.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?
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.
-
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 sympathize. I fondly remember the time I wasted learning ODBC then DAO then OLEDB then ADO. And now there's a new Microsoft database standard that replaces all of the above!