Surely, nobody would pick any of the most necessary jobs like a trash person, so who would do that?
Of course somebody would pick 'trash person' - the government or some similar organisation who exists to manage our trash problems would create those types of persons.
What are you saying exactly here? Isn't the MS marketing dept a part of MS? Don't they speak for MS? You are talking as if it some outside alien enttity..NET is a buzzword. I know so because MS tells me that. Not even MS knows what it is and by the time we all figure it out they will have abandoned it. Just like they abandoned COM/DCOM/COM+ in favor of.NET. Two years from now there will be a new buzzword.
.NET is a buzzword, you are correct. The poster you replied to however was referring to the.NET Framework as I pointed out previously.
You seem to be missusing the word abandoned here. They have not forgotten about COM/DCOM/COM+. These technologies are VERY core functionality to IE, the Windows shell, IIS, MS Office and a HUGE number of other third party products. Yes they will eventually abandon these technologies (DCOM and COM+ sooner) however not in 2 years like you seem to think. Saying 'abandoned' implies that you cannot or should not use them. That is incorrect. You are incorrect.
There is a new favourite on the block however. I say favourite in the sense that the marketing department effort and MS programmer effort is going into the.NET framework and related core technologies now instead of improving the immensly complicated COM/DCOM/COM+ technologies.
"Now Windows is moving to.NET they are tidying up a lot of these problems, while we're still playing catchup."
They'll abandon.NET in two years don't worry. MS does not keep new buzzwords very long. As soon as we know what.NET means they'll shelve it.
He was referring to the development platform named.NET (the.NET Framework). Buzzword or not, the framework is not going anywhere. It's here now, and I believe it will slowly become the framework used to create most windows programs, as opposed to MFC or VB or directly using the Win32 API. They all have major problems (many of those problems have equivalents in the Linux world) and.NET makes a great attempt at solving many of them.
The whole concept and the technology itself appears to be very important to the future of microsoft, and they have openly stated that it is very important to them. I seriously doubt it will be 'abandoned when we know what it means'. Many of us (millions of developers) already know what the.NET framework 'means' as a technology, however we don't know how it will affect the market.
Typically, the confusion with the.NET buzzword is because microsoft marketing department have named everything product.NET.. what a stupid idea. Speaking of stupid idea's, passport wa... ahh forget it.
1. Reasoning that they won't pursue legal action because they haven't isn't logical.
I did not reason that they will not pursue legal action at all. It is logical to assume they have not yet pursued legal action because that is not the goal in this case.
2. Reasoning that Microsoft's motives of releasing the source is about learning the.NET platform is only your guess at real motives you do not know. You're repeating press releases.
Exactly. I did not reason with anything once again. As i mentioned, those are the *stated* goals. Deviating from those clearly stated goals would be a huge mistake, as many many industry partners including Borland, IBM, etc, would shoot them (microsoft) down.
You are reading things in my post which I did not write.
In other words, they're trying to use software patents to keep people from writing their own implementations of C# / CLI libraries and software.
This is a completely bogus interpretation of the goal. The stated goal of allowing people to view and study the source is to gain acceptance for the.NET platform, and to kick-start an understanding of the technologies, and to permit and encourage other implementations. Why have they not started legal proceedings with dotGNU or Mono? Please spare us the doomsday senario's. Evaluate the.NET / C# licenses and technologies and use them if they provide a benefit, otherwise ignore them.
C# is an open standard. The CLI is an open standard.
There are many libraries included with the microsoft implementation of.NET which are *not* part of the standard, and these become more like the Java libraries. Many of those classes and features which are not part of the standard are not included in the SSCLI.
My opinion: boycott this if you want, but dont use bogus arguments for doing so.
I love VS.net, i started using it immediately when it came out since I was tired of all the other crap out there like VS6 which just wasn't straightforward. In either case I'm glad I rarely need to use Emacs or VI, as most of my development is only for windows-based clients.
