What Do Programmers Like About .NET?

prostoalex writes "Software Development Times did a special report asking the .NET developers what they liked about the platform, since it's been 18 months since the .NET introduction by Microsoft. While the positive responses generally acclaimed Microsoft on integrating C++/C# logic development and VB GUI generation into one environment, some complaints are out there as well. From the article: "When Mark Lindley, manager of development services at Cimco, was working with .NET version 1.0 in September 2002, he needed to implement SSL transactions over TCP/IP. 'It took a long time to figure out that this functionality hadn't been implemented in .NET yet,' recalled Lindley." The article also mentions Honeywell Automated Control Systems, a .NET/J2EE software operation, considering moving their operations to .NET platform."

Comments

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

blah blah ... and hit a button

[Darth_Burrito]

The article kept hitting on this point:

"It's a cultural change ... "With .NET we are saying, 'Don't write the code. Connect two things with an object, and hit a button.' It's a big change."

I really don't understand how .NET represents a fundamental or substantial cultural change in the manner in which we develop software. The development I've done in .NET never compressed down to the level of "connecting two things with objects and hitting a button." Sure I use the base libraries all the time but they are just general purpose programming tools. They can give you stuff like Hashtable and ReaderWriterLock classes. If before .NET you found yourself spending a lot of time writing these kinds of classes, you probably spent a lot of time reinventing the wheel. The bulk of my programming time has always been spent on business or application specific logic.

I totally agree

[GCP]

I've programmed for Mac, Unix, Win32, and Java, and I've never experienced an easier platform for writing GUI apps than the combo of C#, .Net, and Visual Studio. (Now for writing algorithmically challenging apps, nothing beats Lisp, but....)

I think the C# language is a big improvement over Java (the language). So many lessons from years of Java experience have been incorporated into C#, that it's absurd to dismiss it as a Java "knockoff". It's Java done over again with the benefit of hindsight and a lack of legacy baggage combined with the ease of GUI building that made VB so popular (but without any trace of Basic).

Of course, the fact that it's realistically only for Windows (so far) is a huge drawback (for me). With Java, you can hop from platform to platform and from tool vendor to tool vendor (incl. open source) as they come and go, and there's a lot of security in that. (I seem to change Java IDEs every 18 months or so, and I like that I can do that.)

If both C# and Java were equally cross-platform and there were good C# tools from vendors other than MS, I'd choose C# over Java in a heartbeat for the language improvements alone. If I'm assured that the client wants Windows only, I'll use C# for sure. When I don't have that assurance, I'll stick with Java for safety. (Of course, if it's not a GUI app, and I don't need the type of safety you get by using a mainstream language, I think some form of Lisp or ML would be my first choice.)

These seem to be major issues:

[Futurepower(R)]

These seem to be major issues about .NET:

1. Microsoft doesn't use it for its own products. If .NET is so good, why? If someone said, "I would never eat this, but here is some for you", would you take what was offered?
2. Programs written in .NET are more easily decompiled. If you discover and implement an especially good algorithm, others may be able to see what you did. Maybe that is the reason for number 1, above.
3. All the tools are proprietary. The programmer and his employer become like dogs on a leash. Their fortunes are tied to the management decisions of the proprietary vendor. Computer company managements often make sink-the-company decisions; consider the .com self-destruction, for example. When your company uses proprietary tools, your company is dependent on the lifestyle of the proprietary vendor's management, the vendor's ability to hire and keep good people, the vendor's financial decisions, and the vendor's estimation of whether they want to invest more in the tools you are using.
4. My understanding is that the license agreement for .NET prevents a company from using .NET to compete with Microsoft in some areas. But how does a company know if software it develops will eventually compete with Microsoft?

Here are three of last week's articles about Microsoft:

1. Microsoft Windows: Insecure by Design
   The mainstream media is starting to realize that Microsoft products are especially insecure.
2. (PDF file): The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) urges the Department of Homeland Security to stop using insecure (Microsoft) products.
   The computer industry attempts to educate those in government about the insecurity of Microsoft software.
3. Stupid Microsoft Tricks -- Why the Richest Company on Earth Feels it Needs to Cheat
   A famous industry columnist exposes an example of Microsoft's apparent dishonesty. When ordered by a court to produce all its email records concerning a company that alleges theft by Microsoft, there was a 35-week gap.

So here's the question: Do you want your company to be tied to the fortunes of Microsoft? If you trust Microsoft to do the right thing for you and your company, then use Microsoft's proprietary tools.

But remember, Microsoft's products regularly die. Not only do they die, but they die on schedule. It's assisted suicide: Windows Desktop Product Life Cycle Support and Availability Policies for Businesses. Bill Gates is the Dr. Jack Kevorkian of the software world. Mr. Gates has, for example, decreed the death of Windows 98, which is used by more than 100,000,000 people throughout the world. It's a little like Dr. Kevorkian expecting to do his work with Jennifer Lopez. Hey Dr. Gates, a lot of people think the patient is still very much alive!

Open source means never having to bark.