU/Memory systems to be usefull (Although Microsoft is selling the licenses dirt cheap). HP's Chi (tea) comes close, but no cigar. IBM's Java offering also comes close, but again no cigar. With embedded computers you still can't beat assembler and 'C'.
Not to start a flame war, but as developers I hope most of us realize that.Net still wraps around my favorite API, Win32. Just look at the DLL's that are loaded when you lauch your IL hello world program My test program loaded (GDI, GDI32, CTL3D, WIN32DLL, etc) and are all win32 libraries.
Enjoy,
-- It's just the normal noises in here.
I'll shoot myself for this
by
A+Big+Jerk
·
· Score: 1
I wouldn't normally come in here and stick up for MS. But I have to mention the one thing about.NET that has made my life much easier - STRINGS!
Honestly, how do you remember when the fuck to use a _bstr_t, or an LPCTSTR, or a CString, or whatever else it is today?
A string is an array of char(s)...
-- >> Buy yourself some extremely long bed sheets. You'll be making an escape rope out of them very soon.
Well, the point of business maybe merely to make money, and Jesus knows it's hard to live without at least a little money, but hey, when you die, and you know you have to, what then? Are you gonna take that money with you?
Anyway, you may care about the major corporations of the world, and "buy" into their view that money is the point of everything, but I guarantee you, the corporations don't give a shit about you, or anything you want, they only care, as your post suggests, about the money they can squeeze from their consumers. This is the beauty of Open Source. It is about what the programmers want. Open Source is NOT a cash cow. It is a path to personal control over a machine. It is like my ability to take the head off a hammer I own, and attach it to a jack handle. Why, you may ask? Well, it doesn't matter to me whether you like my idea, or would use or buy it. It makes me happy to use a hammerhead attached to a jack handle. Sure, it may look rough, and it doesn't have the neon green fiberglass handle of a store bought hammer, but it suits MY needs or wants perfectly, and I get one Hell of a buildup of momentum when I swing the damn thing!
-- For those who describe their systems as 'boxen', do you order multiple 'boxen' of corn flakes also?
Hey, you're preaching to the choir. I know most corporations don't give a shit about anyone. That's why I stated that we're extremely lucky if they do even a little bit (typically, this is only from small businesses, which are quickly being gobbled-up by the corporate monster).
As you said, though, we need at least a little money - to survive if nothing else. While OSS might be good for personal projects, it doesn't generate a whole hell of a lot of revenue. I think the recent death of LRP would've taught you that. And if you're not making money, as the maintainer said he's not, you can't eat, pay bills, or even afford a funeral for when you do die.
.NET in non-Web environments?
by
achurch
·
· Score: 1
I'll freely admit that I know next to nothing about.NET, so I may be drawing the wrong impression here, but reading posts here from people who (claim to) have worked in.NET give me the impression that it's designed primarily, if not solely, for ASP and similar Web-based programming, which frankly doesn't interest me much (I look on the current ASP/JSP/Flash/what-have-you rage as a passing thing; networked programs will eventually come out of the mix, but not on the browser, or at least not on the browser as we know it). Is.NET useful for anything else--server/daemon programming, game programming, or the like?
Unix and subsequently Linux have been in developement for over 3 decades. Maybe it's time to move on?
That's as dumb a point as you and this article try to make.
You move on.
The fast .NET startup times are due to ngen.exe
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
.NET doesn't start fast because it's embedded in the operating system as you said. The main reason it starts fast is because crucial libraries are pre-jitted upon installation. You can pre-jit your own DLLs using ngen.exe. Also, Windows Forms contains a greater percentage of native code than Swing does and seems to have been designed more with performance in mind.
Re:The fast .NET startup times are due to ngen.exe
by
Hezaurus
·
· Score: 1
Ok. Still one of the biggest drawback of Java for desktop is not the speed but the 'singletasking' VM. Modern, well written swing apps are responsive and easily fast enough if you have P3+ level computer. But the start up time is a killer and each and every java program running on your desktop has it's 'own VM' running too.
An example scenario where version x of server software y was stress tested with low memory conditions:
Command options -Xms10m -Xmx10m (min and max memory boundaries both 10MB) which leaves exactly 10MB for your program to run with. But the actual memory consumption (fully saturated) rose to ~19MB. So in that particular case the VM and all the needed libraries where consuming ~9MB of memory. So if you're someday to run 10 java programs simultaneously the extra bloat is at least 90MB. I'm really looking forward to tyger which promises to fix this issue with multitasking VM where all running java programs share the same 'commond codebase'.
-- No matter how fast light travels it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it. (T. Pratchett)
some thoughts
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The thing that kind of bothers me with the people that are responding to the thread, is (in a way) you expect every programmer out there to devote their life to knowing the finite guts of the language and platform they're developing on. You seem to frown on anyone that can't write their applications in notepad using raw machine code. Some of us prefer to lead somewhat normal lives that include raising (and paying attention to) families, viewing natural sunlight from time to time, and living off of food OTHER than pizza and Mountain Dew. This means that some of us don't care if we know the basic wire protocols used in.NET. We don't care if we can't argue the benefits of one object technology against another.
Don't get me wrong. I do appreciate the opinions of others, and have learned a lot from just listening. You guys know a LOT more about programming and operating systems than I can ever hope to. You've devoted much of your life to learning it (and probably have a 100 times better memory retention ability than I do). I have a ton of respect for that. But you're forgetting the more important aspects of.NET for the daily programmer, like the fact it's a platform that does everything we need it to do, has TONS of info/data/examples/help out there for, and works on every PC that we use on a daily basis. It's not perfect, but it's a perfect match. That's important.
It's also worthy to note that many of you guys have a supreme hatred for Microsoft, and won't hesitate to blindly bash its products. I don't blame you. MS is easy to love, and even easier to hate.
Lastly, the comment/theme that stood out for me is
"The main problem with.Net is that it ties you to a specific OS which makes it a pain from a business economics point of view"
Well, I have a feeling that many, many, many businesses are content in using MS's OS's. So interoperability certainly isn't a concern. If that's the biggest problem with.NET, I'd say that it isn't really much of a problem. The companies that are using other OS's, probably aren't interested in using VS.NET anyhow. They're probably using JAVA, et.al. Problem solved.
My 2 cents
Blast away...
Re:some thoughts
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I totally agree with Mr. Anonymous Coward. Keep up the good postings. Cheers to MS.
I agree with Anonymous but would like to focus on one point. People usually mix up 3 things: easiness of use, graphical interfaces and MSs GUIs. Microsoft did not invent neither the concept of Graphical Interfaces nor the idea that working with a GUI is better. If the products of MS are not so easy to use as they promise, that doesnt mean all GUIs are like that.
Working with a GUI will ALWAYS be easier and better than working with plain text files. If this werent true, everybody would be fully happy working with vi or notepad. I know some people are in fact satistfied with that, butu it isnt the whole reality: millions of people and resources are and have been invested in programs like Eclipse, Visual Studio, IntelliJ Idea, and many others. Why? because a visual layout will always be better than text.
So, when a program doesnt work as it should, or we find a defect possibly caused by an imperfection in the implementation of the GUI, dont throw away the 'G' in GUI and say that real man uses emacs, instead, find whats wrong and build a better GUI.
You wanna some examples? heres two: Mac OS X and pretty soon UML 2.0.
Francisco Areas Guimaraes
Re:some thoughts
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"Working with a GUI will ALWAYS be easier and better than working with plain text files."
I'll have to disagree with this. Working with a GUI is easier for non-technical people. I'd much prefer editing settings (and other things) in text files, rather than through a GUI. Obviously you need to know the valid value ranges for the settings, but it's a fair tradeoff for the pure simplicity of a textfile.
Re:Not all your base belongs to us
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
or just use find -exec, which always works (as stated in the parents)... duh
Slashdot Mirror
I'm quite pleased to have been able to move from ASP to PHP in the past three years - although at least .Net seems better than the options which preceeded it.
... for "betting the company" on .Net. I mean, they're still here, right?
--The space between my ears was intentionally left blank--
Is it time for Microsoft to move on?
nah, it's time Microsoft to move over...
bada bing
Yes, its time for them to move on. But they won't. They have an idea, and will force it down everyone's throat until they get their way.
as well as a new API for compiled applications. big deal. all I can say is...woo hoo they finaly found something that can replace Basic!!!
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
that most of the .Net technology is still there in some shape of form but its the Marketing strategy that has failed miserably
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
And so it should - it's better than the alternatives which preceded it. It's just important to divorce the .Net marketing cloud from the actual technology on the ground.
Cheers,
Ian
I'm not pro .net at all and i don't really know much about it to be honest.<br> .net in this way.<br>
But i think its crazy to judge something is big as
If something doesn't 'take off' in 3 years time it's now a failure? Lets not be silly...
it's called .nyet
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
1) We have single-source logons for all users, even if they migrate workstations.
2) Users can access their apps and data from anywhere on the network, even offsite.
3) Ping times have halved.
4) You wouldn't believe our uptime, sometimes we go for weeks without rebooting.
5) The TCO is 1/10th of what it was and we've been able to reduce our IT staff (maybe this is the real reason the /. readership hates .NET?).
It's called "Microsoft Passport"! I thought it sounded familiar but when I asked, they waved their hands at me and said "This project is new..." so it has to be! Can you imagine the advantages? Logging into hotmail automagically using MS Passport, using Passport as some sort of all-round login system... Heck, you can even use MS Passport as an instant messenging system! Wow!
Hate me!
The true motivation behind
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
MS already is moving on - note "Windows Server 2003" (no .NET), and the broader term "web services" has taken over...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
> They have an idea, and will force it down everyone's throat until they get their way.
AND it'll cost ya!
Awwww... give big huge microsoft a breaky-waky... im just like 10, i can't really be relied on... my balls haven't even dropped yet... sheesh.
-Digital Extremist
Kid: But there's nothing on .Net!!! .Net .Net rocks .Net? .Not..
Joe ServicePack: I think only wise folks can u'stand
MCSE:
GNUist:
Microsoft: We're betting our ass.
IBM: Your ass is grass.
Sun: Java's the way.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
GM's Scott issued a strong warning to Microsoft, Sun and the other players in the Web services industry, that enterprises will not tolerate the standards wars of the past. "We have no appetite for it," he said
.net, let some other schmuck take the cost of developing it. WE got screwed on ISO networking and Token ring! Twice bitten, 3 times shy!"
Exactly, so he and everybody else is sitting back and waiting for a clear winner with mature functionality to materialize.
In other words, he's saying "Screw
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Is it time for Microsoft to move on?"
move along...nothing to see here.....
We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
I'd stick with trolling the physics stuff at least.
Most of .NET was puffery, to be sure (I read a piece on MSDN more or less admitting this), but that's largely because it was a working title given to a number of next-generation technologies that may or may not pan out, many of which haven't been released. You can't really consider C# or Hailstorm to have been around and competing for three years, can you?
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Woe betides us once more: brace yourselves for another flood of misinformed, biased and downright incorrect assertions from both sides of the fence. Please, no "c# is java", ".net is slower than java" or other such empty statements. If you've worked with .NET for 6 months plus (remoting/asp.net/interop/ado.net), great. We welcome your comments. Perl monkeys need not apply.
Likewise for you "java" programmers out there who in actuality have only ever compiled one applet, and it was a recompilation of a decompiled shareware scroller that you removed the copyright notice from. Well done. On the other hand, if you've solid experience developing beans, rmi and other such projects, we also welcome your comments.
The rest of you shut up and learn.
Rant over.
- Oisin
PGP KeyId: 0x08D63965
Hi,
I am all for html hyperlinks but I think I can find Eweek's website, as well as microsoft's website and its dot net section, especially after three years.
Of course I know, I wouldn't be bothered if I didn't try to read the article. Who reads the articles on slashdot anyways?
All the Linux vendors out there pretty much said that they were going to take over about 3 years ago too...is it time for them to move on as well?
"...none of the promised advantages have come true..."
surprise !
say the words "dot net" and you get to add so much to the cost of projects that it immediately makes it worth it to switch over.
.NET might ever catch on.
that is the only reason I could see why
I'm not saying it is a useless bit of technology, I'm just personally partial to using any number of existing technologies that do the same thing and are cheaper to implement.
my current employer is retarded when it comes to computers and they paid someone to do a very basic web project in "dot net" because there was a general misunderstanding in the difference between the domain and the programming structures.
In the end it cost them a ton and now it is costing them more to maintain. I am trying to get them to port it all over to a much lighter system (php on linux or freebsd), but they are currently not interested.
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
I'm not afraid to admit it, I like .net.
My job has become a whole lot easier, taking projects that could have taken weeks and turning them into days. ADO .net was my best friend last month and c# was my mistress. My company is re-doing just about everything as a web service and .net is making it that much easier. The fact that Visual Studio makes everything so easy just takes the load off of our extremely tiny R&D group which is relied on for every single technical question/project/advice. Maybe .net isnt all that it could have been, but it is great tool for any developer... unless you dont have windows, then I guess your just screwed.
He's giving real world data, these are indisputable facts.
.Net was (and still is) a marketing ploy to counter the sudden gains in mindspace being made first by Sun with J2EE and later by "web services" in general. Judging from the fact that most PHBs have heard about it it seems to have worked quite well - the fact that they (or, it seems, almost anybody) have no idea what it does it besides the point. As long as MS is still getting column inches ("comparing .Net to Crack Cocaine" or whatever) then it's working for them just fine, thanks. This isn't anything new - MS practically invented the word "vapourware" back in the 90's. I'm not saying .Net does nothing, i'm saying that the engineers got there after the marketing department and the advertising budget.
