Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. .NET is .KAPUT?

.NET is .KAPUT?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
csharpsysadminquestionlearning
22 Posts 11 Posters 25 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • A Alastair Stell

    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

    E Offline
    E Offline
    Ed Gadziemski
    wrote on last edited by
    #21

    Well stated. It shows that Microsoft can make a good Delphi ripoff when they try.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • C Christopher Duncan

      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)

      E Offline
      E Offline
      Ed Gadziemski
      wrote on last edited by
      #22

      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!

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      Reply
      • Reply as topic
      Log in to reply
      • Oldest to Newest
      • Newest to Oldest
      • Most Votes


      • Login

      • Don't have an account? Register

      • Login or register to search.
      • First post
        Last post
      0
      • Categories
      • Recent
      • Tags
      • Popular
      • World
      • Users
      • Groups