.NET is .KAPUT?
-
I've been wondering about the future of .NET in view of the meltdown in the technology industry. .NET envisions an interconnected world, stealing from Sun's "the network is the computer" theme. However, many of the telecommunications companies that were laying backbone (Global Crossing) or managing it (WorldCom, PSINet) are bankrupt or heading there. Investment capital for Internet-based technologies has essentially dried up. In view of that, what future is there for grand visions like .NET? Are people wasting their time learning obsolete software that will never come to fruition?
.NET is a technology, the greatest Microsoft's technological move since COM (if we don't count Bob :)). Like COM, .NET can be applied to any computer field, so while bankrupcy of large telecommunication companies cancels some large industrial projects where .NET might be applied, it does not influence much choices made by professional developers. Vagif Abilov MCP (Visual C++) Oslo, Norway
-
I've been wondering about the future of .NET in view of the meltdown in the technology industry. .NET envisions an interconnected world, stealing from Sun's "the network is the computer" theme. However, many of the telecommunications companies that were laying backbone (Global Crossing) or managing it (WorldCom, PSINet) are bankrupt or heading there. Investment capital for Internet-based technologies has essentially dried up. In view of that, what future is there for grand visions like .NET? Are people wasting their time learning obsolete software that will never come to fruition?
.NET is more than just an internet technology. The internet is just a small part of the .NET strategy. To me the most important part of .NET is that it is the first step towards an OO Windows API. Michael :-) Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana
-
I've been wondering about the future of .NET in view of the meltdown in the technology industry. .NET envisions an interconnected world, stealing from Sun's "the network is the computer" theme. However, many of the telecommunications companies that were laying backbone (Global Crossing) or managing it (WorldCom, PSINet) are bankrupt or heading there. Investment capital for Internet-based technologies has essentially dried up. In view of that, what future is there for grand visions like .NET? Are people wasting their time learning obsolete software that will never come to fruition?
If there is a demand for bandwidth, telecommunications companies will provide it. If .NET provides more productive applications, it will be used. If people need more bandwidth to realize the benefits of .NET, they will buy it (given that the benefits are worth more than the cost of the bandwidth). The current Telco melt-down was caused by them being ahead of the game. They invested all this money to build the networks of the future, but the future hasn't arived yet. Bandwidth is useless unless you have an application for it. Ed Gadziemski wrote: Are people wasting their time learning obsolete software that will never come to fruition? Would it be better to not learn it, and risk becoming obsolete? I think .NET is a pretty good bet, but who knows?
-
I've been wondering about the future of .NET in view of the meltdown in the technology industry. .NET envisions an interconnected world, stealing from Sun's "the network is the computer" theme. However, many of the telecommunications companies that were laying backbone (Global Crossing) or managing it (WorldCom, PSINet) are bankrupt or heading there. Investment capital for Internet-based technologies has essentially dried up. In view of that, what future is there for grand visions like .NET? Are people wasting their time learning obsolete software that will never come to fruition?
Yeah, that's an interesting question. My feeling is that in many ways. we've raced way ahead of what consumers want in everything except one crucial area: reliability. .NET seems to be about providing capabilities that nobody really wants or needs, except the people who are trying to sell us things we don't want or need.
-
I've been wondering about the future of .NET in view of the meltdown in the technology industry. .NET envisions an interconnected world, stealing from Sun's "the network is the computer" theme. However, many of the telecommunications companies that were laying backbone (Global Crossing) or managing it (WorldCom, PSINet) are bankrupt or heading there. Investment capital for Internet-based technologies has essentially dried up. In view of that, what future is there for grand visions like .NET? Are people wasting their time learning obsolete software that will never come to fruition?