/t
#!/usr/bin/english
Microsofts business model is based on not fulfilling the promises they make, otherwise nobody would ever need to buy a new product. And of course its much easier to have a vision than to make this vision become reality.
And is there anybody that really remembers the promises they made 3 years ago? People are so used to get screwed by Microsoft that they don't even memorize the things that will never come true. All I personally remember of that .net thing is that even 3 years ago people were saying that this is just a big vapoware thing.
The only problem is that they've made the damn IDE too simple and now every Tom, Dick, and Sally thinks they can program. Writing code and actually developing applications are vastly different.
With XML Web Services (granted, not MS proprietary) and Remoting, .NET make remote procedure calls somewhat easier.
If Mono ever finishes, the platform-specific CLR can run most code. Even though Java's done it for a long time, you're tied to one language: Java. The .NET class library can be used by any language that targets the CLR - and that's quite a few; so any developer can write for .NET.
If the industry could actually start hiring good developers again instead of brain-dead code monkeys who's jobs at McD's got too tedious and their sole purpose for coding is more money, the field of .NET - not to mention a lot of other projects on any platform - would be much better. Who's to blame is all those middle managers out there that hire two code monkeys for the price of one good developer. At least they get what they pay for.
At least it's doing slightly better than GNU/Hurd.
Has anybody worked out what it is yet?
This is hardly a new strategy for Microsoft. And in the .NET case they succeeded on a collosal scale.
so I'd hope that D..., er, PG's trolling would be better since he has more time to focus on what he posts here. Just a thought. I just hoped for better quality than that (and your troll is much the lamer).
.NET was announced when it was still just an idea to counter the growing Java threat. Announce then design; that's MS' way of countering a perceived combatant.. err.. competitor. The world holds back on the competition as the Might MS FUD Machine has announced something that will cure cancer, clean your windows and leave your breath minty fresh.
Trolling is a art,
As a pretty experienced web developer, I've worked at some level (some more than others) with most of the popular platforms: ASP, PHP, Cold Fusion, JSP and ASP.NET (very little perl, which I've always regretted if just for completeness).
.NET has "failed" and maybe not, but for me, ASP.NET has improved my working world radically. Don't knock it till you've tried it.
From that perspective, ASP.NET just totally rocks my world. I can debug more easily. Performance is better. It encourages good architectural practices. And my productivity has gone through the roof - I haven't done any formal tests but based on personal experience I'd say I can develop at *least* 30% faster with ASP.NET compared to any other platform, possibly more. The difference is most pronounced in more complex systems where it really shines. For less than, say, a thousand lines of code it probably doesn't save as much time, but I rarely work on that anyway.
So, maybe
Read reviews of shopping cart software
Three years in and I believe it is fair to say that most people do not understand exactly what .Net is --
other than a vague "trust me" monolithic solution.
Which I believe is the core of its problem. While there are some fools who will buy anything that fill in the name of their favorite supplier offers, more of the market wants to make decisions for themelves.
From the little I've had time to study .Net, there were
a few aspects of it that were indeed superior to what
had proceeded it on the market. But the information
to make a cohesive strategy was just missing. What
if I liked the characteristics of the run-time engine,
but needed to stick with CORBA interfacing?
The most telling flaw in the strategy, for me, was that you could find entire racks of books on .Net.
But absolutely none that explained the basic wire
protocols used. They were all "How to Program a .Net application inside one box using language Y".
When I'm designing a system, the language used on each box is the last detail that I consider. I want to understand the interactions of the remote systems, how dependent they are on each other, how they evolve seperately, how the failure of one will affect the others, etc.
It's obvious this article missed the ball, it's a good thing the artist at UserFriendly saw the true nature of the beast.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
It's time to move on. Microsoft needs to concentrate more on their operating system's security rather than a stupid internet framework that never took off. Sure, it's interwoven with some of their later OSes, but it's crap. Move on.
1, 2 and 4 are things UNIX has been able to offer for years.
3 is highly dubious. What's the connection between SOAP, virtual machines, and ping times?
5 is pure Microsoft marketing--look at their ads. Fact is, time after time independent analysis shows that TCO is lower for non-Microsoft solutions, both closed and open source.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Roughly half the jobs listed in Windows want at least some .NET or C# experience. The majority of the others are J2EE/Java.
This article is just more FUD. There is no doubt that .NET, and ASP.NET in particular (aspx pages) is the future of software development on Windows - on Linux also, if you believe Mono...
I was in the audience of one of the .Net Presentation some months ago... I must admit I was quite impressed by Web Services, OO, Program Once/Run Anywhere, etc...
But, Web Services are absolutely not related to .Net, even if it's marketed as such (J2EE Business in the target... say hello!! :) ).
C# is interesting but too much inspired by Java... nothing so new or useful at this time.
This f*****g CLR is not portable, because old .COM is included in!
And finally ASP.NET is lol!
It could be great, if you keep your eyes closed , and whisper... but it sucks.
Who is this? (Also, I'm working. Which means IHBT after all.)
rusty. Truth be told, I spilled some monocle polish on the MySQL server. I'd clean it up now but I got yacht lessons later today. K5 will be back then.
Don't you guys think it time to move on? .Net is not the everything that Microsoft wanted it to be and that's fine. Passport sucks but the Net environment kicks ass for development. I think the haters need to move on.
Remember when Windows CE had been out for a couple of years and everyone was declaring it a failed technology? Look what happened after that...
.NET is still bound to be a success, but it's still too early to count 'em out. We're not talking about BOB here.
Now, I'm not saying that
So very many things wrong with this statement.
.NET is NOT "rebranded VB". .NET isn't even a program language, rather a development platform.
.NET, only to use the development tools Microsoft produces. Hell, use the sdk that they give out for free.
.NET web dev technology would be far faster to develop any decent sized site.
.NET technologies, and get a better understanding of what it is, before you start making comments.
First,
Also, there is no cost to use
I can't personally comment with complete confidence on php, as I have only used it sparingly. But from what I've seen, at least in terms of development time, any
You might want to use the
It's been ten years since we were first introduced to java and virtually none of the promised advantages have come true. Is it time for Sun to move on?
Microsoft's intentions were good -- get everybody using the same runtime environment and libraries, but their execution was poor, .net was surrounded by a cloud of "what is it?" and "how does it work?". They should have spent more time explaining what it is and how it works and less on "look it's like magic".
"Talent does what it can; genius does what it must."
Have you actually developed ASP.Net pages? It doesn't sound like it. It's certainly not restricted to rebranded Visual Basic. It's language neutral. I've worked with some developed with C#. Visual Studio .Net is an excellent tool too... it's fantastic for debugging multiple binary and scripting processes, and stepping almost transparently straight in to database stored procedures and then back out to the web page. PHP4 might be good, but the current ASP.Net and its supporting tools are pretty good too. You have to pick the right tools for the right job, and sometimes that means ASP.Net rather than PHP4.
.NET has little to do with anything .NET. It's a new Windows API designed to turn Windows into a virtual machine like Java so it can be architecture independent. That's what CLR and C# and all the rest of that stuff is about. It's about MS getting off x86-32 and into a larger world of ia64, amd64, and maybe even ppc64. CLR is the new Windows runtime. Once the move is complete, Windows will be able to run on anything and apps will not have to be recompiled at all. This will make Windows more portable than *nix.
Sweet mother of crap, I know who this is!
If Apple didn't implement Xerox's windows would Microsoft have created a version?
.NET is a perfect example.
If Apple hadn't invented multi-media for micro-computers would Microsoft have it's own implementation?
Microsoft haven't done any (apart from Word for Mac, then later Windows) inventing of their own, and what they have done, has always been a poor copy!
Downloading, burning to CDs, giving copies to friends, but not buying.
Think about it...for three years they've been talking about this amazing .NET thing. And every year the masses go "what the hell is this?" and each year it gets a feature here dropped and a feature there dropped. And yet, after three years, people still talk about it. People still want to develop for it. People are still holding out from developing with any of the other options because of .NET.
So...it may not DO anything just yet, but in terms of stalling development on other platforms and continuing to put MS in the news, I'd say it's a success.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
don't know who parent's parents are. Truth be told, if rusty doesn't get his act together I'm going to cancel my subscription.
".NET" was, and still is, a marketing moniker. It's just a euphemism for "synergy", which is itself a euphemism for "monopoly" (think AOL-Time Warner).
.NET would actually be something special if it weren't for the open source community pointing out the utter hypocrisy coming from Micro$oft.
Linux is still setting the pace in the industry.
Finally a topic so that all the zealots can bash this morning.
You hit the fail on the head!
Aftere using .Net we found out it is no better than VB to us. .Net has some major issues still and dont expect it ever getting fixed.
Our choice is still J2EE and linux as OS.
insisted that the internet would never be a part of their strategy
OK, not a direct quote, but hey, flame me
their name change from "PCWeek" to "EWeek" has provided "none of the promised advantages" they claimed when they tried to cash in on the "e" craze just before the bubble burst.
.NET is here to stay. .NET is the shape of things to come on Windows for a long, long time.
And other times, how long do you go for?
This is a joke, right?
When business' that lose over $50,000 a minute due to down time this simply is not good enough.
Try running X windows on clients to a Solaris/Linux/Unix box.
For MS Windows, using Cygwin, it's free if you don't need support. If you don't need apps that run on Windows, then you can use Linux/BSD on client computers which is also very cheap if you don't need support.
.net is a fine development platform for web services, but there are MANY others out there. Joe end user/business manager doesn't give a damn what his/her applications are built on. They only care about ROI.
.net is that the applications have yet to be built and marketed to the end users (on a scale large enough to notice). Even after this happens, most people won't notice that .net is there under their applications.
Most end users and business consumers are not developers. They want to buy products that solve real-world problems. The problem with
-ted
i thought that they had already moved on.
Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
I have no idea who those other guys are. Pip pip cheerio and I hope you have a great r^Hlunch today!
"...adding that .Net has now almost vanished from Microsoft's vocabulary."
What are they talking about? Next time you're signing out of hotmail, take a good look at that "Sign Out" button! It says "Sign Out (.net)"! And to think i used to sign out using outdated technologies.
In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. -Oscar Wilde
.Net has now almost vanished from Microsoft's vocabulary
.NET is squarely in the middle of EVERYTHING microsoft is offering in the forseeable future. Even if they're not blathering about it in every sentence.
(quote from the article)
What, is he basing this on the rename of the "next" server OS to Windows Server 2003?
Like it or not,
So it's not the total lost that it may seem.
It's more just a total loss in the MS hype department
A few days ago it appeared in Dutch webmags that QuoteOffice (a .NET based virtual office tool, offered for free in a basic version and for some 20 euros in a PRO version) stops. Not because they ran out of money, but because of technical problems. (see WebWereld (Dutch).
They didn't completely disclose what kind of tech probs they had though. Funny thing is the case is still listed on the MS site as a good example on how to use .NET. :)
--- Woohooo!
The results are really odd. .NET adaption went slower than I expected. It was crammed down our throats . . . and no one really seemed to care.
.NET. Literally I think 75% of Microsofts pushing the tool was useless or even backfired. Time seemed to be needed.
.NET has some good ideas mixed in with some unexpectedly lame ones. In general I'm able to develop faster and more efficiently (In some cases I've developed ASP.NET applications over twice as fast as ASP, yet with far less ASP.NET experience), but there are moments of strange and odd roadblocks.
.NET will rule the world? Not really. It's just one of many options. Web development and related technologies seem to be in a phase that's a mix of overcautious and overenthusiastic, and I don't think anyone is sure where things are going right now.
.NET? I don't expect they will - too much of an investment, too much behind it. It'll get altered and poked and prodded and integrated, but it'll be around in some form for awhile.
Then, recently (last year) I've seen a real explosion in
As a developer who has worked in a variety of languages, OVERALL,
Do I think
Will Microsoft give up on
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
I understand that slashdot users generally have an axe to grind against MS, but after reading this most laughable article, which was almost completely devoid of fact, I could not resist replying to this most ridiculous comment. Understand I am not trying to start a big platform flame war, just to point out that this article and comment are devoid of anything remotely resemebling an argument. The "evidence" that Microsoft's .NET initiative is so flimsy I don't know where to begin. Let's see, something like 200 of the Fortune 500 companies have mission critical apps in .NET. There has been example after example of .NET beating the pants of J2EE in terms of performance (if you don't believe me, download MS's free VB command line compiler and start with a prime number algorithm, then move on from there). And speaking from personal experience I have not yet met a developer who has any depth of experience with .NET who would NOT agree that it is their all time favorite development platform.
The argument that .NET "has almost disappeared from MS marketing" seems like an intentional misstatement of the truth - the fact that some bad marketing people at MS got reigned in, and that they now only call things .NET if they actually involve... you guessed it, .NET. What a straw man argument, pretending as if MS is somehow hiding in shame from some imagined defeat. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The statement that .NET is a rebranded Visual Basic is simly fabricated... even VB.NET was a complete rewrite from the ground up and breaks compatibility with previous VB's, but that is only scratching the surface.
The allegation that PHP4 blows .NET out of the water is ridiculous. With PHP, we are talking about a language where "objects" (and I use the term loosely) are copied by value - that's right, assigning an object causes the entire object to be copied. A language that lacks any kind of modern exception handling. A language that does not include a debugger, and for which the for-pay debugger's remind my of 1987. And IMO, scalability and PHP don't even belong in the same sentence.
