This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
.Net:... 3 Years Later
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker
"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker
Yes (Score:3, Interesting)
So much... (Score:2, Interesting)
Seems to me (Score:2, Interesting)
Yesterday's news (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yes (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree, as a Penn State Student I have worked with both .NET and Unix/PHP/Perl/Apache environments. Without a doubt, the latter of the two was far superior in every aspect, INCLUDING EASE OF USE. PHP has got to be the easiest freakin language ever, and Apache trumps IIS with the ability to do the majority of configuring with one file, instead of having to browse through a maze of tabbed windows with options, checkboxes, pop-up boxes, etc.
Without a doubt, the only reasons to use .NET would be if (a), you already have a Microsoft solution and for some reason you want to keep it, or (b), you fall to marketing hype.
Oh yeah, did I forget to mention STABILITY and SECURITY...
What did you expect? (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsofts business model is based on not fulfilling the promises they make, otherwise nobody would ever need to buy a new product. And of course its much easier to have a vision than to make this vision become reality.
And is there anybody that really remembers the promises they made 3 years ago? People are so used to get screwed by Microsoft that they don't even memorize the things that will never come true. All I personally remember of that .net thing is that even 3 years ago people were saying that this is just a big vapoware thing.
.NET was a success, Microsoft-style (Score:3, Interesting)
This is hardly a new strategy for Microsoft. And in the .NET case they succeeded on a collosal scale.
Move On? Hardly (Score:1, Interesting)
Roughly half the jobs listed in Windows want at least some .NET or C# experience. The majority of the others are J2EE/Java.
This article is just more FUD. There is no doubt that .NET, and ASP.NET in particular (aspx pages) is the future of software development on Windows - on Linux also, if you believe Mono [go-mono.com]...
Re:You are kidding, right? (Score:1, Interesting)
Depends... ping time is usually measured from just before you call send() until you complete your recv() to receive your ping back. Factors such as poor TCP/IP stacks, kernel design, and load on your system can effect the timings (as far as internal factors).
Re:You are kidding, right? (Score:3, Interesting)
Then you don't have AS400s, Legacy applications or Unix then ?
2) Users can access their apps and data from anywhere on the network, even offsite.
All their apps ? Or just the PIM ones in Outlook and the new development. Is that offsite access transactionally secure (i.e. not using Web Services)
3) Ping times have halved
This one confuses me. Are you telling me that the network traffic has been REDUCED by using
You wouldn't believe our uptime, sometimes we go for weeks without rebooting
Oh hang on its a troll isn't it by a Linux dude... I mean come on, anyone who can't keep a Windows box with a mean-time between failure of over a month is a cretin.
5) The TCO is 1/10th of what it was and we've been able to reduce our IT staff (maybe this is the real reason the
Then they should REALLY hate AS400s and OS/390s and Sun's N1 architecture which have a support cost several hundred times as good at a fraction of the price.
But in comparison with J2EE it suffers on several levels, the biggest of which is that J2EE is a standard adopted by all of the other big guys, and is the one that most enterprise vendors are moving towards, SAP for instance.
Re:From "Great" to old ideas (Score:4, Interesting)
And finally... "ASP.NET is lauging out loud"? What the hell does that even mean? I personally don't like ASP.NET, but at least it's far more consistent than PHP is or probably will ever be.
Return to class, you obviously have some catching-up to do.
Re:So much... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Reality is quite nice though (Score:0, Interesting)
Oh, have I? Why don't you tell me then?
I've developed using Java since the beginning and everything I ever read about the JVM stated that it JITs everything that is "early-bound". Perhaps JITting has improved, but start-up times barely have! My .NET apps still start-up and run much faster than their Java counterparts.
Re:So much... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here at the lab for example we run a lot of mission critical syatems written in Java. Although these systems are ultra reliable they are slow and as such we are severely hampered by the hardware we can afford.
A few months ago we got a
If someone would port
Re:.Net was never clearly defined (Score:5, Interesting)
If you ignore the marketing noise, though, it is itself a cohesive strategy, but it's quite a wide-ranging thing and it's hard to get the right perspective on it. The problem is that you probably started looking too early. The first round of books were all written based on the betas (I reviewed many of them for various publishers), and they were all targeted at teaching the world the basics of .NET.