I am currently working on a project which, frankly, would be impractical to write in C++. The coding efficiency, ease and safety of C# alone would justify the existence of .NET. The architecture of Studio has now been cleaned up to the point where it is consistent and (mostly) very sensible. I can usually guess how the architecture is going to behave because it embodies sound engineering principles. Studio .NET is not perfect but it's up there with Delphi and VisualAge as a professional solution. It was designed to work with the Internet, but this in no way detracts from its ability to write client and server applications or any combination thereof. So the long term future of Internet is not a direct impact on the value of .NET. It is unlikely that the established backbones and network capacities will be seriously threatened by the demise of the telecom companies and bandwidth wholesalers. People and organisations will step in to buy the assets and working systems, shedding the parasitic management and debt along the way. Business will continue although the rate of expansion will probably slow. The future does not belong to the traditional telcos. They were slow to realize that bandwidth to the consumer is key to the advance of telecom features including tv, video phone and high-speed interent services. I think smaller organizations, flat network, and possibly the cable guys will dominate the future. Alongside the mobile phone companies of course. After all, what features does a traditional phone offer that a mobile cannot match? Not too many actually! It is important to realize that Internet was not, could not, ever be the money making machine that people somehow thought it would be. We saw a wave of hysteria which everyone in the industry knew was ridiculous. What is happening now is a rationalization of the Internet. It is in a valuable way to promote awareness, news and offer a wide range of products at reasonable prices. But it will not, for the most part, create massive new industries or make traditional outlets redundant. After all, it is just another tool albeit a fun one! Only change is constant
-
.NET is more than just an internet technology. The internet is just a small part of the .NET strategy. To me the most important part of .NET is that it is the first step towards an OO Windows API. Michael :-) Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana
According to Bill Gates (NET Briefing Day, July 24, 2002), Web services is the foundation of .NET. Is he wrong or is the a Web without the Internet?
-
.NET is a technology, the greatest Microsoft's technological move since COM (if we don't count Bob :)). Like COM, .NET can be applied to any computer field, so while bankrupcy of large telecommunication companies cancels some large industrial projects where .NET might be applied, it does not influence much choices made by professional developers. Vagif Abilov MCP (Visual C++) Oslo, Norway
But what is the effect on Web services without an adequate Web backbone? Are you suggesting a move back to private networks?
-
According to Bill Gates (NET Briefing Day, July 24, 2002), Web services is the foundation of .NET. Is he wrong or is the a Web without the Internet?
Web Services is a founding member of .Net, yes. Is it the biggest, or best part of .Net? No. Web Services is a way for a program on one computer to get an XML stream of data from a webserver (possibly on another computer.) Just because some idiots telcos/etc are dying, the internet is not going away, which seems to be the premise of your hypothesis. As long as the internet/etc exists, web services provide a standard, simply way to transfer data from one computer to another in a programmitically usable format (XML). It makes me crazy when people make assumptions based on a complete lack of knowledge.:wtf: evilpen dot net :: gpg public key (ascii-armored)
-
I am currently working on a project which, frankly, would be impractical to write in C++. The coding efficiency, ease and safety of C# alone would justify the existence of .NET. The architecture of Studio has now been cleaned up to the point where it is consistent and (mostly) very sensible. I can usually guess how the architecture is going to behave because it embodies sound engineering principles. Studio .NET is not perfect but it's up there with Delphi and VisualAge as a professional solution. It was designed to work with the Internet, but this in no way detracts from its ability to write client and server applications or any combination thereof. So the long term future of Internet is not a direct impact on the value of .NET. It is unlikely that the established backbones and network capacities will be seriously threatened by the demise of the telecom companies and bandwidth wholesalers. People and organisations will step in to buy the assets and working systems, shedding the parasitic management and debt along the way. Business will continue although the rate of expansion will probably slow. The future does not belong to the traditional telcos. They were slow to realize that bandwidth to the consumer is key to the advance of telecom features including tv, video phone and high-speed interent services. I think smaller organizations, flat network, and possibly the cable guys will dominate the future. Alongside the mobile phone companies of course. After all, what features does a traditional phone offer that a mobile cannot match? Not too many actually! It is important to realize that Internet was not, could not, ever be the money making machine that people somehow thought it would be. We saw a wave of hysteria which everyone in the industry knew was ridiculous. What is happening now is a rationalization of the Internet. It is in a valuable way to promote awareness, news and offer a wide range of products at reasonable prices. But it will not, for the most part, create massive new industries or make traditional outlets redundant. After all, it is just another tool albeit a fun one! Only change is constant
Maybe I'm old-fashioned but I cannot envision a situation where I would want to store my information on a remote server and access it via Web services (for a fee, of course). That's a step back to the mainframe scenario. What about when the Web is down, as happens frequently? How about when people clog the pipes downloading big video files and it slows to a crawl, as happens frequently?
-
But what is the effect on Web services without an adequate Web backbone? Are you suggesting a move back to private networks?