Folks, all I am getting at here is that MS is no straw man. If you want to crap all over them, please make sure you're qualified to actually COMPARE the products. And let's all try not to make stuff up.
Part of .NET is network architecture. Now that I've drawn you a picture, how that affects ping times should be obvious (unless you are a longtime Slashdot reader, in which case how to tie your shoes may be non-obvious). HTH.
.NET proves without a doubt that it is possible for an entire industry to fake an orgasm.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
6) ???
7) profit
in your joke.
Now, I have something to say to all of you.
.GNU people improve their port, it begins to be as free as in thought... IL is open,BTW (not that java isn't)
It's been some time since I learned java and C# and I have to say I think C# is better (oh! uh! -1 flamebait)
Let me explain.
1 C#:native JIT compilled code Java:VM (guess whos faster)
2 C#:auto garbage collection Java:gc() function
3 You can pretty much do anything w/ C#, including DirectX stuff
Java is too complicated sometimes: if I use the Sleep function, I have to try{}, and some things are just too confusing (like graphics/images/imageobsevers etc.)
C# is also nice if you want to do a quick W32 app. I think ít's as good as Python (maybe Python is better) Win32 API? You might as well have to build a car just to test an engine...
B-sides the SDK is free as in beer and as
Another good thing is taking your APP and using it as an ASP.NET w/ almost no work...
Ok, but that was my opinion...
First, let me note that I actually do develop in .NET and feel there's a lot of good things there.
.NET, Microsoft really did get everyone to pay attention. Even if people wanted to move on, if they weren't sure what to move on to, they at least stagnated and didn't move on, maintaining some status quo.
However, I think you're onto something here. By pushing
I think they got the best of both worlds - a decent product they paired with FUD. That's a pretty tough combination.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
When I'm looking for unbiased news about Microsoft, I always turn to slashdot!
I've been doing software development for 15 years. .NET, but C# is just beautiful. Also the ability to program ... Just a developer's opinion
I use mainly GNU's tools for development (including EMACS which
I've used for more than 10 years). I tried Java for a year or so
in 96, and It was ok, but required just too much hardware for
something serious. Some months ago I needed to use C# in one of
my projects. I don't know about
in multiple languages is a major plus. At least for me. I'm used to program in multiples languages in a single project (e.g. C for the
communication bits, perl for the data massaging, TCL/TK for the
presentation, etc). The IDE is not too bad, once I changed the key bindings to behave
like EMACS'.
In reality, there were a whole bunch of things that got swept into the umbrella of .Net, and none of them were relayed.
.net a success, even though it dropped the name. Plus Exchange 2k3 was just released and SQL Server 2k3 is just around the corner, so that part isn't even complete.
.net name in a future revision, but who knows.
The next generation of Windows Server (2003) dropped the dotnet name. But by all accounts, IIS 6 is faster and more secure, not to mention it has some awesome new features regarding webfarms, app domains, et al. [It is a total ground-up rewrite]. The OS itself has new tools focused on security out of the box. From what I have seen, I can't wait to get all my 2K servers upgraded so I suppose you can call the "server" side of
The major win has been VS.NET and the runtime. Developer productivity has never been higher on the Windows platform. But all indications are that VS and the CLR may drop the
What has been a failure is the whole web-services angle. Hailstorm and the other planned services have not panned out quite as Microsoft might have hoped, but this isn't unexpected.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
Logic was the toothpick of the last century.
Microsoft did a bad job marketing .net. First it was web services, then came SQL.net and Windows.net. Even now article like the quoted eweek one talk about .net as it it's simply web services. Add to this the weenies that talk about passport as if it's the be all and end all of .net.
So what have they delivered for the developer? (what follows is my opinion, as someone who has used it and is still using it)
Well there's Visual Studio, an excellent IDE for those that use IDEs.
There's C#, VB.Net and an architecture that has allow Python.net, Perl.net, Fortran.net, Cobol.net and others. The multitude of languages comes into its own when you realise that objects written in one language are easily used in every other language, so you can have 1 developer using Perl, another using C#. Try that in Java. Try any cross language development in Java.
There's the .net framework, an nice OO library which is, of course, available to any .net language.
There's ASP.net which makes development of event driven sites a hell of a lot easier than embedded your own hidden frames and attaching page loads of those frames as javascript events trigger.
There's WinForms, yet another forms interface, but as it's usuable in any language there is no more bodged MFC.
Of course you do have web services, easy SOAP libraries, really nice XML support, remoting and other funky stuff.
Should MS give up? Hell no, they've produced a wonderful environment for developing for windows. Developing more than web services.
I don't think you can comment on .net unless you've used it. Journalists need not apply, nor should MS marketing people :)
You should be promptly bitch-slapped...
It's been eight years since we were first introduced to Java and virtually none of the promised advantages have come true. Is it time for Sun to move on?"
"The first phase of .Net targeted the developers--delivering the tools and technologies to enable them to start building solutions--while the second phase, over the past year, has been providing businesses with an understanding of the value of back-end integration and why it is important to their business."
Phase 3 = ????
Phase 4 = Profit
I mean that the "market momentum" that is evaporating (as insightfully reported by a user below) is already becoming "industry momentum", as in the best plans on the Redmond giant. /. reporting something like Evangelism is War .Net Evangelism.
I remember a few days ago a post on
Here's a link to a copy of what has been compared to a MS internal memo about
Apple iProduct. Non importa cosa sia, lo comprerete!
and be quiet
Anyone remember this "up" story?
There are some compelling advantages to
I figure we should start seeing real concrete examples of the advantages of
Don't believe me?
USB.
Or even better, how about Win32? We *still* have at least two industry-specific Win16 apps that are under a current maintenance contract. Hell, most of the non-MSOffice Win16 crap was just replaced around four years ago with the Y2K upgrades, so we're still in the process of depreciating it!
All of MS's apps will be
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
I think we should note that VS.NET and the CLR have only been released since Feb 2002, although betas were available for two years before that.
.net umbrella actually catches a number of things, which each have differing timetables. They also each have different levels of success or failure. (VS.NET/CLR = great success, server 2003 = too early to tell, web services = total flop)
Of course development of Windows Server 2003 started right after W2K server was released.
I think the article in question was going on about web services, in which case 2001 ought to be the correct timeframe.
So this huge dubious
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
coming to /., seeing that headline, and this banner at the top.
To quickly address #2, you do realize that System.gc() is a _suggestion_ to the VM and nothing more, right? Garbage collection in Java is completely automated, and System.gc() just says to the VM "hey, if you're not terribly busy, why not do some cleanup".
I use Inferno and it does (optionally) just in time compiling, the speed difference is discernable but not inhibiting.
:
If you are interesting in VM design you might enjoy this light read
The design of the Inferno virtual machine
Phil Winterbottom Rob Pike Bell Labs,
Lucent Technologies {philw,rob}@plan9.bell-labs.com
NOTE: Originally appeared in IEEE Compcon 97 Proceedings, 1997.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
The MMM (Microsoft Marketing Machine) does not waste time, money, and resources on something they don't need to market any more. For example, MS Office, they have done any real marketing for it in years because THEY DON'T HAVE TO. It is now monopolized to the point that it markets itself.
.NET. They no longer need to market it because it is now the default development platform for a WINDOWS environment. They accomplished their goal of getting everyone to believe that it is Microsofts internal development platform for all their products (whether it is or not is now irrelevant). That's enough for 90% of the bozo^H^H^H^Hmanagers out there to say "We should use .NET. MS uses it internally. No one ever got fired for choosing Microsoft." What a pity.
The same applies to
Believe in things of which no person has ever learned
No kidding... that is by far my favorite MS PR tactic. And, yet, people still seem to buy it. Bet the company? As if...
1. C# JIT to latest Java JIT - about the same speed. Now, in some cases (encryption for example), c# is 100 times faster than Java (native libraries maybe?)
2. Java garbage-collects automatically as well. gc() simply forces the garbage-collection to happen.
3. "Doing anything" requires you to leave "managed" code and go native. Even for simple things - like opening the "Open folder" dialog.
4. Exception handling is there for reason. Makes larger projects much cleaner.
Having said that I do believe that c# is very good language and I use it personally for the reasons you stated.
'nuff sed
For a start, the article itself isn't as negative about .NET as the slashdot post blurb implies. Yet another example of a slashdot post missleading us about the article beign referenced.
.NET is a developer thing, not realy an application thing. This automaticaly means it's goign to take several years longer than an application level technology to make an impact because all those developers need to get skilled up before they can even begin developing the apps.
.NET technology of the .NET VM and the associated web services and XML capabilities it enables. The core Longhorn services are all being built on .NET so anyone who thinks it's time to Microsoft to move on from .NET fundamentaly has no clue about Microsoft's development strategy.
.NET and it's ultimate destiny may lead it in different directions than Microsoft or anyone else can currently imagine. If Mono realy takes off, that could be one of the catalysts for disruptive technological change.
The fact is that the
Microsoft's own apps are only just barely beginning to integrate the core
The best comparrison is probably Java. How logn did it take before Java rocked the world, er, well some of us are still waiting for it. Actual it did have a big impact in some areas, but generaly not the areas it was orriginaly aimed at. Where are all the Java thin clients now? Perhaps the same will happen with
Simon Hibbs
Well, it's a mix of both. There are alot of students there who have no clue when it comes to computers. These people usually don't get weeded out until the junior or senior year. The computer science program at the main campus has limited space and is very hard to get into, the computer science programs at the branch campuses are easier to get into, but hard to pass for someone without a clue.
They do teach basic unix skills, but that's not the focus of the program. The courses are mostly programming and math based (since CS is a branch of math, that's what they focus on).
Hmm..
.Net plan was to write grep . :)
" "One of the ways we are currently using Web services is by creating wrappers around legacy systems in our factory environment, which is allowing us to extract information from those systems and deal with the factory environment at a higher level," Scott said."
Apparently, "phase 2" of the
Bowie J. Poag
.NET does not offer much of value over Java or Free Software alternatives, except a fairly nice IDE.
.NET is significantly better than previous M$ offerings (VB6, ASP, VBScript), although it shares the weakness of being more or less Windows-only and is somewhat hard to learn.
Web Services were a good idea that showed up at the wrong time. If not for the dotcom bust we would be seeing a lot more. The beauty of Web Services is that they allow for genuinely distributed computing using open standards and protocols. I have no doubt that M$ would have polluted this idea eventually, but, also thanks to the bust, it really hasn't had the chance.
I always recommend free, cross-platform solutions wherever possible (PHP, Perl, Python, Apache, Linux or *BSD, Zope, wxWindows, etc.), but if you have a lot of legacy VB and/or ASP stuff, .NET almost certainly is better than what you have now.
Nonaggression works!
To misquote David Byrne, its, "...same as it ever was..."
.Net is no different. It will be internet services integrated into the OS with all the "new security" that Palladium will bring and a big happy Microsoft smiley face on the front.
.Net. It's all ready to go... have fun! :)))
Microsoft is simply taking what they already have and making some changes in the way these components work together and within the context of the internet. The end result should be a computing experience that is fairly smooth to the end user and provides a lot of what's already out there but with different names and faces. This is why they claim to "innovate". Innovation is taking existing "stuff" and using it in new ways. That's not exactly what they do though. Instead they take existing stuff and use it in the same ways they are already used but call them something else.
Examples:
In UNIX we have daemons
In Windows they have "Services"
This provides enough of a distinction that the less technically inclined person is going to thing Services are somehow different. But they are really no more than daemons or backgrounded apps.
In X Window System we have "Window Managers"
In Windows XP they have the "Theme Service"
Don't believe me? Go stop the theme service in XP and tell me what changes. Just the Window widgets and borders and the look and feel of the Start bar.
In UNIX we have "mount points" for file systems.
In Windows 2000/XP they have the ability to mount a drive in an empty NTFS folder.
Microsoft is very good at taking these existing concepts, renaming them and then claiming them as their own innovations even though they haven't changed how the technologies are actually used. They've only renamed them.
Unix = Here's the internet. Go learn some stuff and have fun.
Microsoft = Here's
Personally I prefer the Unix approach, but that's just me.
Oh, I almost forgot:
In Soviet Russia we only had two TV channels. Channel One was pro da. Channel Two consisted of a KGB officer telling you: Turn back at once to Channel One.
-- Yakov Smirnoff
Un-news
"EWeek has posted an article on Microsoft's .NET initiative. It's been three years since we were first introduced to .NET and virtually none of the promised advantages have come true. Is it time for Microsoft to move on?"
.NET initiative were, such that "virtually" none of them have come true? A list of your own would be nice, since the article does not explicitly make this statement.
/. covered an article that was as technically superficial, only regarding OSS, the spin would be flagrantly negative and dismissive, if not outright derisive. Yet all the PHP CTRL+C/V coders in the world come out of the woodwork to cheer this semi-criticism of .NET, which should only embarass those that:
.NET framework is, how it is implemented, and what it represents.
.NET, and delivered (where Java notably failed) on their promise of allowing coders with different backgrounds - VB, C++, Perl, whatever - to write to the IL and address the same base class library.