Take a look at the latest VC++.NET Complier / VS.NET IDE & Debugger for a mostly satisfactory solution to these problems you listed. Most noteably, code completion, error messages improved, and debugging allows inspection of defines.
I'm not quite sure about tracing pre-processor code, and I'm not quite sure exactly what you mean either. By tracing do you mean stepping into each line of code that is inserted by the pre-processor? I dont think it can do that but I haven't tried.
First, if I dont like your bitching, I'll bitch about it all I want.
Second, please clarify how using C# is going to put us back at another microsoft monopoly?
The language has some strong points and some weak points... regardless of your wild implication that people who use it "don't have any forsight", most people who do choose to use it are aware of the strong and weak points (GC, XML comments, atrributes, access to pointers, etc). All these things are widely discussed in a huge number of various.NET forums, mailing lists etc.
This is just typical slashdot FUD. Bitching about C# ("we will end up in another monopoly!") is a complete waste of time if you have absolutely no reason (or at least dont care to state one) to dislike C# except simply because it came from Redmond.
At the very least, give us your version of evil plots to take over the world with this new C# weapon....
Because committee-driven standards usually take a *long* time to produce anything usefull and they often become convoluted with so many differing viewpoints incorporated.
If you dont like C#, dont use it. Many people do like it, and many are using it.
Well it seems all this talk about Rotor source code being available and what it will do for projects such as Mono and dotGNU is rather silly. Sure it has implications, however you can already see the source code to the REAL mscorlib (which includes most (all?) of the ECMA implementation.
Decompilers such as Salamander would show you most of the source code however IANAL and I have no idea of any implications of this. The point is, source, or at least an easy-to-read, reverse engineered representation of the mscorlib is already available and has been for quite some time. Anyone like to comment on the legals here?
Exactly, when current employer hired me, at age 19 doing IT support, I considered myself to have 3+ years experience (I had been tinkering with computers and programming religiously since I was ~13).
I have been working in my current job for 3 1/2 years now, at age 24. Currently working as lead programmer on state wide medical research projects and international medical research projects regularly travelling overseas. I now consider myself to have almost 4 years professional experience.
<blurb>
I have absolutely no qualifications, having not even finished high school. I work for a university where my boss, a professor of statistics who is quite familiar with programming and math related to computing, values education immensely. She has previously admitted that I entered my current job with a lot more practical knowledge and experience and maturity than all the recent IT graduates, which had previously been hired (and fired).
I think it's pointless to argue about the specific meaning of how many "real world" or "professional" years of experience you have had, or think you have. I look at code I wrote 5 years ago and laugh. I hope in another 5 years I will laugh at the code I write now. The point is, I can, and do, get the job done. That's EVERYTHING. Note that writing maintainable code is DEFINATELY part of "getting the job done".
Typically I think an employer wants proof that you can do the job. More often that not, they would rather bet on the person with the qualifications and/or professional experience. This is understandable and it's a reality that makes a lot of sense and I believe it's correct for the most part. When I began with my current employer I was working there as IT support. Quite simply, I made friends with the big bosses, struck up conversations, proved myself whenever I could. By the time I was offered my current job, they clearly knew I was capable of handling the projects they needed done, and hence I never really had a problem with age "discrimination", or qualification "discrimination".
I most certainly support your general idea. Its a typical gut reaction by the slashdot folks..NET is a great step forward, and C# became my favourite language merely days after I installed.NET framework.
Technically, I dont think anyone has real issues with the underlying technologies associated with the Framework itself. I will list some of the (imho) not-so-huge complaints:
* Windows Forms is rather windows centric. Clearly Microsoft had to do this to avoid alienating millions of developers and I dont see they had any choice. The localization support is there, however some have noted that its probably not as good as Java, or at least requires a little bit of extra work with form layout modes.