Ed Gadziemski wrote: But what is the effect on Web services without an adequate Web backbone? Are you suggesting a move back to private networks? Something like 80% of all current web service work being done is on private networks. Banks tying up their internal systems, warehouses connecting to private suppliers etc. etc. Web services are big for internal systems and the balance will probably stay that way even as it catches on in the public internet. Ed Gadziemski wrote: But what is the effect on Web services without an adequate Web backbone? I don't see all the current infrastructure being torn down (someone will snap up WorldCom hardware for good money) and the ball is already rolling. We can either stagnate and be inches from something good, or push a bit further and get to that something good. There will always be companies willing to take big risks and hope it cashes in, whatever the industry. And if the chips fall, there are plenty of smaller guys running around catching what they can at rock bottom prices, they won't then throw away their investment. Copper and fiber lines are worth more than the material they are made from. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge Alison Pentland wrote: I now have an image of you in front of the mirror in the morning, wearing your knickers, socks and shoes trying to decided if they match!
-
Maybe I'm old-fashioned but I cannot envision a situation where I would want to store my information on a remote server and access it via Web services (for a fee, of course). That's a step back to the mainframe scenario. What about when the Web is down, as happens frequently? How about when people clog the pipes downloading big video files and it slows to a crawl, as happens frequently?
I think you're missing my point. Neither of the applications I'm currently writing are likely to use Internet. And I usually run with a local SQL database on my own computer. By way of example, I recently completed a dental practice application with the following features: 1) Local database on each machine using distributed database technology. Database is automatically consolidated when the computer returns to the LAN/Network 2) 24/365 availability with immediate backup up of each transaction 3) Unlimited undo capability but with full tracking so that fraud or coverups are impossible 4) Peer-to-peer operation (not peer-server) It was all written using .NET and has absolutely no Internet content. The interprocessor communication capabilities of .NET were used to make life simple, and the database on each machine was Microsoft Access 97 and does not use XML It is true that .NET is designed to work with the Internet but it is not a requirement! In general terms .NET is a leap beyond Studio6 because it provides streamlined, less confusing services which fit into a sensible (for the most part) architecture. I was VERY cynical about .NET before I used it because I'm not much interested in web applications (for reason of security, speed, reliability, availability etc). However, having used it I would not ever go want to go back to Studio6. What I DO miss however, and it really annoys me, is the loss of FoxPro as an integral product. Now Microsoft want me to fork out hundreds for Access or a thousand or so for SQL Server (which I don't like as a product). I also think that J#, which uses .NET framework rather than the Swing based Java VM, is a waste of time. Only change is constant
-
I've been wondering about the future of .NET in view of the meltdown in the technology industry. .NET envisions an interconnected world, stealing from Sun's "the network is the computer" theme. However, many of the telecommunications companies that were laying backbone (Global Crossing) or managing it (WorldCom, PSINet) are bankrupt or heading there. Investment capital for Internet-based technologies has essentially dried up. In view of that, what future is there for grand visions like .NET? Are people wasting their time learning obsolete software that will never come to fruition?
More technologies you know, more marketable you are...:cool: Rich
-
.NET is a technology, the greatest Microsoft's technological move since COM (if we don't count Bob :)). Like COM, .NET can be applied to any computer field, so while bankrupcy of large telecommunication companies cancels some large industrial projects where .NET might be applied, it does not influence much choices made by professional developers. Vagif Abilov MCP (Visual C++) Oslo, Norway
Vagif Abilov wrote: .NET is a technology, the greatest Microsoft's technological move since COM That's hardly encouraging. COM is slower than my grandmother's Pontiac. Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
-
I've been wondering about the future of .NET in view of the meltdown in the technology industry. .NET envisions an interconnected world, stealing from Sun's "the network is the computer" theme. However, many of the telecommunications companies that were laying backbone (Global Crossing) or managing it (WorldCom, PSINet) are bankrupt or heading there. Investment capital for Internet-based technologies has essentially dried up. In view of that, what future is there for grand visions like .NET? Are people wasting their time learning obsolete software that will never come to fruition?