Okay, for starters, the article itself is not as one-sided as the above statement that follows and interprets it, and the juxtaposition of the two makes it seem like EWeek is lambasting Microsoft, when in fact the article is written rather reservedly and makes several concessions. Also, what do you believe the specific promised advantages of the
If
1. Can actually code in PHP
and
2. Actually understand what the
And last but not least, what do you mean by "move on"? That's like saying "linux still hasn't managed to conquer the desktop arena - is it time to move on?" - which would be equally as ridiculous a proposition, in my opinion. They've released two versions of what many consider to be the best visual IDE on the market, totally centered around
Their only main snafu was initially labeling everything but the kitchen sink with the ".NET" label, which muddled what's otherwise been the biggest positive change in Windows software development in a long while. And they backtracked on that and admitted their mistake.
Is the concept of credit where credit is due this TOTALLY alien to some?
The only problem I see is MS's marketing strategy of attaching ".NET" to everything. This just confused the term. There really was no reason to call "Windows 2003 Server" "Windows
Whatever the case,
From what I've read here, most of the objections fall into two categories:
- I don't know what
.NET is.
- I don't like Microsoft as a company
On the first, if you limit the scope toOn the second, if this is your sole reason, you're being illogical. That would be like brushing off a good idea from a fellow developer because you didn't like his office.
What nonsense. I use .NET every day and it has delivered all of its promised advantages.
.NET, AND.ORG/.COM/.EDU every day, and I agree 100%.
OK, AC, you have me convinced with your insightful argument.
I use
JWall: GUI client for IPTables
I've done all of those things. Mind if I do some poo-poohing?
I'll happily admit that Windows 2000 is a definite improvement over previous Microsoft operating systems. Sadly, the release of XP indicates that they must have thought that was a mistake or something. But Windows 2000 is actually a pretty good business desktop. Of course, in settings like a university lab, you need to re-image the machines using something like Ghost on a very regular basis to keep them from degenerating into sludge, but you already pointed that out.
Equating Windows to the SUV would really be more appropriate here. It has greater hardware requirements, is less safe to operate, is the choice of the majority, is used in many situations where its features are overkill, and is in many ways a symbol of corporate culture. Meanwhile, you have the racecar: heavily tuned by enthusiasts, largely operated by professionals, plenty of customization possible (OK, here the analogy is not as strong, because you _can_ theoretically customize an SUV as much as a racecar, but you'd have a new car when you were done). It does exactly what it is supposed to do. It's interesting that you chose "compatibility" as the merit of Free software, as most people use that as a point to argue in Microsoft's favor.
As another poster noted, your post reads a bit on the trollish side. Microsoft has certainly made great strides in the area of stability, and I agree that zealotry is pointless, but your analogy is reversed.
As for me, I've done the Win2k clients/Linux servers office setup (.com job and current office) and found it satisfactory. But in a different office, where aging '98 machines needed to be replaced and I got to call the shots, I went with eMacs (still Linux on the server, because there's no way we could get the mileage out of our servers we do if they ran Windows, and a college newspaper can't afford an IT army or new server hardware just because).
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
1. Announce new technology
.NET has been an amazing technology for the last three years.
2. Keep saying it's just around the corner
3. If people start noticing it's vapor, go to 1
The sad thing is: the whole technology industry (not only MS) is centered around the management of expectations, not on delivery. The press is also to blame for this. The number of "reviews" of things that don't exist is staggering. According to the general press,
MS realized that, instead of delivering, they can just come up with a brand new expectation for people to focus on. That's why I think MS will soon unveil a new vaporware.
I'd like to believe customers aren't that stupid and will not allow Microsoft to milk that cow forever.
If it's such a failure why is the mono project and dotgnu (or whatever they're currently called) franticly trying to implement a full .NET platform using OSS technology? It takes something cool for the OSS community to really embrace something like this from MS. I think calling this a failure is really turning a blind eye to the whole situation.
scott
"even if they migrate workstations."
you can see the point of failure right there
"even offsite"
now your talking just plain science fiction, how can that even be possible, no no, it's just too amazing to be true
"weeks of uptime"
would be considered a drastic failure in these parts.
"The TCO is 1/10th of what it was"
I could only reduce TCO if I sold my equipment
"maybe this is the real reason the
no, it's because it's just not the "Right Thing"
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I'm a Windows developer who in the year 2003 is using a product that came out in 1998. The venerable Visual Studio 6. The first version of VS.net gave absolutely nothing to straight C/C++ developers who were not interested in C# or windows forms or what-have-you, but instead wanted to write good solid code using an ISO-standards compliant compiler for backend work. VS.net gave us nothing new.
.NET. I have told everyone that it actually has a decent C++ compiler, but everybody thinks that it can only be used for .NET work.
.NET they've done a good job of alienating the core base of people who write the back end code where too-fast-is-not-fast-enough. Maybe it'll come to the point where if you want to write services or databases or anything where speed and size are most important, you'll use a totally different compiler, say, Borland or Metrowerks. But if you're going to do that, why not also look at other platforms, say, Linux?
VS.net 2003, that's a different story. It does all the things I want to do in a C++ compiler, but apart from the cost, what do you suppose is keeping the bosses from approving it? That's right:
So here I am, about to go back to a compiler that has no partial template specialization, a version of STL that I have to patch *by* *hand*, and if I want to look something up? Well, I've got my msdn help files from October 2001 to explain it to me, because that was the last version that integrated with VS6.
By pushing
Just my $0.02
Stop your fucking whining you linux geeks. I'm so sick of listening to your fucking moaning about how you hate Microsoft product X, while your only alternative is some half-baked shitty-ass Linux wannabe app.
.NET for over a year now, and I can happily say it's solved hundreds of problems for us and expanded the reach of our application more than 10 fold.
I've been working with
Just because you're too fucking stupid to see beyond your fucking little white box linux "servers" doesn't mean Microsoft has to be. Shut the fuck up.
I am a Java developer by trade, but I'm reading up on .NET because it just destroys J2EE on the benchmarks.
Yours in Christ,
--John Ashcroft
I don't know how much platform independence has been a consideration, but they probably just got sick and tired of plain old Win32 and MFC. If nothing else, it gave them a chance to finally bring out a decent framework, just like everybody else already has. Must be so liberating for them to finally be able to code a dialog box dynamically without having to fool with resources and message map macros. Microsoft have finally discovered proper OOP and class frameworks. Welcome to the '90!
Apps running on? - Java has that market
Server side webservices for mobile devices? - I'd say Java because I believe in using one toolkit.
Rocket science is easy. Neurosurgery, now *that's* difficult.
and force developers to adopt .net and let the chips fall.
It WILL happen. Just a matter of when and what the outcome will be.
We're all missing the real point of .net
.net push is to create a bunch of easy to use high level languages to compile down to basically the same code, then let that code run on Win32 platforms and Win64 platforms without making changes.
.net apps will be ready to go. The win32 apps will require a translation layer.
.net will show up in the kernel in the next version of Windows.
The true reason behind the
When the 32 to 64 bit switch starts, the
Combine that with the fact that the Windows (NT/XP) kernel already supports multiple architectures, win32, posix and os/2 are the 3 common ones. I'm willing to bet that
Since when has .NET been available for three years? Wan't v1.0 only released officially beginning of last year? Or is this one of those articles meant to justify employers requiring 3+ years of .NET experience (and no older than 12)?
If its time from Microsoft to move on from .NET then its time for Sun, IBM, Oracle, etc to move on from J2EE. They are essentially equal, but different platforms. You can drill into the details and semantics all you want, but the two are very similar.
HAHA give me Some of That SiberIAN Pussy, a frEEzing slit waiting, snowed under And Vibrating SOFtly.
The only funny "In Soviet Russia" joke for months!
dotGNU .Net-lookalike? Seems that if someone is sold on the .Net path, they'll buy the "real thing", that is, Microsoft. Comments?
More interesting than Mono, IMHO. But as I'm about to give it a whirl (I find C# more appealing than Java, yet I don't do - or want to do - Windows-only programming), I wonder -- what organization would use a free / open source
.net is like the spoon..
You have to understand there is no spoon..
I'm considering the idea that the economy, not the technology, may be at play here. Sure, .NET was overhyped, but if you look at the economy we've had for the past three years its hardly surprising .NET isn't everywhere.
.NET may be something that just got drowned out in the noise of other new technology intros.
The economy has been dog-slow, IT spending has been dramatically curtailed; people aren't spending money on IT unless they have to, and it seems to have had an effect on IT generally -- unlike the 90s, we're not seeing revision life cycles every 6-9 months and wholesale introductions of new technologies.
Although even if IT weren't slow these days,
It's probably also been slowed by the lack of an across-the-board OS introduction that includes it "built-in". Loads of people are loathe to add this kind of functionality to a stable environment; maybe if they had released 03 server and workstation at the same time with these as built-in dependent technologies there may have been broader uptake.
.Net is about XML Web Services, and fixing all the kludgy COM, DCOM, Win32 API mess.
.NET, I think Microsoft is actually trying to compete! .NET to do it (which I often do), it can easily work with your Java/Python/Perl whatever software on your MacOS/Linux/BSD whatever operating system through XML Web Services.
.NET allows me to write software for a specific platform (Windows) and make it play well with other stuff out there. It's not like Java where I have to pretend my machine is a Java VM for every peice of software I write.
.NET for writing applications I will run on Windows. Anybody that tries to compare ASP.NET to something like PHP, or even ASP is a) only seeing part of the picture b) writing piddly-assed software, which is fine, but not what I do for a living.
With
The joker who mentioned something about "no documentation for "wire protocols" is lost - how about HTTP? SOAP? Standard stuff. If I decide to build some software on a Windows machine, and I decide to use
I like
Love,
Jeff G.
This post made me LOL. One thing is for certain: the price is always right with free software!
but it is time for MS to move out!
You can't really consider C# or Hailstorm to have been around and competing for three years, can you?
.NET's replacement next year. Perhaps, this time around, we'll see a microkernel architecture with XXML (extensible XML, yea!) all implemented within a web services-based virtual machine. With that in 2004, I can't wait for 2008!
With Microsoft, yes, we can. Anyway, I was suprised to read that it's been three years already. This means we're due for
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Is it true? Have the Microsoft Munchkins returned and infested Slashdot?
It surely would explain all the "Come on guys, stop bashing microsoft!" posts that appear here so regularly now. Who's pretending to be Steve Barkto this time?
(And this ain't a flame...check the Dweebspeak Primer www.pjprimer.com for details on the Munchkins. With the return of FUD-master Rob Enderle, it's probably not a coincidence.)
You may be a physics genious but not much in software... All the things you described have absolutely nothing at all to do with .Net but a lot to do with general improvment in MS products (such as Active Directory you mentioned). .Net is a development platform that just didn't take off. While web services are used to some degree (ironically mostly in Java) they never really took off.
At least bother to know what it is you are commenting about:
With the JDK 1.0 and 1.1, hardly anybody (and gladly they did not) used java language for software production development.
.NET framework, has a much shorter acceptance time. Just showing some Windows GUI (with XP look-and-feel) and management is confinced for 95%. I know this is only a little part of the actual coding, but it opens the door easily to start a development project.
.NET, and I clearly see a difference in favor or .NET
It took quite a few years before that got accepted by management/corporations.
Even with the Jdk 1.2 release, I had difficulties to convince management of using Java.
The
Our team is full-time developing components in C# and this happens in other divisions of the same company as well.
Technological wise Java and C# really don't differ that much. But the effort it takes to write a good looking Java GUI compared to a C# GUI, it is clear that C# is much more productive.
So compare the initial 3 years of Java with the initial 3 years of
I worked on a tiny chunk of a similar project more than three years ago for a large chip manufacturer - well before .NET was announced as the latest in a long line of vaporvisionware from Microsoft. They were "wrapping" every legacy system they could with a web interface using whatever interface it needed. It was a frankensystem underneath, but if you had a password and a browser you could get to any system you needed to, from anywhere on the corporate intranet. My bit of the puzzle documented the interface that a process engineer get paged about errors, check the errors from the closest computer and either OK an override or head for the fab to fix something. It saved them hours of time.
MicroSoft pre-announces vaporware so that it can co-opt the initiatives of a competitor. Remember Windows was announced in 1984 to compete with Apple and other MSDOS GUIs like QuarterDeck. But it took MS nine years to deliver an usable version (3.1).
.Net didn't deliver a single advantage over Java:
.Net.
.Net to standarization. Without specific API's (like the Java API) .Net is completely useless and so MONO is now implemented on top of Wine to allow it to run WinForms.
.Net was here WAY before it came out. It brought nothing new and most people who need that functionality moved to Java years ago, Java is now even further ahead of .Net in every aspect.
1. Web services were on Java roughly the same time
(MS may have come up with the basics but IBM did a
large part of the work).
2. Multiple languages to a single VM work better in Java. In fact there is a web page dedicated to languages compiled/interpreted on the Java VM and it is considerably larger than the one for
3. Open source/standards didn't bring anything. MS submited only a small portion of
Essentially everything available on
Damn you. I just had a mental image of Bill Gates in a blonde wig, tight slacks, and tank-top singing.
It is far from time for them to move on. Longhorn will be entirely .NET based. The latest betas already have explorer.exe running as .NET managed code. The old, crufty Win32 that Slashbots loved to bash is finally being replaced, and all Slashbots can do is find new ways to complain.
.NET is coming and will be here to stay with Longhorn, and enough people like .NET to have started work on a version for Linux.
This is just Slashdot getting its weekly naysaying in.
"Sufferin' succotash."
