I'm not interested in the marketing crap or the MS hype articles. Why don't you with your busy fingers find a site that explains the.NET platform in about half a page.
I think I've finally got down all the hoopla about web services (thanks to an excellent definition by webservices.org). I'm looking for a (technical) definition of.NET.
Not interested in: ".NET is Microsoft's platform for XML Web services, the next generation of software that connects our world of information, devices and people in a unified, personalized way." (by MS). I couldn't care less.
There's so much talk about.NET on/. these days, one of you must know what it is. There's one guy saying its some Internet Web Service thingy, and there's another one saying its a collection of development tools from Microsoft. However I don't see a Joe SixPack ever using dev tools, like the original poster here claimed.
But first of all, all this is doing is adding the hype behind the.NET platform. At the moment, it's an unproven technology and is relying on the marketing force to get it established. And seeing there's 2 or 3.NET articles on/. every week makes me wonder if the community here is just doing free work for Microsoft. I don't even remember when slashdot last posted an article about the competitive technologies (J2EE) last time.
Second, I think what is inevitable is that if there is ever even a threat of genuinely competitive Open Source implementation to Microsoft's own view of.NET, they will use their entire legal force, patents and such, to stop it from succeeding. Remember that.NET is major move from MS to get into new markets and introduce new licensing models (rent software, etc), so basically they're putting all of their corporate power behind the.NET effort and they'll be damned to let any Open Source effort to take a single $ out of their market share. We've already seen some indications of this in some of their new licenses which puts the Open Source licenses in some disadvantage.
Learn UDDI, ebXML, J2EE. There's no risk in providing Open Source alternatives on the first two. J2EE has still some licensing issues that requires extra work to get around for OS projects but it's quite feasible and have been done already. It's a proven and established platform. Basically SUN would love to see Open Source J2EE implementations fight the threat of.NET on the low end market so they're unlikely to react in negative fashion to such endeavours (SUN is only one of over 20 J2EE platform providers, including companies such as IBM, Oracle, BEA, Sybase, etc).
For those who are interested in working in the Windows realm, reverse engineering.NET might be an interesting project. However, I don't see the point of putting a major Open Source force behind a battle that will be fought in Microsoft's terms. I see it more productive to fight the.NET on our own terms. Choose your battles wisely.
Re:Astroturfers now define slashdot content
on
Mundie Responds
·
· Score: 1
When all those web sites turned out to be supported and written by Microsoft, and the editorials were written by Microsoft PR people, the term "Astroturf movement" was coined.
Yeah but if you read the XP material available (the books, for example) you'll find that the customer really has quite a special role in the XP software process, especially in helping the developers to understand the problem domain and to prioritize stories.
Taken from the XP point of view, developers really can't be the customers. The customer is the one with the knowledge of the problem domain the software is trying to solve. The online customer is there to answer the developers' questions and aid in their understanding of the software they're trying to build. In a developer-is-a-customer scenario this is impossible. You don't have the answers so you implement what you *think* is correct. Only to find out you were wrong. This has a great impact on the productivity and the quality aspect of the process. And better quality and increased productivity is what XP promises to deliver.
I think especially at the productivity part most Open Source projects have alot to gain. So at least from that point of view the OS projects aren't "naturally" implementing the XP software process all that well.
The Common Language Whatever does not support multiple inheritance, hence you get "managed C++" and "managed Eiffel" or Eiffel#. I bet MI is just one of those language specific features the CLR can't handle.
I'd be surprised if that meant you could take random Eiffel code from off the net and have it work happily under.NET.
I think alot of the "death of Java" talk stems from Linus Torvald's statement where he claimed the death of Java. I guess most folks just don't examine the technology in detail and try to measure the pros and cons but blindly follow whomever they see as the "visionary" at the time. And for the Slashdot crowd I think Mr. Torvalds can be seen as one.
SOAP might not be MS only, but.NET sure looks like MS only technology. Everything I read from Microsoft couples the.NET concept tightly with existing MS technologies (most of them have '+' attached to them): COM+, ASP+, ADO+.