There are now many books that explain the guts in great detail.
To continue with your specific example, there are MANY projects which support or are working to implement CORBA remoting for .NET. A simple Google search for ".NET CORBA remoting" yielded tons of results.
Microsoft marketing is Microsoft's own worst enemy...
Re:Reality is quite nice though (Score:5, Interesting)
- The way codebehind is implemented, and the ASP.NET page lifecycle
- Custom controls
- Properties and indexers
- Collection and foreach
- Events and delegates
- app.config and web.config
- XCopy deployment
- Newsgroup support
What I don't like about
- Buggy implementation
- Crappy file I/O package
- DLL Versioning (Pain in the ass. Just deprecate!)
- Crappy API documentation
- A lot of default behaviors, little of which is intuitive, predictable, or documented
- The inability to use classes effectively for things they weren't designed to work for, even though they would be perfect for the job. This is largely due to shortsighted design and access constraints (private methods, un-settable properties, etc)
In other words, I love the CLR design and syntactical shortcuts and hate the class libraries and implementation. The feature set is very wide but not very deep. It's painfully obvious where they've set their focus (ASP.NET, ADO.NET) and where they haven't (file I/O, date/time manipulation, string formatting, etc). You develop like lightening until you reach a point where you want to refine it a bit and make it do something very specific, then you spend weeks trying to figure out what it's doing, why it's doing it that way, and how to work around the default behavior.
It's a good product for small projects, but if you're doing enterprise applications, you're better off implementing a lot of this stuff yourself. A good example are typed DataSets...they manage rowstate and updates and such, which saves a lot of time in the short term, but a lot of the time you want much finer control and a looser coupling between business objects and the data schema. Unfortunately, you can't touch the rowstate directly, which leads to some pretty interesting (and ugly) solutions.
Heck no they shouldn't be moving on.... (Score:5, Interesting)
There are some compelling advantages to
I figure we should start seeing real concrete examples of the advantages of
Don't believe me?
USB.
Or even better, how about Win32? We *still* have at least two industry-specific Win16 apps that are under a current maintenance contract. Hell, most of the non-MSOffice Win16 crap was just replaced around four years ago with the Y2K upgrades, so we're still in the process of depreciating it!
All of MS's apps will be
Re: .NET was a success, Microsoft-style (Score:3, Interesting)
> By announcing
> This is hardly a new strategy for Microsoft. And in the
Yep. In particular,
Those with memories three years and one day long will remember that right up until the day MS announced
Classic application of vaporware, folks. And Sun didn't jerk the carpet out from under MS's feet, to chalk
Microsoft Marketing Machine (Score:3, Interesting)
The same applies to
.NET vs. Java and Free Software (Score:2, Interesting)
.NET does not offer much of value over Java or Free Software alternatives, except a fairly nice IDE.
.NET is significantly better than previous M$ offerings (VB6, ASP, VBScript), although it shares the weakness of being more or less Windows-only and is somewhat hard to learn.
Web Services were a good idea that showed up at the wrong time. If not for the dotcom bust we would be seeing a lot more. The beauty of Web Services is that they allow for genuinely distributed computing using open standards and protocols. I have no doubt that M$ would have polluted this idea eventually, but, also thanks to the bust, it really hasn't had the chance.
I always recommend free, cross-platform solutions wherever possible (PHP, Perl, Python, Apache, Linux or *BSD, Zope, wxWindows, etc.), but if you have a lot of legacy VB and/or ASP stuff, .NET almost certainly is better than what you have now.
Re:What about Linux (Score:3, Interesting)
Except for Lindows (and SCO), I think most linux distributors are quite realistic. Can you provide urls to back your claim?
Re:NO tolerance for standards wars (Score:5, Interesting)
Hell, some of the basic tutorials that came with the .NET beta (and probably with the release version, I never got around to looking at them again) showed you how to do this. A local binary component communications channel was transparently switchable to an HTTP-based protocol using policies which were controllable by an administrator... re-programming and re-compiling not required.
