Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AJAX, Echo, .NET - What Impact Have They Had?

Posted by Cliff on from the will-the-browser-ever-trump-the-desktop dept.

BjB asks: "We've talked about platform neutral frameworks for years, but with the recent story about AJAX threatening the desktop, it made me think about the hype around two frameworks that were supposed to bring applications to the browser: Microsoft .NET and the Java competitor Echo framework. Both technologies boast that you can write a desktop application that can also easily be exported as an identical web-based application. I know a lot of developers hailed the .NET framework as a major innovation and jumped on board. The Echo framework was the counter-attack that leveled the field. Now, over two years later, I don't think I've ever seen anything that leverages either one? Was this a short lived battle with nobody reaping the rewards, or has it actually made some in-roads?"

3 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. Re:.net gripes by Rolan · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...but where's my perl, python and ruby dot net (and I don't mean editor support)?

    Right under your nose, if you bother to look:
    http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/NET Perl and (experimental)Python
    http://www.saltypickle.com/rubydotnet/Ruby/.NET compatability
    http://www.zope.org/Members/Brian/PythonNetPython
    http://www.ironpython.com/Python, again....

    --
    - AMW
  2. Re:in house by Momoru · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I see quite a few .NET web sites (look for anything with .aspx). Although it is definitely bloated, the speed at which one can develop a web app on .NET is awesome. Things that used to take hours can literally take minutes. Thats the positives...

    The real hope of .NET, being able to deploy to other platforms is somewhat of a lost cause, although Mono is doing pretty well. The promise of being able to write in any programming language is also technically possible, but really not as straightforward or easy as just pounding something out in VB.NET or C#.

    That said, .NET really is a good thing, and it blows old ASP, cold fusion and PHP out of the water in terms of server side pages. The next version looks even more promising, as long as it doesn't try to generate more of its own shitty javascript.

  3. Re:.net gripes by anomalous+cohort · · Score: 4, Interesting
    you'll end up with a lot of poorly designed apps on this platform IMHO, because you have to be an expert OO wiz or wrestle with the VS designer (a total dead-ender)

    I think that this comes to the crux of the matter, though not in the way that the original poster intended. As an application technology platform, I find .NET to be pretty sound. The problems come in the gap between expectation and reality that results from how .NET is marketed.

    .NET is a MSFT property. MSFT is a tool vendor and, like all tool vendors, promotes the message that a better tool is the answer to all life's problems and that their tool is that better tool.

    Many companies that embrace MSFT tools like the message. Why bother learning all that complicated computer science stuff when with a little drag-n-drop, some wizards, and some designers and you're done?

    If wizards and designers could do the job, then they would have a long time ago and computer science would be relegated to the same intellectual dust bin as alchemy or astrology. Not that there isn't a place for wizards and designers, it's just that you still have to know and understand what's going on under the covers. When used as a code generator, wizards and designers are fine. When used as a surrogate architect or as a crutch by developers who lack the understanding of the underlying technology, the outcome will not nearly be as wonderful as what is promised by the tool vendor's marketing department.

    In short, wizards and designers will do no better than those who use them.