So if I'm not on a Windows platform then how the heck is a component depending on ADO+ for its database connectivity going to work on my machine? Who is going to port all this stuff to all the platforms. They're closed proprietary technologies and I've seen no sign from Microsoft that would indicate this is about to change.
SOAP works across components on heterogenous systems because it's based on XML, but what makes it any more special than several other XML over HTTP solutions? SOAP alone certainly won't make components cross-platform, and neither will C#. A language without libraries and a transport protocol won't be enough. You will need cross platform libraries and in that area MS is several years behind the competition.
the future medium of all communication is going to be XML over HTTP.
Hardly. XML over HTTP is very good at integrating services on distributed systems but it certainly won't work for anything that requires high scalability. The overhead of XML will become a factor. I certainly would not recommend doing all communication - from client layer to the web layer to the middle tier all the way to the database in XML. That will just kill any heavily used distributed system. For infrequent data exchange and communication sure, but for those situations any protocol you're able to get through the firewall will work.
What is more critical for distributed component architectures and their integration is how will the transaction and security contexts be propagated from one component to another in the system. Fail to come up with a very good solution for this, and the.NET will never move out of the homogenous MS W2K network.
Re:Inefficienct but useable and can do more
on
Perl and .NET
·
· Score: 1
And Sun is a large SOAP supporter.
A large supporter? What do you base this on? The last I checked Sun hasn't done anything noticeable with regards to SOAP.
In fact, the OASIS group just recently rejected SOAP as their transport protocol and I believe Sun is a large supporter of that effort.
They've also announced the early access release of the JAXM API (XML messaging) so I'm wondering where you're getting this "large SOAP supporter" point of view...?
Re:What is .NET really?
on
Perl and .NET
·
· Score: 1
The end user gets applications written faster, that do more, install easier, and have fewer bugs. That's about it - the same benefits the end user gets with every big improvement in developer tools and back-end tech.
Oh yes, we have a winner here! Because as everyone has noticed the bug count on new software has been declining in the last decade due to the big improvements in developer tools.
Ok, so 8000+ processors is alot but still... two basketball courts worth of floor space? That sounds awful lot, and processors are rather small.
So what takes up all this floor space? Eight thousand fans?
By 2525 we've all uploaded our brains into a huge Matrix and the sysadmins are living deep underground near the earth's core where it's still inhabitable.
Or how about when you have to deal with legacy code written by someone who didn't care (or couldn't do better)? Sure it would be nice if you could rewrite the code to be elegant and such. But... the more code you rewrite, the greater the chance of one of those typos or such. And in the real world, it doesn't fly when you say you introduced a bug while rewriting the code.
So how would your statement above relate to such things as Refactoring which aims to do what you describe in the real world? It's an integral part of Extreme Programming methodology which seems to be somewhat popular amongst the Open Source software developers.
Refactoring has been, according to author Martin Fowler, practiced by the best software engineers for decades (long before XP came around). Are you saying it won't fly in the real world?
and quite frankly I would much rather check my e-mail on something with a screen large enough to display more than 3 or 4 lines of text
It's not the email that's driving it, it's the short message service (SMS). Think not in terms of your email client, think of messaging services like AIM, or ICQ. That's where the buzz is at.
I would be uncomfortable with the notion of buying stocks on(wireless)line if I was unable to fit more than the ticker symbol on my screen.
Why?
but we do have things like webTV, which would look just fine next to the Cable box
But those are just boxes sitting in your living room. Nothing mobile. Nothing I'd want to take with me while going down to the mall.
In today's world I don't think that there are many of us who are on the go so much that we need to access our e-mail from anywhere and everywhere all the time.
Maybe we don't need all of these fancy-schmancy gadgets because we've got an outstanding computer network and great computers that render those gadgets obsolete before they even get here.
Well it's not like the countries who are big on the fancy-schmancy gadgets (like Japan and the Scandinavian countries) are lacking in the computer network or great computers area either. They're on par hardware wise. Yet the small, light and mobile phones are much much more popular than your average dull looking PC ever was.
Why would I want a web-browsing cell-phone? I have a web-browser at work, free local phone calls for my ISP at home, cheap good computers, and I actually have a cable modem at home.