In the end, that's fine with me. I'll not support any switch to a .Net framework. Hokey is hokey. If they maintain this approach with promises of e-panaceas and superbright futures, then it will only encourage the skeptics (largely, "us") to stand their ground.
I find ASP.NET rather difficult to work with - and avoid using it if there is a better alternative.
The amount of code required to output [X]HTML to the browser is in the order of magnitudes more than using ASP. More typing for less output is bad for productivity and deadlines. ASP can be adjusted with any txt editor, and does not need compiling.
The ASP engine in IIS6 has been rewritten for performance - so legacy applications will continue to run.
The features that come with .NET and not ASP can usually be accomplished in PHP, which is smaller, well documented and cross platform.
I can't give my opinion of .NET applications that are not hosted on a web server - they may be better than earlier technologies.
service httpd start
Mike
Just curious ... which language do you code in?
I've always called it "Dot-NOT"!
A regular gonster macher!
I do some web stuff but most of my work involves good old win32 gui apps. To me, the most appealing part of .net is that I will eventually be able to abandon the win32 api in favor of .net classes to do all the ui stuff.
Let's face it, the win32 api just plain sucks. MFC is no solution. It tries to hide the implementation details but fails miserably in that regard since it's almost impossible to do anything complicated without a detailed knowledge of the underlying system.
Your complaints about C++ are perhaps legit, they have nothing to do with .NET. If your bosses are too stupid to allow you to work with a C++ compiler that works like you want to, that's a problem at your employer, not with MS or .NET
.NET matures over time, so I can ditch the VB/VC++/COM crap for the n-tier apps I develop all day.
I'm happy C# is available and
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Then your Fortran.Net developer leaves, and you're screwed because your Python.net zealot won't touch his code with a 10-foot pole.
One of Java's strengths is that it doesn't allow multi-lang other than JNI. Sure, there's a learning curve, but language standardisation is good.
chown -R us ~your/*base*
Sorry, but I think that you may have meant by your sig:
find ~your -name '*base*' | xargs chown us
The problem with your sig is that you only change the ownership of the base immediately below ~/your home directory, not all your base in directories more than one level below. The problem is that the shell will only expand the *base* in the home directory.
I hope you can further develop your base chowning skills further, so that all of it belongs to us.
.NET is certainly a much better way of building websites than with vb6 and asp. If MS didn't create .NET their webserver and server OS would of faded into irrelivence. How would you dissenters have preferred for them to enhance their server offering?
love is just extroverted narcissism
> Try any cross language development in Java
f
.NET? Probably.
Poor argument choice. Ever hear of BSF? http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/projects/bs
Netscape Rhino (Javascript), VBScript, Perl, Tcl, Python, NetRexx and Rexx, plus many others.
I can slap in all kinds of languages that will compile to Java Byte Code, same as compiling to some other common byte code.
Is it more transparent in
By using the JVM am I having to write only Java code? Not even close.
Maybe you need to try out and "use" some other languages that compile to Java byte code before you "comment" on them.
Did you ever try to create a directory called simply ".net" or ".NET"?
Well, under windows it is just not possible: no file name error, because ".net" is the file extension, but there's no file name!
Obviously, this is no problem under *nix; so I guess Microsoft's marketing must be using linux or MacOS (which makes sense, since they are Microsoft's most productive departement).
-Patrik
I like Microsoft's Visual Basic .NET. It's a fascinating development enviornment for certain types of apps. The language has been completely re-designed over prior VBs (and also has *no* relation to BASIC anymore.)
It has Syntax-directed-editing, edit and continue, true Object Orientation, support for threads, etc, and is based on the .NET framework.
Since the "barrier to entry" to VB programming is low (but getting higher), unfortunately there's a lot of crap-ware written in it. Don't let that make you think the language is bad.
If VB .NET came out of MIT's media lab instead of Microsoft, everyone in the /. community would say it rocked.
Best Buy can have you arrested
Language standardization is generally something that happens at the management level ... with *real* people. The people managing the projects should be the ones to say "hey, we need to develop this whole thing in the same language so it can be easily maintained in the future". However, there are advantages to the interoperation of .NET languages ... because developers *could* develop pieces in different languages makes it easier for a software company to develop multiple software packages in different languages that might share some pack of common code. But of course, its up to the project managers to ensure future maintainability.
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
That was the old time debate about Java (cf. the JNI history).
.net you are tied to windows, so IMHO there is no real reason you would go to .net because looking at speed VC++ goes even thousand times faster than its .net counterpart compiled code ;-)
Speed or portability !
You can't have both. Java chose to emphasize the portability and MS the speed.
By choosing
... it's about rebranding net services into their own image and patenting them. Couple that with the leverage Microsoft get's from their effective desktop monopoly and you have a strategy. Right now the only missing piece is the enforcability of software patents in all the worlds main economic areas, eg the EU.
Microsoft wants patent on .Net
but can't have it
>you can have 1 developer using Perl, another using C#. Try that in Java. Try any cross language development in Java.
Well, who didn't read the label before applying? Java is any object code that passes JVM validation, not the source code, which a little lawsuit from Sun should have made clear. See "about 165 different systems" that produce Java object code.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
And the response from the mountaintop is firm....
"No standards wars!"
"Just follow the One True Path!"
"Use only the latest version of IE and IIS and .NET and C# and let us here at MS define the standards. No need for you all to worry your foolish little heads about any of it."
Where I work, they are doing some .Net development, mainly using VB.Net, but also some C#. I don't personally do any of it (and I'm thankful for that), but the guy sitting in the cube to my right is swamped with .Net projects.
No matter where you go... there you are.
What points that out? The fact that people are in awe that the .NET name was dropped from titles such as Windows Server [.NET] Server 2003. .NET is not the driving force of these products and that is the reason they dropped it. In the case of most things, aside from the .NET Server, .NET has NOTHING to do with the product and they wanted a cool name.
Sadly, cool names sell things and the people at MS know how to sell. The fact that you and your friend do not get that strategy has no basis in the argument; rather the fact that they used a technology to confuse not in-the-know techie people (most of this crowd apparently) is the argument. In other words, they aren't backing down from their .NET strategery (intentional), but they are dropping the misnomer on their other key products to SEPARATE them and provide a better consumer experience (as it could be probably be confusing if you had heard of .NET, but knew nothing about it). I'm sure decent computer users heard of .NET and considered compatibility problems between the versions, as .NET is this 'all new platform' ... so one might conclude (if you had no real idea) that you needed something new from the store, and something expensive (as opposed to something free and probably included in the product if really needed it).
no.... that's HET in russian (pronounced nyet as the 'H'like letter is a n sound, the 'E' is a ye sound. and the T is as you expect.
It's too confusing to try to mix Cyrillic alphabet characters when writing in English. We don't try to use "B" as the German esset when writing German words using the English alphabet either, we just simply substitute "ss" because the sound is the same, it is the simplist way to communicate the phonetic sound of the esset consonant.
web services : ok it is an interesting feature, but to be clear COM/DCOM was there much before ;-)
.net in more than 3years, and will all the money invested by MS, then you will come to the question :
.net as a platform ?
... and MS will have to react soon or later or the only project they will still have will be the small part.
;-)
Another point is that web services do not scale (if you compare them to IIOP based architecture for instance). You can not build a multi-thier application with dotnet, it just not scale. Why did MS just forgot to put IIOP into dotnet ? This is just stupid even a child whould have guess it has to be done !
About multi language. This is just FUD. First you've got lots of language in Java that compiles to bytecode and they were build longtime before MS ever think of running away from Java to create they clone (the famous "COOL" project).
Now point is that multilanguage is useless. Clearly, how can you beleive that a Cobol user will smoothly goes to Cobol.net ? Those languages are complete new paradigm that sticks to the platform (so cauled "flavorished" languages). Looking at Cobol.net and you will think of the C# counterpart. The real language of MS.net is C# and the other are just here to push some FUD. Ever seen a Cobol.net project in the place ? or blurb.net ?
As a conclusion, i will just said just look at where is
Will MS soon drop
(i am not talking of the API or the tools but the core platform that use IL and so on..)
Anyway, day after day MS customer are moving to J2EE
Gartner forcasted few years ago, that MS.net and J2EE will be respectively 1/3 and 2/3 of the market but this dream for MS never happend. Because MS did not gained new customer but just transfered some of their existing customer to their new tech, and an important percent that are looking for alternatives
SLK
One of the major cellular providers, KTF is developing a browser with MS that will run on the phones regardless of sytem. How long until MS makes it inoperable with any other OS besides MS CE?
C# (835 projects)
and growing. Mono has a DEPENDACNY for WINE on Linux to run WinForms unless u use the less compatible approach and map to GTK#. GTK sucks shit. Therefore Linux is nothing on the desktop for CLR Managed code (C# etc) without WINE. Linux cant stand on its own 2 feet without WINE for appliations on this managed runtime.
Archie was a protocol to contact search engine for FTP. Realy usefull at the time. Some Archie servers are still online but you need a special client to do your search. In fact, it ressembles something like Kazaa if you replace the P2P thing by standard FTP.
Veronica was a tool to do search in the gopher space.
Jughead stand for "Jonzy's Universal Gopher Hierarchy Excavation and Display". I don't have a clue of its purpose.
...and still nobody knows what the fsck .Net actually is. (sigh)
"In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
Seriously, even when it's just me writing in two languages, the result can be a hideously disorganized mess.
Where I'm working now, I use Java and JSP for most things, and we're trying to migrate shell scripts into Java and Ant tasks. We started out using Python and Zope, but Java seemed more natural for the task at hand.
The factors that drive my workplace decision making are:
- If I'm hit by a bus, how long would it take for someone to figure out what I was doing? Java is highly structured for this, from Javadoc to the hierarchical layout of the source code. Perl and Python are not. C#, from what I've heard, is similar to Java in this regard.
- Does the development environment support best practices? In particular: unit testing, version control, and object/relational mapping. Version control works for any language. Unit testing is arguably best supported by Java, given the breadth of tools and people working on it. I have yet to find an object/relational tool that works as well as NeXT's environment did, though Java is getting there.
- Is code succinct, legible, and well-structured? From the samples I've seen, C# has a better getter/setter grammar, while Java has more succinct documentation grammar.
- Does it run on whatever we have? We have some hardware that requires Sparc. However, most of our servers are x86/Linux-- they're cheap and our admin trusts them to be secureable.
.NET obviously fails in this regard.
- How good are the support libraries? Java beats the pants off of everything else I've seen. My pattern is all too often (1) discover I need something (2) write a half-assed implementation (3) discover that the Apache Foundation already has a well-written, well-documented, open source implementation.
Every language annoys me in some way, but for the sort of server-side, cross-platform code I'm writing these days, Java is less annoying than the alternatives. But perhaps the thing I love the most is that best practices often show up first in Java. A vibrant open source community, which includes some of the best brains in the industry, is a dream to take advantage of. (Perl has CPAN, which is great, but it has the feel of a collection of weekend projects.) Java has the feel of a healthy capitalist economy, with everything from Wall Street (Apache) to kids selling lemonaide on the sidewalk.Rob Helms, research director for Directions on Microsoft, says this: .Net platform itself has been hampered by immature Web service standards.
The
excuse me Mr. Helms, but what's wrong with the world not wanting to standardize on proprietary web services? just because web services are 'open' doesn't mean they're immature.
This is obviously just a cheap shot at open standards.
Thats OK. In Bureaucratic Germany they use the Plan Nein operating system.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
That was what MS claimed, but it is not what they delivered so far and I doubt they ever will since no one ports their software to .NET (and why should they?) even those who try .NET run unmanaged code which is like using Java and calling C to do all the "heavy lifting". .NET you need a rewrite and then you might as well go with Java which is better in every way.
In order to "really" port to
I've programmed in Java and C# and I have to say that I love C#. Java can't even come close to the ease of use you get with Visual Studio and C#. When I started with Java I would spend hours trying to figure out paths and dealing with all that nonsense. I tried the IDEs but they never seemed to work right. I fire up Visual Studio and it works great. There were bugs in the original IDE but most of them have been fixed.
.NET is staggering. We wrote the eCommerce site for the comapany and it does over $600,000 a day in revenue on Windows server and C#.NET.
.NET if it had come from anywhere else other than Redmond. It's a shame since it really is a great platform.
Right now I am working on a multi-tier business application for the Fortune 1000 company I work for and the amount that two developers can get done with C# and
If you are interested in developing web applications but don't want to buy Visual Studio give WebMatrix a shot. It is a great looking and totally free IDE. A lot of people here would fall in love with C# and
I thought you were supposed to ever call System.gc() in Java. Or that it was at least pointless, since calling it did not force garbage collection unless the JVM agreed.
When we use PHP (which we use for projects that we need to get out the door faster, amongst other reasons), we always write in OO. Given the choice we work in J2EE because of it's strong typing and enterprise features such as distribution, transactions, scalability etc..
While PHP4s OO support is far from all it could be (no default pass by reference...), you can still seperate out into nice data abstraction / business logic / presentation layers just as well as most other OO languages. Hell we even use the J2EE enterprise patterns in PHP4.
PHP5 is looking set to fix most of the annoyances with PHP4s object model, adding unified constructors, method argument hinting, interfaces, pass by reference by default and so on.