Fight all the standards wars you want, then just plug in the winner and get back to work.
Development good, marketing bad (Score:5, Interesting)
The only problem I see is MS's marketing strategy of attaching ".NET" to everything. This just confused the term. There really was no reason to call "Windows 2003 Server" "Windows
Whatever the case,
From what I've read here, most of the objections fall into two categories:
- I don't know what
.NET is.
- I don't like Microsoft as a company
On the first, if you limit the scope toOn the second, if this is your sole reason, you're being illogical. That would be like brushing off a good idea from a fellow developer because you didn't like his office.
Re:Reality is quite nice though (Score:5, Interesting)
Far too much, in most cases.
In most cases, the CLR out-performs native Win32 because of better heap management, caching, and other little things here and there.
Said heap management, caching, etc. couldn't have been implemented in a pre-compiled language?!? Sure.
And there will be cross-platform compatibility once linux developers finish Mono.
So long as Microsoft sees fit not to exercise it's massive patent portfolio. I'd sure bet my business on Microsoft playing nice...not.
If anything that runs on a VM is slow - it's Java. It has to JIT everything before running it while the CLR JITs on demand and it even does that faster!
That would depend on which Java implementation you're talking about. There are fully pre-compiled Java systems available, however the VM based versions are very competitive. They are certainly neck and neck with the CLR...and are available on many platforms, now. Even enterprise class platforms. :-)
Java has tremendous momentum - which .Not has largely failed to affect.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
.NET is hurting development (Score:5, Interesting)
VS.net 2003, that's a different story. It does all the things I want to do in a C++ compiler, but apart from the cost, what do you suppose is keeping the bosses from approving it? That's right:
So here I am, about to go back to a compiler that has no partial template specialization, a version of STL that I have to patch *by* *hand*, and if I want to look something up? Well, I've got my msdn help files from October 2001 to explain it to me, because that was the last version that integrated with VS6.
By pushing
Just my $0.02
It actually outperforms J2EE by a lot (Score:0, Interesting)
Re:It can do most of what they say... (Score:3, Interesting)
JVM language "flexibility" was added after the fact, and it often introduces some fairly ugly things to existing languages (not that .NET compliance won't).
Most people don't understand that the .NET intermediate langage (IL, which is what .NET programs compile into unless you use the native-compile switches) was intentionally designed to be language-neutral (it can do a few things that C# can't), and whereas the JVM bytecode was designed to be executed (e.g. it is structured so that it is easy to interpret), IL was designed to be compiled (e.g. it is structured so that it is easily JIT-consumable).
It's all about the Pentiums (Score:5, Interesting)
The true reason behind the
When the 32 to 64 bit switch starts, the
Combine that with the fact that the Windows (NT/XP) kernel already supports multiple architectures, win32, posix and os/2 are the 3 common ones. I'm willing to bet that
Three years?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:From "Great" to old ideas (Score:5, Interesting)
OK. Boxing, Typesafe Enums,
When Java was first released, umpty squat years ago, it introduced a lot of good concepts to the wider programming community (yeah yeah, smalltalk blah blah blah). The good news is, the language is adapting and evolving based on a community input process, and real world feedback. There are some things that maybe should or could have been done in different ways, but all in all, I keep comming back.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact is that Win32 is a steaming cowpat of an API. This is rammed through my head time and time again whenever I am forced to use it. It has some of the most braindamaged behaviours in the world - it's so bad that practically nobody uses it in fact. It's kind of sad, but it's not really possible to write Windows programs without a (usually expensive) IDE and wrapper library to help you.
Well, .NET is mostly just Microsoft creating yet another wrapper, albiet one that doesn't suck quite as much as their previous attempts did. That's just as well, perhaps one day the sheer hell of Win32 will be banished forever, much the same way that nobody pokes the BIOS anymore to print stuff to the screen. To be honest, I think that'll happen more because of Linux than .NET replacing Win32 entirely, but only time will tell.
Which were delivered by Java years ago (Score:1, Interesting)
1. Web services were on Java roughly the same time
(MS may have come up with the basics but IBM did a
large part of the work).