* SOAP/XML bloat. The remoting framework requires a little extra processing and bandwidth (this is a moot point) however most would agree that it is a great solution and integrated very well with the entire framework (Eg. [WebMethod])
* Undocumented API's. Once you move away from the standard ECMA stuff, it gets increasingly windows centric, and difficult to implement on another platform. Full compatability is going to be extremely difficult at best.
Thats all I can think of right now. Anyone else care to add to the list? It certainly dosn't look look like a big list yet....
Well, first of all, AFAIK, C# is an ECMA standard, not IEEE. Now, I don't get your complaint. You say that there is a problem with Sun "dumping proprietary libraries" into the Java spec. But the Java language, JVM, and core libraries are as-well specified as C#/CLR, and they are stable.
This is a good point, however going to the trouble of standardizing the various components of.NET implies a comitment to sticking with those standards.
Beyond the core ECMA specs, Microsoft is completely proprietary, with NO free implementation at all and NO decent specs. And there is no guarantee that Microsoft will even stick to their spec--they will likely extend the hell out of what they submitted as a standard.
I agree that these are mostly advantages for Java however its not very likely that microsoft will break compatability with the spec as far as breaking applications that are complied for, and conform to it. To be fair, the microsoft.NET implementation has not even been released yet, but its clear that the ECMA documents are for the most part workable.
Why would anybody care about Mono? It's going to use non-standard APIs on a little-used platform.
Little-used platform (.NET?)? This wont be true for much longer. It has not even been released yet and there is a significantly large community of developers already. People (in significant numbers) WILL care about Mono if it makes porting between windows and other OSes very easy. They will care even more if Mono implements most of Microsoft's "non standard" API's. Since when did Microsoft's non-standard API's ever stop WINE from at least trying to implement anything? I guess you're saying WINE is also useless, along with support for NTFS, SMB, etc etc. The list goes on.
Certainly one of the keys to Microsoft products "working" is when they make well defined interfaces and well documented interfaces. In my experience, if you define your interfaces well and document exactly what they are supposed to do, no matter how terrible your code is, you can make it work, and make it flexible to later changes.
This is where a language like perl is not extremely conducive to well designed systems, however you can of course design a system well in perl.
C# is not "windows only". C# is an ECMA standard and is currently being implemented on many many platforms.
C# is, sooner or later, probably going to replace VB as the language of choice for the majority of programmers in the world (Yes, VB has the largest share of programmers).
If the tools are good, they attract developers. If the tools are good, you can reasonably say that it would enable developers to do more in less time. If the underlying platform (.NET CLR) is supported on linux then it will help to ease migration efforts for applications written for the windows environment. If Mono (or another similar) project is a success, you can reasonably expect linux to benefit from this.
Note i'm not talking about ".NET" the marketing slogan, I'm talking specificaly about the CLR, Class libs, C# compiler, etc.
Well I certainly didn't have to dig. The key with.NET from my point of view, it is integration. The tools, the runtime, the debugger, the XML / SOAP, the forms designer, the class libs, the development environment, ADO.NET.
Its a first class set of development tools.
Thats the benefit, and I didn't have to dig anywhere to find it.
If you've 'always wondered'... why don't you do a little research into the matter?
Miguel et al. are implementing an ECMA standard for the benefit of themselves, their company and the open source community in general.
What exactly are you wondering about? The fact the standard originated from within the redmond campus? I'm sure you can find answers to your questions if you check out the mono web site. http://www.go-mono.com
IIRC Toshiba has laptops right now which are using hydrogen power sources. Apparently they're not widely available right now, and extremely expensive, but they last for many more hours than your standard batteries.
Slashdot Mirror
Surely, nobody would pick any of the most necessary jobs like a trash person, so who would do that?
Of course somebody would pick 'trash person' - the government or some similar organisation who exists to manage our trash problems would create those types of persons.