My point is, although a lot of people see it as such, you shouldn't write off PHP4 as a purely procedural language
.Net is definitely a step up from COM/ATL and VB 6. When the .Net run time is distributed with the OS, I think you will see more and more .Net software. .Net does not have the cross platform advantage of Java, but it does seem to have a significant performance advantage over Java. Theoretically it shouldn't have, since C#/.Net is so similar to Java, but it does. .Net is the future for people who live in the Microsoft world.
the only things I've heard about .NET is
1. it involves pathetic services like having every single piece of personal info on a MS server so they can eg. use your credit card to automatically buy concert tickets for you
2. C# is an evil MS ploy to get more control
btw OT: imo PHP sucks cos most of the errors I get browsing are PHP related, and usually on line 5 or something. in fact, apart from not actually being connected to the internet, or the website being unavailable, PHP is the only source of error I come across...
just use perl and cgi ffs
My guess is that .Net will be viewed as a wide-spread succeess some time in the future, but that it will be significantly different from what .Net is today.
With .Net you can have MS or M$ .... (yes I know about Mono, but talk to when it's out of beta) With Java or PHP/Perl/.... You have a choice. Where I'm working now we develop on W2000 boxes, but deploy and run on Linux. Our server is Websphere. If we wanted to run on Solaris boxes we could get that up and running in a day or so. Most of the work would be installing configuring Websphere. Basically we can switch platforms in about 24 hours with Java.
.net ?????? You have your choice of W2000, XP or ???????? you get the point. One is a completely closed solution the other isn't.
With
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
I dobut your claim aobut net being faster in threads than Java..
.NET that has been avaible for more than a year..
the actual research from acm.org shows the oppposite..
however goMon is free opensource versionof
However remember his java tends to kjeeep backwards compatibility whereas MS will always break it to make you spend more money you don't have
Don't Tread on OpenSource
I can never make people laugh with my silly jokes! I thought it might be modded as "funny", but I got insightful. :-)
Just to clarify, win32, posix and os/2 are not kernel archetictures, they are API's for the kernel. (There's a document somewhere I read about 6 years ago that explains it better)
.net should be a native API in the next rev of Windows. .net on Win32 will only be around until the older Windows revisions become obsolete.
x86, alpha etc are the platform archetictures. At the moment, x86 is the only one in use since Alpha, MIPS and PPC seem to be non-viable, at least to Microsoft, but I expect to see some new ones as time goes on.
My point was that
It's seems very bad that the development of the
:)
Internet Virtual Machine,
http://http://ivm.sourceforge.net/
is dead since more than a year. It was a cool concept. And it has the advantage that is *only* a VM, not a whole bunch of services, libraries, protocol definitions etc. pp.
Just imagine it: The gcc compiling bytecode, FAST, for every platform in every gcc input language. Wonderful
Who is better qualified to evaluate a technology? Some jackass journalist or someone like Miguel de Icaza?
Did anyone else get the idea, that Microsoft is in effect pullig the same management/technology stunt it did with Windows95/98/ME all over?
.NET and it's primary feature of machine independent code. .Net runtime, so they can finally drop the ever aging 80x86 architecture sometimes down the road?
E.G. Win95 mostly served the purpose of creating a middleway between DOS and the Windows Api. All DOS apps ran more or less, and all apps build in the "new" windows api worked a lot better (ofcourse). Then, after 5 years, when even the last software vendor had switched over, they could introduce Windows2000, that ran these Apps better than anything before it, and was build upon actually usable technology.
So... think about
Could MS be planning to have programmers create all of the smaller, not that speed dependent frontend apps to the
Nevertheless I will make a note of it *grins*
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
.NET has far from evaporated. Sure, the marketing has changed drastically, but that's because MS's marketing plan was hurting .NET in the beginning. The doctrine of sticking .NET onto every .NET enabled product was confusing people as to .NET really was. It's amazing how many well read and intelligent IT professionals today STILL don't know what .NET really is. Now that the marketing focus has laid off a bit, maybe people will start seeing .NET for what it really is.
.NET. I always loved Java from a macro perspective, but I hated it in implementation because it was too slow and various "features" of the language itself bothered me. If Sun switched Java from fully-interpreted to just-in-time compiled like .NET, increased the language interoperability, and got rid of those damned native types, I might be sold back. Right now, though, I'd rather support the efforts of the OSS community to port .NET to other platforms than hang onto Sun.
Personally, I love
It's posts like this that make me want to abandon Slashdot after 5 years of faithfully following, commenting and posting stories. Let's set some things strait:
.NET to get paid....)
.NET. Longhorn's new features are all managed code.
.NET projects (all perl and Java) to four this year, and my guess is that we will see as many as six or seven next year (smallish shop).
.NET, it's about 90/10. That last ten can be a bitch, but no less then Java's 25%.
.NET make web services insanly simple (maybe to simple, new developers may use them too much).
.NET. Not just platform (mono is doing a great job) but also interop based on the WS-I stack.
.NET until Longhorn, but it is out there in the hands of extremly productive developers.
.NET has only been released in a non beta form for about 1 year. Since then Microsoft has already done a major upgrade to the development platform, and a major release of the CLR. Whidby will add more features.
.NET, more powerful in .NET.
.NET, clearly there is some new and cool features here to get the ever slow sun to actually change their precious language.
(before anyone accuses me of being Microsoft marketting, I have no links to the company, and am a huge fan in OpenSource. I have both a windows and a Linux box, and I spend more time hacking on Linux for fun, and hacking on
1) Microsoft has completly committed to
2) Microsoft's most profitable Business Aplications are being ported as we speak. BizTalk, Office, and the OS all have managed serviced components now, and the next version of SQL will have extremly rich CLR support.
3)My experience as a Technologist is the reverse. We have gone from no
4) The knowledge curve works for you. My experience is that in Assembly 10% of stuff is "easy" the rest you need to look up, in C, 40% of the stuff is easy, the rest you need to look up, in C++ it's about 50/50, in Java it's closer to 75/25. In C# on
5) Having strugled with AXIS and several other varients of Web Services for Java, I have to say, they pretty much suck rocks (GLUE excepted, although at least the last version I was playing with still equired source access to code to generate services). On the other hand, the extremly rich API and Metadata abilities in
6) Interoperability rocks in
7) Java is at best a niche platform. When was the last time you saw any non server/specialized software written in Java? Of the top ten software software packages (Windows, Office, SAP, PeopleSoft, Oracle, SQL, Quicken, Quickbooks, TaxCut, Microsoft Money) how many of them are actually written in java? 0/10. Microsoft owns 90% of the CPU market. Microsoft has decided to slip
8)
9) Reflection, Inspection, Attributes and Events. Simpler in
10) ASP.net is a solid step up from ASP. Seperate of presentation and business logic is much more solid, the rendering pipeline is more powerfull, and the security features rock.
11) ADO.net makes simple database projects (CRUD) easy. Will anyone use Datasets for a large enterprise application? Probably not, but it is still there and powerful.
12) Sun fails the Dogfood test. Number of critical applications in Solaris that are or are being ported to Java? None, ask Sun why that is (not scalable, not fast). How much of Windows is being ported? The whole Shabang (see Longhorn). I will be happy to re-examine Java seriously for ongoing work when Sun's rm6 utilities (including the command lines) are written in Java.
13) Not only that, Sun is now lifting features from
14) Compact Framework. Share code between WinCE devices and your platform. Tie them together via Webservices with a single click of the mouse.
15) Rich clients. Have the interoperability and accessability of the web without stateless programming enviornment and pretty graphics.
16) Integrati
If you've been building Windows apps for a while you have welcomed .NET because it makes building Windows apps much simpler than the complexities of VC++ and rescues us from having to deal with the hoakiness of VB. As a long-time Java developer as well I am glad to have a full set of OOP features in a VM-like environment like there is in Java available to me. If Java supported the Windows desktop more elegantly and efficiently then .NET wouldn't matter as much, but Swing is dismally slow and cumbersome for Windows apps, though JDK 1.4.2 is supposed to be better. But look at the rift IBM's SWT has caused in the Java/desktop community.
.NET is just about desktop apps. It makes building distributed apps easier as well, if you want to use web services. I do believe, however, J2EE is still a stronger alternative for large-scale distributed apps. But let's face it, nobody cared much about web services until .NET. Not that a lot of people care too much now, but it's seen as the future of distributed computing, from an internet-scale basis, by just about everybody. What else is there, CORBA? RMI? EJBs? Puhleeze. Firewall unfriendliness is the biggest challenges for these protocols. And the Java camp has been working feverishly to add web services support to their platform and developers have been demanding it. See J2EE 1.4, Apache Axis, Sun's WSDP, BEA's "as-easy-as-VB" WebLogic Workshop IDE for building web services, etc.
.NET has done perhaps is light a fire under the pants of those in the Java camps. Since .NET's release Sun and the major Java vendors have been scrambling to "answer" some of the advantages of .NET and the cool features of C#. The JCP is trying to respond more quickly. The upcoming JDK 1.5 will have most language changes since 1.1 (generics, foreach iterations, attributes) in an attempt to meet or beat some of C#'s strengths over Java, etc. And the prospect of open-sourcing Java is becoming more of a reality as Sun's stranglehold on the standard has slowed the pace of Java's improvement and started to cause some splintering among some previously strong supporters of Java (aka, IBM, creating SWT, not showing up at this year's JavaOne, etc.)
And I don't agree
The best thing
(I'm sure this has been said 100s of times... but)
.NET might have a very well written JIT, and it might have some advantages that Java bytecode does not have - but this does not make life impossible, it simply makes it more interesting.
.NET, but I'd like to. I think it's a shame that there isn't really a standard though. Seems a shame that all of these things will have to be rewritten.
1. You can interpret Java, JIT it, or native compile it (have a play with gcj at some point).
2. Java automatically garbage collects. System.gc() is a hint - for example, if you know you have created lots of garbage and you know you have time. The JVM can completely ignore you though.
3. JNI is there for a reason. There is OpenGl amongst other things implemented in this way.
4. The sleep function is implemented like that for correct handling in threading. If you want to cancel a thread, then you can call 'interrupt' on it, which will cause it to throw an InterruptedException. This allows threading to be a little safer than either allowing proper thread cancellation or just letting it sleep.
I've not really had enough time to play with
Maybe a good project for somebody might be to write some standard APIs that can be used 'as is' from both C# and Java to do the same thing, so that the code can be broadly the same.
I haven't seen anyone mention (forgive me, I haven't read all 522 responses) the features of Java in the upcoming major release as revealed by Sun are essentially in lock-step with C#. Yes, its a leap-frog game and Java was there first, but it certainly discounts wholesale rejections of .NET language features from the Java crowd. Sun has even hinted that they will put more effort into providing (*gasp*) usable IDEs for Java development and have specifically cited MS' DevStudio as a forerunner in this category (although MS was certainly not the first with decent IDEs - props to Borland, et. al).
Finally, it should come as no suprise that .NET is targeted to Windows. Let's face it, Office and Windows are cash cows for MS and it only makes sense to highlight your platform when providing tools.
Even with some of these drawbacks, if you are developing to an MS platform, .NET development tools are far and away the best that have been available to you and I know of more than a handful of situations, anectdotal as they may be, where they have proven to provide real productivity benefits, and that is huge for developers.
So I guess my point is, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, tying the OS (Win svr 2003) and Office and consulting services (and, and, and..) to .NET may have been confusing, but the development tools are top notch and solve more problems than they create.
Stuff like ASP.NET really isn't all that bad. I personally like being able to do both client and server-side programming in Javascript(for clients with less experienced people it makes for a less steep learning curve in situations in which minimal server-side coding is needed). Jscript is a nice language-especially some of the stuff they are doing with type inference are worthwhile ideas worth incorporating into other ECMA implementations.
.NET to be a failure(from a standpoint of looking face)-they'll throw money at the problem until they have something inspiring technically. .Net delays is Micro$soft have lost a lot of their lead here.
.NET won't be nearly as proprietary as it was at first--if MicroSoft does set some worthwhile standards(and that is something where big companies can play a constructive role) they just won't be able to shut the Linux community out of that standard for very long. Micro$oft is caught between a rock and a hardplace here. Either they fall flat on their face or they produce a standard that compares Linux/FreeBSD with NT Server head-to-head(i.e. NT server will most likely come out looking like a dog).
I suspect that Micro$oft management can't afford for
Do they really want to be a big joke like the eSpeak Project had Rajiv Gupta running? (i.e. hundreds of millions of dollars with nothing to show for it) Carly Fiorina burnt up quite a bit of credibility promising all sorts of stuff there that just didn't happen. The big significance of the
By the time the folks in Redmond get it together,
No, it's time for the users to move on.
open (SIG, "</dev/zero"); $sig = <SIG>; close SIG;
What is missing from PHP that you claim keeps it out of the enterprise?
Except that it hasn't been done nor is anyone talking about doing it. .NET does it NOW and works great. .NET 1, Java 0. Next...
... to get the .FISH out of the water...
Maybe not Hailstorm, but therein lies the problem with .NET, it was so broad that MS realized they had just confused most about what their intentions were. If you are a MS developer (as I am) you know that C# is a very viable language and in our shop most of the .NET developers I have interviewed are writing in C#. In my opinion, you seem to be one of the confused that lump all of the initiatives of .NET together (with good reason since MS presented it this way) but I caution anyone that knocks their developer technologies, they are superior to anything that MS has produced, and are very attractive when compared to other technologies.
"One of Java's strengths is that it doesn't allow multi-lang other than JNI. Sure, there's a learning curve, but language standardisation is good."