You're not roaming, you're not mobile. You're very tied to your location. That tends to be the problem with non wireless technology.
Maybe we don't have them because neither need nor want them.
The day we will understand is the day a mindless idiots like you do actually produce the unit tests, the documentation and the clean refactoring in your code, instead of just hacking together a big lump of unreadable crap and claiming you are doing XP when in fact you're far from it.
My experience with UML is that the diagrams do not serve much useful purpose on their own
This is true, and they never meant to be sufficient by themselves either. All models need a verbal explanation as well. But in some cases it's easier to explain things when you can display a model of what you're trying to explain.
Models themselves aren't sufficient and a purely verbal explanation can sometimes be very hard to grok if you don't have the visualization. Remember that a picture can tell more than a thousand words. Verbal explanation combined with UML models (and that means you use different views to your model, not just the plain ole class diagram) can make the specs sometimes almost bearable to read.
So what is color modeling? The review seemed to indicate that there might be something to this idea but didn't give out much details, or even a brief description, what it is.
I have my crayons right here with my UML diagrams. Should I just start slapping colors around everywhere, or is there a sort of a systematic way of adding colors?
Are different patterns displayed in different colors? Different class types? What?
VB is used by people who can't figure out C++. VB is popular because A monkey can do it. This does lead to a lot of horrible un-maintainable code being spewed into the world.
Most of the so called "C++ developers" can't even figure out C++. This too leads to a lot of horrible un-maintaibable code being spewed into the world.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not interested in the marketing crap or the MS hype articles. Why don't you with your busy fingers find a site that explains the .NET platform in about half a page.
.NET.
.NET on /. these days, one of you must know what it is. There's one guy saying its some Internet Web Service thingy, and there's another one saying its a collection of development tools from Microsoft. However I don't see a Joe SixPack ever using dev tools, like the original poster here claimed.
.NET? Can you tell me, cosmo7?
I think I've finally got down all the hoopla about web services (thanks to an excellent definition by webservices.org). I'm looking for a (technical) definition of
Not interested in: ".NET is Microsoft's platform for XML Web services, the next generation of software that connects our world of information, devices and people in a unified, personalized way." (by MS). I couldn't care less.
There's so much talk about
What is
What is .NET?
My personal opinions, of course..
.NET platform. At the moment, it's an unproven technology and is relying on the marketing force to get it established. And seeing there's 2 or 3 .NET articles on /. every week makes me wonder if the community here is just doing free work for Microsoft. I don't even remember when slashdot last posted an article about the competitive technologies (J2EE) last time.
.NET, they will use their entire legal force, patents and such, to stop it from succeeding. Remember that .NET is major move from MS to get into new markets and introduce new licensing models (rent software, etc), so basically they're putting all of their corporate power behind the .NET effort and they'll be damned to let any Open Source effort to take a single $ out of their market share. We've already seen some indications of this in some of their new licenses which puts the Open Source licenses in some disadvantage.
.NET on the low end market so they're unlikely to react in negative fashion to such endeavours (SUN is only one of over 20 J2EE platform providers, including companies such as IBM, Oracle, BEA, Sybase, etc).
.NET might be an interesting project. However, I don't see the point of putting a major Open Source force behind a battle that will be fought in Microsoft's terms. I see it more productive to fight the .NET on our own terms. Choose your battles wisely.
But first of all, all this is doing is adding the hype behind the
Second, I think what is inevitable is that if there is ever even a threat of genuinely competitive Open Source implementation to Microsoft's own view of
Learn UDDI, ebXML, J2EE. There's no risk in providing Open Source alternatives on the first two. J2EE has still some licensing issues that requires extra work to get around for OS projects but it's quite feasible and have been done already. It's a proven and established platform. Basically SUN would love to see Open Source J2EE implementations fight the threat of
For those who are interested in working in the Windows realm, reverse engineering
jboss.org
Apache Jakarta
Enhydra
Jetty
When all those web sites turned out to be supported and written by Microsoft, and the editorials were written by Microsoft PR people, the term "Astroturf movement" was coined.
So Microsoft has invented something?!