What are you saying exactly here? Isn't the MS marketing dept a part of MS? Don't they speak for MS? You are talking as if it some outside alien enttity. .NET is a buzzword. I know so because MS tells me that. Not even MS knows what it is and by the time we all figure it out they will have abandoned it. Just like they abandoned COM/DCOM/COM+ in favor of .NET. Two years from now there will be a new buzzword.
.NET is a buzzword, you are correct. The poster you replied to however was referring to the .NET Framework as I pointed out previously.
.NET framework and related core technologies now instead of improving the immensly complicated COM/DCOM/COM+ technologies.
You seem to be missusing the word abandoned here. They have not forgotten about COM/DCOM/COM+. These technologies are VERY core functionality to IE, the Windows shell, IIS, MS Office and a HUGE number of other third party products. Yes they will eventually abandon these technologies (DCOM and COM+ sooner) however not in 2 years like you seem to think. Saying 'abandoned' implies that you cannot or should not use them. That is incorrect. You are incorrect.
There is a new favourite on the block however. I say favourite in the sense that the marketing department effort and MS programmer effort is going into the
"Now Windows is moving to .NET they are tidying up a lot of these problems, while we're still playing catchup."
.NET in two years don't worry. MS does not keep new buzzwords very long. As soon as we know what .NET means they'll shelve it.
.NET (the .NET Framework). Buzzword or not, the framework is not going anywhere. It's here now, and I believe it will slowly become the framework used to create most windows programs, as opposed to MFC or VB or directly using the Win32 API. They all have major problems (many of those problems have equivalents in the Linux world) and .NET makes a great attempt at solving many of them.
.NET framework 'means' as a technology, however we don't know how it will affect the market.
.NET buzzword is because microsoft marketing department have named everything product.NET.. what a stupid idea. Speaking of stupid idea's, passport wa... ahh forget it.
They'll abandon
He was referring to the development platform named
The whole concept and the technology itself appears to be very important to the future of microsoft, and they have openly stated that it is very important to them. I seriously doubt it will be 'abandoned when we know what it means'. Many of us (millions of developers) already know what the
Typically, the confusion with the
C# & CLI STANDARDS
What do you call a "standard?"
1. Reasoning that they won't pursue legal action because they haven't isn't logical.
.NET platform is only your guess at real motives you do not know. You're repeating press releases.
I did not reason that they will not pursue legal action at all. It is logical to assume they have not yet pursued legal action because that is not the goal in this case.
2. Reasoning that Microsoft's motives of releasing the source is about learning the
Exactly. I did not reason with anything once again. As i mentioned, those are the *stated* goals. Deviating from those clearly stated goals would be a huge mistake, as many many industry partners including Borland, IBM, etc, would shoot them (microsoft) down.
You are reading things in my post which I did not write.
In other words, they're trying to use software patents to keep people from writing their own implementations of C# / CLI libraries and software.
.NET platform, and to kick-start an understanding of the technologies, and to permit and encourage other implementations. Why have they not started legal proceedings with dotGNU or Mono? Please spare us the doomsday senario's. Evaluate the .NET / C# licenses and technologies and use them if they provide a benefit, otherwise ignore them.
.NET which are *not* part of the standard, and these become more like the Java libraries. Many of those classes and features which are not part of the standard are not included in the SSCLI.
This is a completely bogus interpretation of the goal. The stated goal of allowing people to view and study the source is to gain acceptance for the
C# is an open standard. The CLI is an open standard.
There are many libraries included with the microsoft implementation of
My opinion: boycott this if you want, but dont use bogus arguments for doing so.
Dont forget Rhys Weatherley of pnet, and many others....
I love VS .net, i started using it immediately when it came out since I was tired of all the other crap out there like VS6 which just wasn't straightforward. In either case I'm glad I rarely need to use Emacs or VI, as most of my development is only for windows-based clients.
Take a look at the latest VC++.NET Complier / VS.NET IDE & Debugger for a mostly satisfactory solution to these problems you listed. Most noteably, code completion, error messages improved, and debugging allows inspection of defines.