2. Multiple languages to a single VM work better in Java. In fact there is a web page dedicated to languages compiled/interpreted on the Java VM and it is considerably larger than the one for
3. Open source/standards didn't bring anything. MS submited only a small portion of
Essentially everything available on
ASP.NET (Score:2, Interesting)
I find ASP.NET rather difficult to work with - and avoid using it if there is a better alternative.
The amount of code required to output [X]HTML to the browser is in the order of magnitudes more than using ASP. More typing for less output is bad for productivity and deadlines. ASP can be adjusted with any txt editor, and does not need compiling.
The ASP engine in IIS6 has been rewritten for performance - so legacy applications will continue to run.
The features that come with .NET and not ASP can usually be accomplished in PHP, which is smaller, well documented and cross platform.
I can't give my opinion of .NET applications that are not hosted on a web server - they may be better than earlier technologies.
service httpd start
Mike
Re:You are kidding, right? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:.Net was never clearly defined (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd be interested in some benchmarks. My experience in fiddling with some numerically-intensive code is that Sun JVM 1.4.1 is about 4 times faster than a Dotnet release of 18 months ago. I haven't tried a more recent version.
Re:Speaking for myself (Score:2, Interesting)
Regardless of the tool involved, you do not have to work with those features.
Don't be sheep, analyse MS ads ;-) (Score:1, Interesting)
Another point is that web services do not scale (if you compare them to IIOP based architecture for instance). You can not build a multi-thier application with dotnet, it just not scale. Why did MS just forgot to put IIOP into dotnet ? This is just stupid even a child whould have guess it has to be done !
About multi language. This is just FUD. First you've got lots of language in Java [tu-berlin.de] that compiles to bytecode and they were build longtime before MS ever think of running away from Java to create they clone (the famous "COOL" project).
Now point is that multilanguage is useless. Clearly, how can you beleive that a Cobol user will smoothly goes to Cobol.net ? Those languages are complete new paradigm that sticks to the platform (so cauled "flavorished" languages). Looking at Cobol.net and you will think of the C# counterpart. The real language of MS.net is C# and the other are just here to push some FUD. Ever seen a Cobol.net project in the place ? or blurb.net ?
As a conclusion, i will just said just look at where is
Will MS soon drop
(i am not talking of the API or the tools but the core platform that use IL and so on..)
Anyway, day after day MS customer are moving to J2EE
Gartner forcasted few years ago, that MS.net and J2EE will be respectively 1/3 and 2/3 of the market but this dream for MS never happend. Because MS did not gained new customer but just transfered some of their existing customer to their new tech, and an important percent that are looking for alternatives
SLK
Re:It takes insight to notice these things take ti (Score:2, Interesting)
Veronica [ou.edu] was a tool to do search in the gopher space.
Jughead stand for "Jonzy's Universal Gopher Hierarchy Excavation and Display". I don't have a clue of its purpose.
get a load of this quote (Score:2, Interesting)
The
excuse me Mr. Helms, but what's wrong with the world not wanting to standardize on proprietary web services? just because web services are 'open' doesn't mean they're immature.
This is obviously just a cheap shot at open standards.
Re:Speaking for myself (Score:3, Interesting)
I've heard that the free editor MS provide, Webmatrix, defaults to inline code but never used it myself. I wouldn't be surprised as that's aimed at low end developers, inline is conceptually much simpler than code behind.
