How would you decide?
-
It looks like I may be coming up on a slow period the last 6 weeks of the year, although there is still plenty of time for another contract to get signed... I've been playing with a product idea to start on while scrounging for more work, but am torn on the technology to use... If I go C++, ATL/WTL I get a fast, responsive system that will coexist happily with other applications. However, some of the nice things that are available in .NET are hard to come by, for instance a smart client that can auto-update itself, a plug-in architecture, things like the some of the P&P application blocks, etc. If I go C# and .NET, I may have performance issues on low end (CE.NET) hardware to be addressed, and may have problems if I do any web services components with coexisting with other applications. (One product I work with regularly only works with .NET 1.0, and installing 1.1 breaks some of their app's features) On the other hand, lots of functionality in the .NET framework libraries and application blocks that would require writing a lot more code in C++. Option 3 is to start with the beta .NET 2.0 SDK, port what I need forward and assume that I'll be done and well ahead of the pack when it's finally released. Might get some writing work out of that... I'll write in anything from VBScript to Assembly if it's what the job requires, so I'm language neutral. What I'm curious about, is if it were your call, how would you approach a new product development project today?
-
It looks like I may be coming up on a slow period the last 6 weeks of the year, although there is still plenty of time for another contract to get signed... I've been playing with a product idea to start on while scrounging for more work, but am torn on the technology to use... If I go C++, ATL/WTL I get a fast, responsive system that will coexist happily with other applications. However, some of the nice things that are available in .NET are hard to come by, for instance a smart client that can auto-update itself, a plug-in architecture, things like the some of the P&P application blocks, etc. If I go C# and .NET, I may have performance issues on low end (CE.NET) hardware to be addressed, and may have problems if I do any web services components with coexisting with other applications. (One product I work with regularly only works with .NET 1.0, and installing 1.1 breaks some of their app's features) On the other hand, lots of functionality in the .NET framework libraries and application blocks that would require writing a lot more code in C++. Option 3 is to start with the beta .NET 2.0 SDK, port what I need forward and assume that I'll be done and well ahead of the pack when it's finally released. Might get some writing work out of that... I'll write in anything from VBScript to Assembly if it's what the job requires, so I'm language neutral. What I'm curious about, is if it were your call, how would you approach a new product development project today?
Mark Tutt wrote: Option 3 is to start with the beta .NET 2.0 SDK, port what I need forward and assume that I'll be done and well ahead of the pack when it's finally released. Might get some writing work out of that... I was thinking exactly the same with a new project ( do it in 2.0 and I learn the new features, maybe write a few articles, etc. ). But with release dates more fleeing the scene than just slipping, I've abandoned this entirely. Personally, I have to admit that I'd go C#, unless I had compelling reason to go C++. Mark Tutt wrote: (One product I work with regularly only works with .NET 1.0, and installing 1.1 breaks some of their app's features) Surely that's their fault ? Can't you tie to a specific version of the framework in your assembly if you need to ? Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
-
Mark Tutt wrote: Option 3 is to start with the beta .NET 2.0 SDK, port what I need forward and assume that I'll be done and well ahead of the pack when it's finally released. Might get some writing work out of that... I was thinking exactly the same with a new project ( do it in 2.0 and I learn the new features, maybe write a few articles, etc. ). But with release dates more fleeing the scene than just slipping, I've abandoned this entirely. Personally, I have to admit that I'd go C#, unless I had compelling reason to go C++. Mark Tutt wrote: (One product I work with regularly only works with .NET 1.0, and installing 1.1 breaks some of their app's features) Surely that's their fault ? Can't you tie to a specific version of the framework in your assembly if you need to ? Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
Can't you tie to a specific version of the framework in your assembly if you need to ? Yes. You can use config files to force the application to bind to a certain runtime. However, this assumes that they have the 1.0 runtime installed and not just the 1.1 runtime.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
-
It looks like I may be coming up on a slow period the last 6 weeks of the year, although there is still plenty of time for another contract to get signed... I've been playing with a product idea to start on while scrounging for more work, but am torn on the technology to use... If I go C++, ATL/WTL I get a fast, responsive system that will coexist happily with other applications. However, some of the nice things that are available in .NET are hard to come by, for instance a smart client that can auto-update itself, a plug-in architecture, things like the some of the P&P application blocks, etc. If I go C# and .NET, I may have performance issues on low end (CE.NET) hardware to be addressed, and may have problems if I do any web services components with coexisting with other applications. (One product I work with regularly only works with .NET 1.0, and installing 1.1 breaks some of their app's features) On the other hand, lots of functionality in the .NET framework libraries and application blocks that would require writing a lot more code in C++. Option 3 is to start with the beta .NET 2.0 SDK, port what I need forward and assume that I'll be done and well ahead of the pack when it's finally released. Might get some writing work out of that... I'll write in anything from VBScript to Assembly if it's what the job requires, so I'm language neutral. What I'm curious about, is if it were your call, how would you approach a new product development project today?