I'm not quite sure about tracing pre-processor code, and I'm not quite sure exactly what you mean either. By tracing do you mean stepping into each line of code that is inserted by the pre-processor? I dont think it can do that but I haven't tried.
First, if I dont like your bitching, I'll bitch about it all I want.
.NET forums, mailing lists etc.
Second, please clarify how using C# is going to put us back at another microsoft monopoly?
The language has some strong points and some weak points... regardless of your wild implication that people who use it "don't have any forsight", most people who do choose to use it are aware of the strong and weak points (GC, XML comments, atrributes, access to pointers, etc). All these things are widely discussed in a huge number of various
This is just typical slashdot FUD. Bitching about C# ("we will end up in another monopoly!") is a complete waste of time if you have absolutely no reason (or at least dont care to state one) to dislike C# except simply because it came from Redmond.
At the very least, give us your version of evil plots to take over the world with this new C# weapon....
Because committee-driven standards usually take a *long* time to produce anything usefull and they often become convoluted with so many differing viewpoints incorporated.
If you dont like C#, dont use it. Many people do like it, and many are using it.
- Adam
Yes, and you run this site don't you ?
SMELLLLLLLLLLLL what the rock, is COOKINGGGGG!?!?!??!?!
Well it seems all this talk about Rotor source code being available and what it will do for projects such as Mono and dotGNU is rather silly. Sure it has implications, however you can already see the source code to the REAL mscorlib (which includes most (all?) of the ECMA implementation.
Decompilers such as Salamander would show you most of the source code however IANAL and I have no idea of any implications of this. The point is, source, or at least an easy-to-read, reverse engineered representation of the mscorlib is already available and has been for quite some time. Anyone like to comment on the legals here?
- Adam
What does security attempt to do? Keep private information out of the hands of unauthorized people?
Well probably most people wish to guard information about their browsing habits?
I think there is a fine line here and I would say it is at least very close to a security problem!
- Adam
Exactly, when current employer hired me, at age 19 doing IT support, I considered myself to have 3+ years experience (I had been tinkering with computers and programming religiously since I was ~13).
I have been working in my current job for 3 1/2 years now, at age 24. Currently working as lead programmer on state wide medical research projects and international medical research projects regularly travelling overseas. I now consider myself to have almost 4 years professional experience.
<blurb>
I have absolutely no qualifications, having not even finished high school. I work for a university where my boss, a professor of statistics who is quite familiar with programming and math related to computing, values education immensely. She has previously admitted that I entered my current job with a lot more practical knowledge and experience and maturity than all the recent IT graduates, which had previously been hired (and fired).
I think it's pointless to argue about the specific meaning of how many "real world" or "professional" years of experience you have had, or think you have. I look at code I wrote 5 years ago and laugh. I hope in another 5 years I will laugh at the code I write now. The point is, I can, and do, get the job done. That's EVERYTHING. Note that writing maintainable code is DEFINATELY part of "getting the job done".
Typically I think an employer wants proof that you can do the job. More often that not, they would rather bet on the person with the qualifications and/or professional experience. This is understandable and it's a reality that makes a lot of sense and I believe it's correct for the most part. When I began with my current employer I was working there as IT support. Quite simply, I made friends with the big bosses, struck up conversations, proved myself whenever I could. By the time I was offered my current job, they clearly knew I was capable of handling the projects they needed done, and hence I never really had a problem with age "discrimination", or qualification "discrimination".
Hey boeing, forget the internet access and give me a power outlet to plug my laptop into first!
I most certainly support your general idea. Its a typical gut reaction by the slashdot folks. .NET is a great step forward, and C# became my favourite language merely days after I installed .NET framework.