Isn't that a bit like saying that one of the strengths of VB is that it doesn't allow you to run your applications on different platforms so you can standardize on one?
There is always a trade-off between standards and flexibility. This issue isn't exclusive to Sun or MS.
Wasn't it time for Sun to just move on?
.NET's reflection capabilities strike me as a bit cooler than Java's. IANAJP and IANA.NETP, but it looks much easier to emit .NET bytecode on the fly to the CLR than it is to emit Java bytecode on the fly to the VM. If I'm wrong about this, I'd love to be corrected because I want to be able to do that in Java.
All's true that is mistrusted
Isn't talking about Longhorn anti-naysaying? (If I can coin that phrase for the opposite extreme.)
.NET will be the pot-o-gold at the end of the rainbow.
I mean, Longhorn's been the rainbow of computerdom for quite some time now: constantly receding as you approach it. It's due out now in 2005? Maybe
>A lot of things are "easier" than ASP.NET/ADO.NET coded using an OOP
>language. For simple things you're better off using something like PHP
>or ASP/VBS. Of course when project complexity reaches a certain
>point you'll start to find real advantages to going with a modern
>approach that seperates the presentation layer from the business layer.
>Of course taking this approach can make writing a simple application seem
>daunting, but in the long run it pays off.
Well, Zope is object oriented, has excellent seperation of presentation and business layer possibilities and once you know how it works, is very easy to get stuff done. Oh, and it is free.
The multitude of languages comes into its own when you realise that objects written in one language are easily used in every other language, ... .net unless you've used it.
.NET - so can I comment? There are improvements, but the runtime bloat and the ability to decompile is a real show stopper.
.NET? Do you recall early on that Activestate was going to make a native .NET version of Perl, but it turned out to be so slow they had to go with native / unmanaged code and build a DLL bridge?
.NET is really brilliant. With the multi language FUD they give casual developers, managers and marketers the feeling that .NET is somehow open. Yet in the same swoope they render virtually all open source langauges such as GCC and Java as legacy.
I don't think you can comment on
OK, I've used
Have you actually used Fortran or Perl on
VAX/VMS from the 1980's had a common calling convention for multiple languages, including assembler, along with a rich OS API that is arguably much more reliable than Win32. That meant you could do your multiple language development back in the 80's.
Now consider, Microsoft's move to
Hmmm.
I am glad I work for the Defense sector. Mostly C++, some Ada, some Java.
There are still a bunch of guys like us that want our application statically compiled, with direct access to memory, source-code compatible in Unix and Windows, and easy to program for with standard libraries for gui, database, io, strings etc.
But we are still waiting for that language (perhaps D ?).
With C++, we have static compilation and direct access to memory, but a lack of everything else.
With Java, we have standard libraries, but it lacks the speed due to the VM.
Not that it matters, but insightful gives you karma. Funny doesn't (anymore).
Unlike earlier Microsoft languages/environments, .NET is properly engineered. It obeys all the usual rules of OO programming, and it has a class library which is consistent and makes the programmer much very productive.
Compare this to the ugliness of Microsoft's earlier C++, with macros everywhere and a totally illogical class library.
I like the fact that .NET uses much that is best from other object oriented languages - it means that it is very easy to learn if you are familiar with the best practices in software engineering.
"Microsoft .NET, the Ford Edsel of Information Technology"
Don Marti, Editor in Chief of Linux Journal
Ruby on Rails Screencast
Currently Windows.Forms* is supposedly 56% done, and yet it is completely usuable to everyone but the developers. Why? Because to use it you must install a two-month old version of Wine, patch it with an obscure third-party patch, and then get the configuration just right.
As someone who's interested in doing some .Net development on Linux, this kludge is completely unacceptable. The Mono team made a grave mistake by tying the success of their project to the notoriously unreliable and difficult to configure Wine libraries. If they had have done the GTK interface layer first, then Mono would already be useful for something more than Miguel's monkey spanking.
* The reason Windows.Forms is so important is that there are already plenty of ways to make trivial console apps cross-platform. In order for Linux to tap into the Windows app market, we need the GUI, godamnit!
You know, nobody has made it totally clear on what exactly .NET was. To this day, my boss thinks it's a programming language and is the greatest thing since sliced bread - but then that's why he's the boss, because he knows how to sell.
This sig no verb.
For everyone that thinks .Net is the best thing since sliced bread, here is a reality check: .Net IS NOT Gods gift to programming! (unless, you consider Microsoft to be God?)
.Net application to work on anything other than Windows?? And No, the whole world is not using Windows and IE nor do they want to.
.Net, Mono will have to try and play catch-up. Have Microsoft ever made a truly platform independent software? It is not in their interest. It is in our interest to NOT support such things. If Micro$oft is involved in something sooner or later they will try to own and set the standards for it (Example: HTML/DHTML W3C or Micro$oft?).
.Net days are numbered and Java or something better is surly going to replace it. In the meantime if you are out of a job pick up a .Net manual and do some light reading and try to make some money off it.
How can anything that requires MS Windows on both client and server possibly hope to replace Java ever?? I am not saying that Java is perfect, there is no such thing.
Can you really make a
Yeah, I know about Mono but it's not ready and will not never be given any real support by Microsoft to become usable every time they change
I would not want to work/develop on any system where Micro$oft dictates all the standards. I'd rather stop using a computer and resort back to using an abacus for computing and carrier pigeons for networking. If I am not alone then
Oh dear, doesn't Slashdot value humour?
(Oh dear, spoke too soon! :-)
...Not gonna happen any time soon. I also like their other tag line "Software for the Agile business" Know what that really means? It means when your network crashes, your business must be agile enough to get the job done anyway.
Since this was a bet the farm thing, too bad the farm didnt go down yet!
The Department of Veterans Affairs is a large and influential health care entity... a lot of health care organizations look to the VA for software leadership. Last year, VA programmers started to develop the latest generation of new apps for the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS), probably the most widely distributed and multifaceted GUI-based medical record app in the U.S. The coders worked for about 6 months with .Net and then junked the whole thing for a variety of reasons, adopted Java for the newest and most innovative apps and have not looked back. Of course, many of the VA programmers are still in love with MUMPS, but there are not many MUMPS programmers graduating anymore. Bailing on .Net and adopting Java has got to say something about the relative ease of programming w/ Java or at least the cost of software development.
Take a look at what Blue Titan is doing to Web Services. A complete solution for managing and routing web services, all written using a Service Oriented Architecture.
xargs is for old hippies who wear diapers.
find ~your -name '*base*' -exec chown us {} \;
"Even though Java's done it for a long time, you're tied to one language"
You might look into CORBA before you go making such claims.
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
I have developed specifically in C#.Net for 5 months until our funding ran out. My group did just about everything: Com Interop, XML, SOAP, WinForms, MSHTML, Web connectivity stuffs. Now I have no job but i don't feel any bad about never having to code in .Net again. Let me tell ya, it's very frustrating.
.Net being used in multiple languages? because most of the time we C# developer have to read documentation/postings/tips from VB.Net code. What kind of advantage is that?? I'm sure VB.Net people find it irritating to read C# code, too. And why is a primitive non-OO language like VB anything to do with the OOP style structure of the .Net framework anyway?
.Net framework is very incomplete and poorly documented if at all. A lot of things(such as setting TCP timeouts) are simply not possible. you need to use the COM Interop and know COM. And COM interop is a terrible thing. In fact, COM is terribly complicated thing and .Net developers are forced to read cryptive COM related postings.
.Net framework. So basically we have to guess our way through what the wrapper does. This happens to just about everything we tried to develop with perhaps one exception of Winform.
.Net" that we subscribed thru MSDN is giving us lots of griefs with bugs, too. Once the binary project file is broken, it's a flipping mess.
.Net will be wiped out all of a sudden and we are again hijacked to learn another brand new broken system.
.Net is an effort to imitate/beat Java is beyond me. I guess the great thing about .Net is that you don't have to deal with MS's horrible COM interfaces. But .Net cannot stand on its own without COM, and .Net itself is simply not done yet.
First of all. Why is everybody raving about
The most terrifying thing by far is the fact that
And then you have the bugs and lack of documentation. When developing with MSHTML lib, there's ZERO documentation in
Now Winform is nice and fast but not without problems. For example, MS insisted that the damn transparancy bug is a "intended feature." (a transparent form shows it's parent, but not other things that might be stacked under it.) And refresh problems, too.
"The wonderful Visual Studio
To conclude, I believe that Microsoft have made a mistake for marketing hype of a technology that is simply not ready for prime time. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth for many developers. If you consider how fast MS dumped COM+, it's pretty scary to think that maybe
Why MS doesn't just flat out tell us that
How exactly did you figure that? .NET is already miles ahead of earlier MS technologies (and dare I say, OS stuff as well?) and C# alone is a major benefit regardless of any other .NET piece. Just ask Miguel de Icaza. If you are not very familiar with .NET, you shouldn't be making stupid claims about it.
Okay, my hair used to come down to my waist, but I do not wear daipers!
I think I can comment very easily, with or without using it. How about: I have enterprise customers, I need to deploy on Solaris or AIX, .Net is not portable, therefore any other perceived advantages to .Net are irrelevant.
For a lot of people, there are legitimate reasons for dismissing it out of hand. It is an incredible environment for developing apps on Windows, but beyond that problem space, it is not particularly useful.
Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
"Try that in Java. Try any cross language development in Java."
It wouldn't be another day at Slashdot without misinformation...
Click here please.
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
(repost: cookie was lost so previous post became anon.) .Net again. Let me tell ya, it's very frustrating. Anyone who raves about .Net probably havn't coded extensively with it.
.Net being used in multiple languages? because most of the time we C# developer have to read documentation/postings/tips from VB.Net code. What kind of advantage is that?? I'm sure VB.Net people find it irritating to read C# code, too. And why is a primitive non-OO language like VB anything to do with the OOP style structure of the .Net framework anyway? cross development is supposedly supported in god-aweful COM.
.Net framework is very incomplete and poorly documented if at all. A lot of things(such as setting TCP timeouts) are simply not possible. you need to use the COM Interop and know COM. And COM interop is a terrible thing. In fact, COM is terribly complicated thing and .Net developers are forced to read cryptive COM related postings.
.Net framework. So basically we have to guess our way through what the wrapper does. This happens to just about everything we tried to develop with perhaps one exception of Winform.
.Net" that we subscribed thru MSDN is giving us lots of griefs with bugs, too. Once the binary project file is broken, it's a flipping mess.
.Net will be wiped out all of a sudden and we are again hijacked to learn another brand new broken system.
.Net is an effort to imitate/beat Java is beyond me. I guess the great thing about .Net is that you don't have to deal with MS's horrible COM interfaces. But .Net cannot stand on its own without COM, and .Net itself is simply not done yet.
I have developed specifically in C#.Net for 5 months until our funding ran out. My group did just about everything: Com Interop, XML, SOAP, WinForms, MSHTML, Web connectivity stuffs. Now I have no job but i don't feel any bad about never having to code in
First of all. Why is everybody raving about
The most terrifying thing by far is the fact that
And then you have the bugs and lack of documentation. When developing with MSHTML lib, there's ZERO documentation in
Now Winform is nice and fast but not without problems. For example, MS insisted that the damn transparancy bug is a "intended feature." (a transparent form shows it's parent, but not other things that might be stacked under it.) And refresh problems, too.
"The wonderful Visual Studio
To conclude, I believe that Microsoft have made a mistake for marketing hype of a technology that is simply not ready for prime time. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth for many developers. If you consider how fast MS dumped COM+, it's pretty scary to think that maybe
Why MS doesn't just flat out tell us that
You just need the right service packs.
Sorry, but Zope wins hands down. No questions.
It runs on Windows and Unix/Linux so you can stick it on anything.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Version 1.0 was released in January '02.
Reminds me of the Internet hiring craze when job reqs would ask for "5+ years of Coldfusion" in 1998.
It's been three years since it's been introduced to the public, and I still can't get a straight-forward answer on what it actually is... Someone should congratulate M$'s marketing people for giving it a catchphrase rather than, god forbid, useful information.
That comes from the NDA one signs to get access to *BETA* copies of MS software, because *BETA* releases are traditionally much slowly than the final release. MS got burned years ago, when they passed out copies of the NT 1.0 BETA to journalists (which was a non-optimized build with lot of debugging code in it), and then they wrote (with comparisons to retail version of other OSes), how slow it was. Of course, when NT was finally released (about a year after that), it was considerably faster, but it took years for it to live down those initial ill-informed comments.
I've found Visual Studio .NET with C# fairly enjoyable to program. In particular, it is pretty easy to build a Web service client (given the WSDL).
.NET? It is how programming Windows should have been, without nutty stuff like DLL hell, COM crazyness, and MFC.
What is
It has better OO handling (not copied, referenced, etc).
unfinished: (adj.)
The name only reflected clarification of the target market. ".NET" is still attached to products targeted to developers. (Witness "Visual Studio.Net 2003" released a few weeks ago) I know Linux Guys may find this hard to believe, by the people in charge of buying Operating Systems are (statistically) rarely programmers.
What are you talking about? I was stating that with the JVM, you're stuck with Java. Apparently, though, there was some obscure projects out there that can target the JVM, but I was never claiming that Java's been the only one to do it up until .NET. I'm aware of CORBA and some of what it can do and that its been around a long time. I'm sorry if lead you wrong.
It's been over a decade since we were first introduced to GNU Linux and virtually none of the promised advantages have come true. Is it time for the Open Source Community to move on?