I'd just start in .NET 2.0 and work from there. The Betas are stable enough and the feature set doesn't change much from now till RTM. I'm already doing that for a project I have here at work that runs in our development department.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
-
Mark Tutt wrote: Option 3 is to start with the beta .NET 2.0 SDK, port what I need forward and assume that I'll be done and well ahead of the pack when it's finally released. Might get some writing work out of that... I was thinking exactly the same with a new project ( do it in 2.0 and I learn the new features, maybe write a few articles, etc. ). But with release dates more fleeing the scene than just slipping, I've abandoned this entirely. Personally, I have to admit that I'd go C#, unless I had compelling reason to go C++. Mark Tutt wrote: (One product I work with regularly only works with .NET 1.0, and installing 1.1 breaks some of their app's features) Surely that's their fault ? Can't you tie to a specific version of the framework in your assembly if you need to ? Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
Christian Graus wrote: I was thinking exactly the same with a new project ( do it in 2.0 and I learn the new features, maybe write a few articles, etc. ). But with release dates more fleeing the scene than just slipping, I've abandoned this entirely. Personally, I have to admit that I'd go C#, unless I had compelling reason to go C++. Yeah, I'd totally jump in to 2.0 if it weren't for the possibility that it won't really ship for a year and a half. My only real worry with C# & .NET is performance. After having someone complain that the caller ID feature in my software took a whole 1/2 second longer to display the customer record than the caller ID display on the phone itself, I tend to put a lot of emphasis on speed... ;-) Christian Graus wrote: Mark Tutt wrote: (One product I work with regularly only works with .NET 1.0, and installing 1.1 breaks some of their app's features) Surely that's their fault ? Can't you tie to a specific version of the framework in your assembly if you need to ? It's the ASP.NET problem. You can only have one version associated, and their stuff doesn't appear to be compatible with 1.1.
-
It looks like I may be coming up on a slow period the last 6 weeks of the year, although there is still plenty of time for another contract to get signed... I've been playing with a product idea to start on while scrounging for more work, but am torn on the technology to use... If I go C++, ATL/WTL I get a fast, responsive system that will coexist happily with other applications. However, some of the nice things that are available in .NET are hard to come by, for instance a smart client that can auto-update itself, a plug-in architecture, things like the some of the P&P application blocks, etc. If I go C# and .NET, I may have performance issues on low end (CE.NET) hardware to be addressed, and may have problems if I do any web services components with coexisting with other applications. (One product I work with regularly only works with .NET 1.0, and installing 1.1 breaks some of their app's features) On the other hand, lots of functionality in the .NET framework libraries and application blocks that would require writing a lot more code in C++. Option 3 is to start with the beta .NET 2.0 SDK, port what I need forward and assume that I'll be done and well ahead of the pack when it's finally released. Might get some writing work out of that... I'll write in anything from VBScript to Assembly if it's what the job requires, so I'm language neutral. What I'm curious about, is if it were your call, how would you approach a new product development project today?