Technically, I dont think anyone has real issues with the underlying technologies associated with the Framework itself. I will list some of the (imho) not-so-huge complaints:
* Windows Forms is rather windows centric. Clearly Microsoft had to do this to avoid alienating millions of developers and I dont see they had any choice. The localization support is there, however some have noted that its probably not as good as Java, or at least requires a little bit of extra work with form layout modes.
* SOAP/XML bloat. The remoting framework requires a little extra processing and bandwidth (this is a moot point) however most would agree that it is a great solution and integrated very well with the entire framework (Eg. [WebMethod])
* Undocumented API's. Once you move away from the standard ECMA stuff, it gets increasingly windows centric, and difficult to implement on another platform. Full compatability is going to be extremely difficult at best.
Thats all I can think of right now. Anyone else care to add to the list? It certainly dosn't look look like a big list yet....
- Adam
Well, first of all, AFAIK, C# is an ECMA standard, not IEEE. Now, I don't get your complaint. You say that there is a problem with Sun "dumping proprietary libraries" into the Java spec. But the Java language, JVM, and core libraries are as-well specified as C#/CLR, and they are stable.
.NET implies a comitment to sticking with those standards.
.NET implementation has not even been released yet, but its clear that the ECMA documents are for the most part workable.
This is a good point, however going to the trouble of standardizing the various components of
Beyond the core ECMA specs, Microsoft is completely proprietary, with NO free implementation at all and NO decent specs. And there is no guarantee that Microsoft will even stick to their spec--they will likely extend the hell out of what they submitted as a standard.
I agree that these are mostly advantages for Java however its not very likely that microsoft will break compatability with the spec as far as breaking applications that are complied for, and conform to it. To be fair, the microsoft
Why would anybody care about Mono? It's going to use non-standard APIs on a little-used platform.
Little-used platform (.NET?)? This wont be true for much longer. It has not even been released yet and there is a significantly large community of developers already. People (in significant numbers) WILL care about Mono if it makes porting between windows and other OSes very easy. They will care even more if Mono implements most of Microsoft's "non standard" API's. Since when did Microsoft's non-standard API's ever stop WINE from at least trying to implement anything? I guess you're saying WINE is also useless, along with support for NTFS, SMB, etc etc. The list goes on.
Certainly one of the keys to Microsoft products "working" is when they make well defined interfaces and well documented interfaces. In my experience, if you define your interfaces well and document exactly what they are supposed to do, no matter how terrible your code is, you can make it work, and make it flexible to later changes.
This is where a language like perl is not extremely conducive to well designed systems, however you can of course design a system well in perl.
- Adam
C# is not "windows only". C# is an ECMA standard and is currently being implemented on many many platforms.
C# is, sooner or later, probably going to replace VB as the language of choice for the majority of programmers in the world (Yes, VB has the largest share of programmers).
Makes at least *some* sense to me.
If the tools are good, they attract developers. If the tools are good, you can reasonably say that it would enable developers to do more in less time. If the underlying platform (.NET CLR) is supported on linux then it will help to ease migration efforts for applications written for the windows environment. If Mono (or another similar) project is a success, you can reasonably expect linux to benefit from this.
Note i'm not talking about ".NET" the marketing slogan, I'm talking specificaly about the CLR, Class libs, C# compiler, etc.
Well I certainly didn't have to dig. The key with .NET from my point of view, it is integration. The tools, the runtime, the debugger, the XML / SOAP, the forms designer, the class libs, the development environment, ADO.NET.
Its a first class set of development tools.
Thats the benefit, and I didn't have to dig anywhere to find it.
If you've 'always wondered'... why don't you do a little research into the matter?
Miguel et al. are implementing an ECMA standard for the benefit of themselves, their company and the open source community in general.
What exactly are you wondering about? The fact the standard originated from within the redmond campus? I'm sure you can find answers to your questions if you check out the mono web site. http://www.go-mono.com
IIRC Toshiba has laptops right now which are using hydrogen power sources. Apparently they're not widely available right now, and extremely expensive, but they last for many more hours than your standard batteries.