Yeah but if you read the XP material available (the books, for example) you'll find that the customer really has quite a special role in the XP software process, especially in helping the developers to understand the problem domain and to prioritize stories.
Taken from the XP point of view, developers really can't be the customers. The customer is the one with the knowledge of the problem domain the software is trying to solve. The online customer is there to answer the developers' questions and aid in their understanding of the software they're trying to build. In a developer-is-a-customer scenario this is impossible. You don't have the answers so you implement what you *think* is correct. Only to find out you were wrong. This has a great impact on the productivity and the quality aspect of the process. And better quality and increased productivity is what XP promises to deliver.
I think especially at the productivity part most Open Source projects have alot to gain. So at least from that point of view the OS projects aren't "naturally" implementing the XP software process all that well.
The Common Language Whatever does not support multiple inheritance, hence you get "managed C++" and "managed Eiffel" or Eiffel#. I bet MI is just one of those language specific features the CLR can't handle.
.NET.
I'd be surprised if that meant you could take random Eiffel code from off the net and have it work happily under
You are correct. You can't.
I think alot of the "death of Java" talk stems from Linus Torvald's statement where he claimed the death of Java. I guess most folks just don't examine the technology in detail and try to measure the pros and cons but blindly follow whomever they see as the "visionary" at the time. And for the Slashdot crowd I think Mr. Torvalds can be seen as one.
You can't expect a child of today to waste hours and hours of their life plodding through a book.
But we can expect them to waste days, weeks or months of their life playing Quake or Final Fantasy. And this is because... why?
1) It's MS only - this is blatantly false.
.NET sure looks like MS only technology. Everything I read from Microsoft couples the .NET concept tightly with existing MS technologies (most of them have '+' attached to them): COM+, ASP+, ADO+.
.NET will never move out of the homogenous MS W2K network.
SOAP might not be MS only, but
So if I'm not on a Windows platform then how the heck is a component depending on ADO+ for its database connectivity going to work on my machine? Who is going to port all this stuff to all the platforms. They're closed proprietary technologies and I've seen no sign from Microsoft that would indicate this is about to change.
SOAP works across components on heterogenous systems because it's based on XML, but what makes it any more special than several other XML over HTTP solutions? SOAP alone certainly won't make components cross-platform, and neither will C#. A language without libraries and a transport protocol won't be enough. You will need cross platform libraries and in that area MS is several years behind the competition.
the future medium of all communication is going to be XML over HTTP.
Hardly. XML over HTTP is very good at integrating services on distributed systems but it certainly won't work for anything that requires high scalability. The overhead of XML will become a factor. I certainly would not recommend doing all communication - from client layer to the web layer to the middle tier all the way to the database in XML. That will just kill any heavily used distributed system. For infrequent data exchange and communication sure, but for those situations any protocol you're able to get through the firewall will work.
What is more critical for distributed component architectures and their integration is how will the transaction and security contexts be propagated from one component to another in the system. Fail to come up with a very good solution for this, and the
And Sun is a large SOAP supporter.
A large supporter? What do you base this on? The last I checked Sun hasn't done anything noticeable with regards to SOAP.
In fact, the OASIS group just recently rejected SOAP as their transport protocol and I believe Sun is a large supporter of that effort.
They've also announced the early access release of the JAXM API (XML messaging) so I'm wondering where you're getting this "large SOAP supporter" point of view...?
The end user gets applications written faster, that do more, install easier, and have fewer bugs. That's about it - the same benefits the end user gets with every big improvement in developer tools and back-end tech.
Oh yes, we have a winner here! Because as everyone has noticed the bug count on new software has been declining in the last decade due to the big improvements in developer tools.
Yes, we finally have it, THE SILVER BULLET!
And I have a bridge to sell you...
Ok, so 8000+ processors is alot but still... two basketball courts worth of floor space? That sounds awful lot, and processors are rather small. So what takes up all this floor space? Eight thousand fans?
anyone tried to write a standalone app in Java and get it to work on all UNIXes as well as MSFT systems?
Yep, and it works very well.
By 2525 we've all uploaded our brains into a huge Matrix and the sysadmins are living deep underground near the earth's core where it's still inhabitable.