1. Outsource the product to India - let them decide how to write it. 2. Return to school and get a degree in accounting or something else that isn't being outsourced. Cheers, Tom Archer "Use what talents you possess. The woods would be very silent if no birds sang there except those that sang best." - William Blake * Inside C# -Second Edition * Visual C++.NET Bible * Extending MFC Applications with the .NET Framework
-
Can't you tie to a specific version of the framework in your assembly if you need to ? Yes. You can use config files to force the application to bind to a certain runtime. However, this assumes that they have the 1.0 runtime installed and not just the 1.1 runtime.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
David Stone wrote: However, this assumes that they have the 1.0 runtime installed and not just the 1.1 runtime. Obviously :-) He said it breaks when he installs 1.1, not on machines with only 1.1 installed. Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
-
Christian Graus wrote: I was thinking exactly the same with a new project ( do it in 2.0 and I learn the new features, maybe write a few articles, etc. ). But with release dates more fleeing the scene than just slipping, I've abandoned this entirely. Personally, I have to admit that I'd go C#, unless I had compelling reason to go C++. Yeah, I'd totally jump in to 2.0 if it weren't for the possibility that it won't really ship for a year and a half. My only real worry with C# & .NET is performance. After having someone complain that the caller ID feature in my software took a whole 1/2 second longer to display the customer record than the caller ID display on the phone itself, I tend to put a lot of emphasis on speed... ;-) Christian Graus wrote: Mark Tutt wrote: (One product I work with regularly only works with .NET 1.0, and installing 1.1 breaks some of their app's features) Surely that's their fault ? Can't you tie to a specific version of the framework in your assembly if you need to ? It's the ASP.NET problem. You can only have one version associated, and their stuff doesn't appear to be compatible with 1.1.
Mark Tutt wrote: My only real worry with C# & .NET is performance. My understanding is that performance is only an issue for the first time that any piece of code is executed ? Mark Tutt wrote: It's the ASP.NET problem. You can only have one version associated, and their stuff doesn't appear to be compatible with 1.1. Oh, OK. That's fair enough. They can't/won't fix it ? Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
-
I'd just start in .NET 2.0 and work from there. The Betas are stable enough and the feature set doesn't change much from now till RTM. I'm already doing that for a project I have here at work that runs in our development department.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Really ? For an *externally released* product you'd recommend using a beta compiler with no tangible release date ? Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
-
1. Outsource the product to India - let them decide how to write it. 2. Return to school and get a degree in accounting or something else that isn't being outsourced. Cheers, Tom Archer "Use what talents you possess. The woods would be very silent if no birds sang there except those that sang best." - William Blake * Inside C# -Second Edition * Visual C++.NET Bible * Extending MFC Applications with the .NET Framework
Feeling a bit bitter, Tom ? Actually, it's not just India. I tend to get a fair bit of work out of the USA. :-) Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
-
Christian Graus wrote: I was thinking exactly the same with a new project ( do it in 2.0 and I learn the new features, maybe write a few articles, etc. ). But with release dates more fleeing the scene than just slipping, I've abandoned this entirely. Personally, I have to admit that I'd go C#, unless I had compelling reason to go C++. Yeah, I'd totally jump in to 2.0 if it weren't for the possibility that it won't really ship for a year and a half. My only real worry with C# & .NET is performance. After having someone complain that the caller ID feature in my software took a whole 1/2 second longer to display the customer record than the caller ID display on the phone itself, I tend to put a lot of emphasis on speed... ;-) Christian Graus wrote: Mark Tutt wrote: (One product I work with regularly only works with .NET 1.0, and installing 1.1 breaks some of their app's features) Surely that's their fault ? Can't you tie to a specific version of the framework in your assembly if you need to ? It's the ASP.NET problem. You can only have one version associated, and their stuff doesn't appear to be compatible with 1.1.
You can only have one version associated, and their stuff doesn't appear to be compatible with 1.1. That's not true. If you install 2.0 Beta 1, then you can select per virtual directory, which runtime to run on. :)
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
-
Really ? For an *externally released* product you'd recommend using a beta compiler with no tangible release date ? Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
Ummm. No. Not for anybody that wasn't a developer. But he already said that if he were gonna go with 2.0, then he would just release when 2.0 releases.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
-
1. Outsource the product to India - let them decide how to write it. 2. Return to school and get a degree in accounting or something else that isn't being outsourced. Cheers, Tom Archer "Use what talents you possess. The woods would be very silent if no birds sang there except those that sang best." - William Blake * Inside C# -Second Edition * Visual C++.NET Bible * Extending MFC Applications with the .NET Framework
Tom Archer wrote: 1. Outsource the product to India - let them decide how to write it. It would take me so long to write requirements documents good enough to develop from that I'd be better off writing it myself. I've had some experience with outsourcing projects that were not painstakingly defined. Tom Archer wrote: 2. Return to school and get a degree in accounting or something else that isn't being outsourced. Auto mechanics. Someone's got to work on the Executives and Lawyers cars. It will never pay to ship them overseas... Most any white caller work it's just a matter of time.