Hard to say, truthfully. That's probably the main reason why I haven't jumped on the bandwagon. (Surely I'm not the only one who wasted a couple years of his life developing ActiveX controls. Live & learn...) Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
-
I think you're missing my point. Neither of the applications I'm currently writing are likely to use Internet. And I usually run with a local SQL database on my own computer. By way of example, I recently completed a dental practice application with the following features: 1) Local database on each machine using distributed database technology. Database is automatically consolidated when the computer returns to the LAN/Network 2) 24/365 availability with immediate backup up of each transaction 3) Unlimited undo capability but with full tracking so that fraud or coverups are impossible 4) Peer-to-peer operation (not peer-server) It was all written using .NET and has absolutely no Internet content. The interprocessor communication capabilities of .NET were used to make life simple, and the database on each machine was Microsoft Access 97 and does not use XML It is true that .NET is designed to work with the Internet but it is not a requirement! In general terms .NET is a leap beyond Studio6 because it provides streamlined, less confusing services which fit into a sensible (for the most part) architecture. I was VERY cynical about .NET before I used it because I'm not much interested in web applications (for reason of security, speed, reliability, availability etc). However, having used it I would not ever go want to go back to Studio6. What I DO miss however, and it really annoys me, is the loss of FoxPro as an integral product. Now Microsoft want me to fork out hundreds for Access or a thousand or so for SQL Server (which I don't like as a product). I also think that J#, which uses .NET framework rather than the Swing based Java VM, is a waste of time. Only change is constant
Alastair Stell wrote: Now Microsoft want me to fork out hundreds for Access or a thousand or so for SQL Server (which I don't like as a product). I also think that J#, which uses .NET framework rather than the Swing based Java VM, is a waste of time. If you have purchased Visual Studio.NET Pro or higher or certain versions of Office or SQL Server you have a license to distribute MSDE with your applications. James "Java is free - and worth every penny." - Christian Graus
-
According to Bill Gates (NET Briefing Day, July 24, 2002), Web services is the foundation of .NET. Is he wrong or is the a Web without the Internet?
Whilst Bill might have his idea of what is the foundation of .NET, it'll be us developers who really decide that. Ask any body whose used .NET for anytime and they'll probably tell you that it is the Common Language Runtime and related tech that is the most exciting. Michael :-) Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana
-
Vagif Abilov wrote: .NET is a technology, the greatest Microsoft's technological move since COM That's hardly encouraging. COM is slower than my grandmother's Pontiac. Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
Christopher Duncan wrote: That's hardly encouraging. COM is slower than my grandmother's Pontiac. This is not true. COM is as fast as the code of COM components. In-process COM components have a speed of C++, since it's all v-table. Dispatched-based components (now we're talking VB) is another story. COM is C++ with unified instantiation mechanism. Vagif Abilov MCP (Visual C++) Oslo, Norway
-
According to Bill Gates (NET Briefing Day, July 24, 2002), Web services is the foundation of .NET. Is he wrong or is the a Web without the Internet?
Don't mix marketing and technology. Bill Gates is both developer and businessman. If in his business speech he will start talking CLR and CLI, sales guys will leave the building. Vagif Abilov MCP (Visual C++) Oslo, Norway
-
Web Services is a founding member of .Net, yes. Is it the biggest, or best part of .Net? No. Web Services is a way for a program on one computer to get an XML stream of data from a webserver (possibly on another computer.) Just because some idiots telcos/etc are dying, the internet is not going away, which seems to be the premise of your hypothesis. As long as the internet/etc exists, web services provide a standard, simply way to transfer data from one computer to another in a programmitically usable format (XML). It makes me crazy when people make assumptions based on a complete lack of knowledge.:wtf: evilpen dot net :: gpg public key (ascii-armored)
Web services, in my opinion, will not be successful unless their performance is superior. The current Internet lacks performance. Even a simple page load from a site can take many seconds or even minutes. Would you be satisfied standing in line at your local grocery store while the cashier rang up your items and each item took up to 30 seconds via web services because the network was slow? It makes me crazy when people with a complete lack of knowledge make assumptions about my assumptions. X|
-
I think you're missing my point. Neither of the applications I'm currently writing are likely to use Internet. And I usually run with a local SQL database on my own computer. By way of example, I recently completed a dental practice application with the following features: 1) Local database on each machine using distributed database technology. Database is automatically consolidated when the computer returns to the LAN/Network 2) 24/365 availability with immediate backup up of each transaction 3) Unlimited undo capability but with full tracking so that fraud or coverups are impossible 4) Peer-to-peer operation (not peer-server) It was all written using .NET and has absolutely no Internet content. The interprocessor communication capabilities of .NET were used to make life simple, and the database on each machine was Microsoft Access 97 and does not use XML It is true that .NET is designed to work with the Internet but it is not a requirement! In general terms .NET is a leap beyond Studio6 because it provides streamlined, less confusing services which fit into a sensible (for the most part) architecture. I was VERY cynical about .NET before I used it because I'm not much interested in web applications (for reason of security, speed, reliability, availability etc). However, having used it I would not ever go want to go back to Studio6. What I DO miss however, and it really annoys me, is the loss of FoxPro as an integral product. Now Microsoft want me to fork out hundreds for Access or a thousand or so for SQL Server (which I don't like as a product). I also think that J#, which uses .NET framework rather than the Swing based Java VM, is a waste of time. Only change is constant
Well stated. It shows that Microsoft can make a good Delphi ripoff when they try.