Or how about when you have to deal with legacy code written by someone who didn't care (or couldn't do better)? Sure it would be nice if you could rewrite the code to be elegant and such. But... the more code you rewrite, the greater the chance of one of those typos or such. And in the real world, it doesn't fly when you say you introduced a bug while rewriting the code.
So how would your statement above relate to such things as Refactoring which aims to do what you describe in the real world? It's an integral part of Extreme Programming methodology which seems to be somewhat popular amongst the Open Source software developers.
Refactoring has been, according to author Martin Fowler, practiced by the best software engineers for decades (long before XP came around). Are you saying it won't fly in the real world?
There isn't a halfway-decent free-as-in-liberty EJB implementation that I know of.
Well, there is jBoss, GPL licensed EJB server (supports 1.1). Scheduled for release 1st of September. The CVS version works quite well already.
If this is supposed to be the Java community-based Process program, where are the real members of the community, the developers!
You mean developers like the Apache Group?
The Java Community Process Program -- Executive Committee Information
Get a clue.
It's just El Niño acting up again. Go turn that sucker around 180 degrees and Santa won't have to buy himself a new submarine.
Why type at 2-5 wpm when you can talk at 80?
I don't know, you'll have to ask the millions of people who are spending more money on their SMS than voice calls.
Go figure.
and quite frankly I would much rather check my e-mail on something with a screen large enough to display more than 3 or 4 lines of text
It's not the email that's driving it, it's the short message service (SMS). Think not in terms of your email client, think of messaging services like AIM, or ICQ. That's where the buzz is at.
I would be uncomfortable with the notion of buying stocks on(wireless)line if I was unable to fit more than the ticker symbol on my screen.
Why?
but we do have things like webTV, which would look just fine next to the Cable box
But those are just boxes sitting in your living room. Nothing mobile. Nothing I'd want to take with me while going down to the mall.
In today's world I don't think that there are many of us who are on the go so much that we need to access our e-mail from anywhere and everywhere all the time.
Really?? I have to disagree.
Maybe we don't need all of these fancy-schmancy gadgets because we've got an outstanding computer network and great computers that render those gadgets obsolete before they even get here.
:)
Well it's not like the countries who are big on the fancy-schmancy gadgets (like Japan and the Scandinavian countries) are lacking in the computer network or great computers area either. They're on par hardware wise. Yet the small, light and mobile phones are much much more popular than your average dull looking PC ever was.
Why would I want a web-browsing cell-phone? I have a web-browser at work, free local phone calls for my ISP at home, cheap good computers, and I actually have a cable modem at home.
You're not roaming, you're not mobile. You're very tied to your location. That tends to be the problem with non wireless technology.
Maybe we don't have them because neither need nor want them.
Uhm, right
When will you understand?
The day we will understand is the day a mindless idiots like you do actually produce the unit tests, the documentation and the clean refactoring in your code, instead of just hacking together a big lump of unreadable crap and claiming you are doing XP when in fact you're far from it.
Does that answer your question?
My experience with UML is that the diagrams do not serve much useful purpose on their own
This is true, and they never meant to be sufficient by themselves either. All models need a verbal explanation as well. But in some cases it's easier to explain things when you can display a model of what you're trying to explain.
Models themselves aren't sufficient and a purely verbal explanation can sometimes be very hard to grok if you don't have the visualization. Remember that a picture can tell more than a thousand words. Verbal explanation combined with UML models (and that means you use different views to your model, not just the plain ole class diagram) can make the specs sometimes almost bearable to read.
So what is color modeling? The review seemed to indicate that there might be something to this idea but didn't give out much details, or even a brief description, what it is.
I have my crayons right here with my UML diagrams. Should I just start slapping colors around everywhere, or is there a sort of a systematic way of adding colors?
Are different patterns displayed in different colors? Different class types? What?
VB is used by people who can't figure out C++. VB is popular because A monkey can do it. This does lead to a lot of horrible un-maintainable code being spewed into the world.
Most of the so called "C++ developers" can't even figure out C++. This too leads to a lot of horrible un-maintaibable code being spewed into the world.