-
Feeling a bit bitter, Tom ? Actually, it's not just India. I tend to get a fair bit of work out of the USA. :-) Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
Yeah, we should be able to get honary Indian passports. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: It's finally arrived, The worlds first DSP.
-
Ummm. No. Not for anybody that wasn't a developer. But he already said that if he were gonna go with 2.0, then he would just release when 2.0 releases.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
David Stone wrote: But he already said that if he were gonna go with 2.0, then he would just release when 2.0 releases. I suspect he's assuming a release date that's in line with when his product would go live - I can't imagine any product with a release date as slippery as .Net 2.0 seems to be ( i.e. I can't imagine a customer accepting a slipping release date based on Microsoft not releasing the compiler ). Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
-
Tom Archer wrote: 1. Outsource the product to India - let them decide how to write it. It would take me so long to write requirements documents good enough to develop from that I'd be better off writing it myself. I've had some experience with outsourcing projects that were not painstakingly defined. Tom Archer wrote: 2. Return to school and get a degree in accounting or something else that isn't being outsourced. Auto mechanics. Someone's got to work on the Executives and Lawyers cars. It will never pay to ship them overseas... Most any white caller work it's just a matter of time.
Mark Tutt wrote: Most any white caller work it's just a matter of time. LOL - it took me a minute to work out that you meant 'white collar' :-) Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
-
Feeling a bit bitter, Tom ? Actually, it's not just India. I tend to get a fair bit of work out of the USA. :-) Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
I was being facetious with all the anti-outsourcing threads being posted lately. Cheers, Tom Archer "Use what talents you possess. The woods would be very silent if no birds sang there except those that sang best." - William Blake * Inside C# -Second Edition * Visual C++.NET Bible * Extending MFC Applications with the .NET Framework
-
Mark Tutt wrote: My only real worry with C# & .NET is performance. My understanding is that performance is only an issue for the first time that any piece of code is executed ? Mark Tutt wrote: It's the ASP.NET problem. You can only have one version associated, and their stuff doesn't appear to be compatible with 1.1. Oh, OK. That's fair enough. They can't/won't fix it ? Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer
Christian Graus wrote: Mark Tutt wrote: My only real worry with C# & .NET is performance. My understanding is that performance is only an issue for the first time that any piece of code is executed ? Yes, I have to play around with the pre-compilation options, I haven't tried that yet... Christian Graus wrote: Mark Tutt wrote: It's the ASP.NET problem. You can only have one version associated, and their stuff doesn't appear to be compatible with 1.1. Oh, OK. That's fair enough. They can't/won't fix it ? Nope. They're not very nice about playing well with other applications on their servers (never mind that it's the customer's machine). They also check the version numbers of various DLL's and refuse to run if a version other than what they're validated with is installed.
-
Tom Archer wrote: 1. Outsource the product to India - let them decide how to write it. It would take me so long to write requirements documents good enough to develop from that I'd be better off writing it myself. I've had some experience with outsourcing projects that were not painstakingly defined. Tom Archer wrote: 2. Return to school and get a degree in accounting or something else that isn't being outsourced. Auto mechanics. Someone's got to work on the Executives and Lawyers cars. It will never pay to ship them overseas... Most any white caller work it's just a matter of time.
I'm going into landscaping myself ;) Cheers, Tom Archer "Use what talents you possess. The woods would be very silent if no birds sang there except those that sang best." - William Blake * Inside C# -Second Edition * Visual C++.NET Bible * Extending MFC Applications with the .NET Framework
-
Mark Tutt wrote: Most any white caller work it's just a matter of time. LOL - it took me a minute to work out that you meant 'white collar' :-) Christian I have several lifelong friends that are New Yorkers but I have always gravitated toward the weirdo's. - Richard Stringer