Although you may be right as to what .NET exactly is, you didn't mention how that ties in the advertisements that Microsoft literally plastered everywhere.
.NET".
.NET really is, and being one who is skeptical about Microsoft, I speculated that it was nothing new, just hype, and lots of it.
In Newsweek, for example, there were ads that had catchy slogans like "1 degree of seperation between you and your customers - that's the power of
They make it sound like some sort of fix-all do-all solution to business, when the product itself wasn't about business at all, but more about the technology behind it; the ads didn't mention anything about it. That's where it is extremely misleading, and giving people false impressions about it.
At first, I heard that it was a development platform, like you said, then, I saw the ads. I got confused as to what
There are too many acronyms in this thread! My head is going to explode!!
*cough*
.NET has a shorter name! Concise is totally where it's at.
really nothing more than the .NET runtime (CLR), the associated libraries, and the associated languages that can execute on the CLR (e.g. C#, VB.NET, etc.)
.NET. However, we should be used to that by now. They did the same thing to DDE, OLE, ActiveX, COM, COM+, and probably some others I'm forgetting.
.NET SDK and a good free .NET IDE (like SharpDevelop or Web Matrix) and just go play with it.
.NET open source clone I'm forgetting the name of right now) and go from there. If you've ever worked with Perl, Python, PHP, Java or anything else like that it will be pretty easy. And it won't hurt.
:+)
And that's it....
It interfaces to a whole lot of things via web services, COM, various MS server products, etc. but that's all it is.
Microsoft's marketing people didn't do us any favors by clouding the definition of
Really, it's quite easy. Now go do yourself a favor and gain some perspective by downloading the
Oh, and if you just must maintain an open source angle on it, then try Mono (or that other
I promise.
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
"There is always enthusiasm in our business for new concepts. So-called free software is the latest new thing. We will rise to this challenge, and we will compete in a fair and responsible manner that puts our customers first."
Wow Ballmer... Microsoft is looking at new concepts!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
fyi,
...
you can AOT (ahead of time) compile your apps if you like, thereby making it much more difficult to decompile your apps. Otherwise, there are obfuscators available just like Java obfuscators. I had the same concerns with Java when I first started using it (in 1995). There really weren't any obfuscators back then either.
The real benefit of multilanguage support IMHO is not so much writing in whatever language you feel like, but making it easier to migrate existing code. Of course there are other ways to do that, web services for instance
Actually, in order to ensure that you get all of user your's base, you would need to do:
find / -user your -name "*base*" | xargs chown us
-tom
I agree that one of the key features of .net is it's full featured IDE. with ms visual studio, the vb "leisure coders" can still write their small apps utilizing countless global variables all with names like jkl1, jkl2, etc. But it's also easy (and encouraged of course) to write and manage large OO projects written in several languages.
If you're a real programmer, then you probably already know at least two languages and it wouldn't be too hard to migrate from, say, java to j#.net with a learning time of somewhere between a week and a month ( with a good book ).
Now, about the shared objects between languages, while .net makes this simple (as long as all the other languages are .net and the os is windows), there are currently models implementing cross platform, cross language object and interface sharing. The one that comes to mind is XPCOM.
The way you used xargs breaks if there is any whitespace in the filenames. Yeah, you probably don't make directories with spaces in them, but your users will. If you want to use xargs, use find -print0 and xargs -0
--jeff++
ipv6 is my vpn
Besides the projects that compile java bytecode, yes, the JVM is specific to Java, but that by no means limits what you can get to work with Java. Without a JVM, you don't have WORA, but .NET doesn't mean that either unless the person considering this point can't see past the stained glass windows in Redmond. Basically, I didn't see much of a point in your mention. If I've missed something here, please smack me upside the head. :)
We're using CORBA at my office to cache remote (across-country) databases in separate processes so Apache child processes can access them quickly. IIRC, the CORBA ORB just uses local UNIX sockets to do the talking, so while I would guess there's a speed hit by not running the whole thing in a VM, you've still got effective language interoperability.
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
What is dot.net? Isn't that a domain ending? Yes I know what I am talking about, just thought I would throw in some flame bait...
.. a true VM-monkey.
"hey, hardware guys, move over, leave machine designing to the real geniuses... that's us baby!"
- C++ Troll
Actually, it's not only everything you said (with which I agree completely).
It also makes it possible for Microsoft to divorce itself from chips based on the Intel architecture. Thus, in the future, the applications that are written with
This gives Microsoft business leverage over Intel, because Intel currently has a slight business leverage over Microsoft in the form of Linux, SCO (boo hiss), QNX, and other operating systems.
In other words, without
Okay, 2000 was the introduction of .NET, 2001 had 9/11, 2002 was stock market hell, and in 2003 we're still praying for an economic recovery.
Tell me this: what the fsck year 2000 idea *has* fulfilled it's grandest expectation in the last 3 years?
Certainly not these two:
LAMP: stagnant
Java: stagnant
Is it possible that Microsoft is producing .Net development tools with its intermediary language and JIT compilation so that the company can step away from the Win32 platform altogether (or at least step away from their current version of it) so they can
.Net Win32 code ...
a) invalidate all existing pre
b) lay the blame for Windows 'bugs' on Win32
c)
d) PROFIT !
??
Andrew
Actually I think the original chown was more legitimate. Your version would own things like ~your/bin/base, ~your/src/base, ~your/dog/base, etc. Us wants to be owning all YOUR base, not your dog's.
This is a good book that explains how to program CLS-compliant code. Generic overview of programming .NET.
I think the mere fact that this post generated a staggering 800 replies proves that .NET is not .DONE yet. Many of the posts were actually coherent comparisons of .NET and other technologies and not just typical /. M$ bashing. There's hope for you Linux people yet.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
The other feature that .Net has is superior native execution, it was designed to be translated to native code.
.net virtual machine is better defined than the JVM is.
.NET (not too much), you still have pointers to "real" locations in physical memory. should be fairly easy to break type-safety (compared to Java).
i thought a write-once-run-everywhere program running in a VM could (per se) not contain native code?
The
could you give any reasoning for this? from what i know from
Microsoft did a bad job marketing .net.
.Net as a catch-all brand name for everything from hotmail to server operating systems.
Only if you assume marketing involves providing true information, something that very few companies seem to believe. Microsoft has done a very effective job of using
MS has done a bad job explaining the concept of the development framework and how it differs from Java, but marketing is about throwing around buzzwords (and sprading FUD), and MS is very good at that.
You can evaluate technology without having used it before. Of course this is normally better achieved by somebody with experience in the industry, but if somebody says I am multiplataform, open, etc. you can refer to the hard facts in order to state your opinion.
You make it appear like the only way to evaluate something is asking the designers themselves. What do you think they would say?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Doesn't anyone open fscking ports anymore. For god's sake why are wrapping Remote invocation in a protocol that was designed to transfer text, just open a fsking port. This is just insanity.
"The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
> ...objects written in one language are easily used
.NET with Java in this context; you need to compare it with the JRE.
.NET
> in every other language, so you can have 1
> developer using Perl, another using C#. Try that
> in Java. Try any cross language development in
> Java
You can't compare
I can and have written Python code that runs in the JRE, using Jython (a 100% Pure Java implementation of Python). It lets me mix and match Python and Java code, accessing objects across languages, and leverage the best of each language. I know you can run a LOT of other languages under the JRE; the number of available languages is at least comparable with those supported under
Absolutely right; the sig could be something like this:
find ~your -name '*base*' -print0 | xargs -0 chown us
who cares what the open source community has to say about .NET or anything my M$.
money talks bullshit walks
m$ is the winner, open source is doomed to fail
I mean, get your story straight, sheesh.
It's been three years since we were first introduced to .NET and virtually none of the promised advantages have come true.
Give me a break! Wake up people don't knock it till you try it.
Not that Microsoft has done anything wrong,(IMHO I think the language neutral VM is great), but has anyone besides myself looked at the object files the compiler creates? My mother codes in VB (Excel) it doesn't make her a programmer, just a accountant who uses the tools provided.
.Net you may loose the ability to choose the best optimizations for your program. Of course thats true with any assembler. Has anyone besides myself look into the MS IL layer? Good, but not great.
.Net stinks. Too much overhead on low CPU/Memory systems to be usefull (Although Microsoft is selling the licenses dirt cheap). HP's Chi (tea) comes close, but no cigar. IBM's Java offering also comes close, but again no cigar. With embedded computers you still can't beat assembler and 'C'.
.Net still wraps around my favorite API, Win32. Just look at the DLL's that are loaded when you lauch your IL hello world program My test program loaded (GDI, GDI32, CTL3D, WIN32DLL, etc) and are all win32 libraries.
It all still boils down to x86 machine code. With
From a embedded programmers perspective,
Not to start a flame war, but as developers I hope most of us realize that
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
I wouldn't normally come in here and stick up for MS. But I have to mention the one thing about .NET that has made my life much easier - STRINGS!
...
Honestly, how do you remember when the fuck to use a _bstr_t, or an LPCTSTR, or a CString, or whatever else it is today?
A string is an array of char(s)
>> Buy yourself some extremely long bed sheets. You'll be making an escape rope out of them very soon.
Anyway, thanks for mentioning CORBA for that particular point.
Well, the point of business maybe merely to make money, and Jesus knows it's hard to live without at least a little money, but hey, when you die, and you know you have to, what then? Are you gonna take that money with you?
Anyway, you may care about the major corporations of the world, and "buy" into their view that money is the point of everything, but I guarantee you, the corporations don't give a shit about you, or anything you want, they only care, as your post suggests, about the money they can squeeze from their consumers.
This is the beauty of Open Source. It is about what the programmers want. Open Source is NOT a cash cow. It is a path to personal control over a machine. It is like my ability to take the head off a hammer I own, and attach it to a jack handle. Why, you may ask? Well, it doesn't matter to me whether you like my idea, or would use or buy it. It makes me happy to use a hammerhead attached to a jack handle. Sure, it may look rough, and it doesn't have the neon green fiberglass handle of a store bought hammer, but it suits MY needs or wants perfectly, and I get one Hell of a buildup of momentum when I swing the damn thing!
For those who describe their systems as 'boxen', do you order multiple 'boxen' of corn flakes also?
I'll freely admit that I know next to nothing about .NET, so I may be drawing the wrong impression here, but reading posts here from people who (claim to) have worked in .NET give me the impression that it's designed primarily, if not solely, for ASP and similar Web-based programming, which frankly doesn't interest me much (I look on the current ASP/JSP/Flash/what-have-you rage as a passing thing; networked programs will eventually come out of the mix, but not on the browser, or at least not on the browser as we know it). Is .NET useful for anything else--server/daemon programming, game programming, or the like?
The IDE is not that great, I would have expected more.
:) I wonder if people found CORBA funky when it first came out, I'm sure Some sad F must have :)
Multi-language project???? Hello! My team is trying agree on where to position the curly braces and you want them to program in different languages??
Nice OO library? "Come back swing all is forgiven"
MVC sites are the vogue in most languages at the moment, whats special about ASP.net?
WinForms? Well, OK, that sounds interesting, never looked at it.
>Of course you do have web services, easy SOAP libraries, really nice XML support, remoting and other funky stuff.
Oh my! Funky remoting!!
Unix and subsequently Linux have been in developement for over 3 decades. Maybe it's time to move on?
That's as dumb a point as you and this article try to make.
You move on.
.NET doesn't start fast because it's embedded in the operating system as you said. The main reason it starts fast is because crucial libraries are pre-jitted upon installation. You can pre-jit your own DLLs using ngen.exe. Also, Windows Forms contains a greater percentage of native code than Swing does and seems to have been designed more with performance in mind.
The thing that kind of bothers me with the people that are responding to the thread, is (in a way) you expect every programmer out there to devote their life to knowing the finite guts of the language and platform they're developing on. You seem to frown on anyone that can't write their applications in notepad using raw machine code. Some of us prefer to lead somewhat normal lives that include raising (and paying attention to) families, viewing natural sunlight from time to time, and living off of food OTHER than pizza and Mountain Dew. This means that some of us don't care if we know the basic wire protocols used in .NET. We don't care if we can't argue the benefits of one object technology against another.
Don't get me wrong. I do appreciate the opinions of others, and have learned a lot from just listening. You guys know a LOT more about programming and operating systems than I can ever hope to. You've devoted much of your life to learning it (and probably have a 100 times better memory retention ability than I do). I have a ton of respect for that. But you're forgetting the more important aspects of .NET for the daily programmer, like the fact it's a platform that does everything we need it to do, has TONS of info/data/examples/help out there for, and works on every PC that we use on a daily basis. It's not perfect, but it's a perfect match. That's important.
It's also worthy to note that many of you guys have a supreme hatred for Microsoft, and won't hesitate to blindly bash its products. I don't blame you. MS is easy to love, and even easier to hate.
Lastly, the comment/theme that stood out for me is
"The main problem with .Net is that it ties you to a specific OS which makes it a pain from a business economics point of view"
Well, I have a feeling that many, many, many businesses are content in using MS's OS's. So interoperability certainly isn't a concern. If that's the biggest problem with .NET, I'd say that it isn't really much of a problem. The companies that are using other OS's, probably aren't interested in using VS.NET anyhow. They're probably using JAVA, et.al. Problem solved.
My 2 cents
Blast away...
or just use find -exec, which always works (as stated in the parents)... duh
u r afuck