It's great (Score:2, Interesting)
Right now I am working on a multi-tier business application for the Fortune 1000 company I work for and the amount that two developers can get done with C# and
If you are interested in developing web applications but don't want to buy Visual Studio give WebMatrix [asp.net] a shot. It is a great looking and totally free IDE. A lot of people here would fall in love with C# and
Evaporated; I think not (Score:1, Interesting)
Personally, I love
Re:It actually outperforms J2EE by a lot (Score:2, Interesting)
- The java version had transactions on every freaking operation
- MS code had transactions on only the most critical places
- The java version used JDBC (which in itself is very good) but the statements
were not using prepared queries! So the oracle db had to 'reinvent' the wheel
on every query
- MS version used highly optimized stored procedures
- Java version was built as a 'demonstration' or school book implementation
which used lots of meaningless (and performance killing) design patterns
- MS version was built by MS to destroy the java version
So ask yourself this: A few programmers write a petshop demo app that shows one possible way of building such app. How hard it is for any given company X to best that performance? Hey don't believe me - the sources are there (theserverside) for all to see. Grab both versions and do some comparison. You'll learn that it was a total waste of time to put those two implementations to test.Re:.Net was never clearly defined (Score:2, Interesting)
What did you expect (Score:2, Interesting)
I haven't seen anyone mention (forgive me, I haven't read all 522 responses) the features of Java in the upcoming major release as revealed by Sun are essentially in lock-step with C#. Yes, its a leap-frog game and Java was there first, but it certainly discounts wholesale rejections of .NET language features from the Java crowd. Sun has even hinted that they will put more effort into providing (*gasp*) usable IDEs for Java development and have specifically cited MS' DevStudio as a forerunner in this category (although MS was certainly not the first with decent IDEs - props to Borland, et. al).
Finally, it should come as no suprise that .NET is targeted to Windows. Let's face it, Office and Windows are cash cows for MS and it only makes sense to highlight your platform when providing tools.
Even with some of these drawbacks, if you are developing to an MS platform, .NET development tools are far and away the best that have been available to you and I know of more than a handful of situations, anectdotal as they may be, where they have proven to provide real productivity benefits, and that is huge for developers.
So I guess my point is, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, tying the OS (Win svr 2003) and Office and consulting services (and, and, and..) to .NET may have been confusing, but the development tools are top notch and solve more problems than they create.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined (Score:2, Interesting)
This brings to mind something mentioned by a professor, Dr. Puder, in a seminar/discussion i attended about
-- what is
-- what problems does
-- haven't technologies such as CORBA already addressed these issues.
The discussion was preceeded by a presentation by another professor (a
During the critiquing of
In the specific case of
To address the question put forth by the parent post,
Dr. Puder [puder.org] is a CORBA Demi-God and an author [mico.org] of MICO [mico.org] ( M ICO I s CO rba). MICO is an open source, fully compliant implementation of the CORBA standard written in C++.
Re:.Net was never clearly defined (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes. .NET uses XML. Use of XML as peer-to-peer
protocol remains, IMHO, a very stupid idea. It is
very nice for documents. But binary encoding of
wire messages, such as is done by CORBA, is
clearly superior. I remain opposed to definition
of "new" XML services that merely duplicate
existing CORBA and/or RPC solutions with
the sole benefit of consuming more bandwidth
while circumventing network security by pretending
to be a "web" protocol.
But saying that .NET uses XML is like saying
NFS uses RPC. Neither is complete documentation.
I found available open specs on *how* .NET uses XML,
and how to generate your own compatible messages,
to be conspicuously absent, or at the minimum insufficiently indexed and highlighted.
Clearly, the developers of the documetation did not believe that "typical users" would have to be "burdened" with these details. (Which, I suspect, is the most charitable interpretation likely to be found on /. for these actions.).
Personally, I do not like the "convenience" of being locked
into a single solutions provider.
Defense applications (Score:3, Interesting)
There are still a bunch of guys like us that want our application statically compiled, with direct access to memory, source-code compatible in Unix and Windows, and easy to program for with standard libraries for gui, database, io, strings etc.
But we are still waiting for that language (perhaps D ?).
With C++, we have static compilation and direct access to memory, but a lack of everything else.
With Java, we have standard libraries, but it lacks the speed due to the VM.
Mono Will Be Useless When Finished (Score:3, Interesting)
Currently Windows.Forms* is supposedly 56% done, and yet it is completely usuable to everyone but the developers. Why? Because to use it you must install a two-month old version of Wine, patch it with an obscure third-party patch, and then get the configuration just right.
As someone who's interested in doing some .Net development on Linux, this kludge is completely unacceptable. The Mono team made a grave mistake by tying the success of their project to the notoriously unreliable and difficult to configure Wine libraries. If they had have done the GTK interface layer first, then Mono would already be useful for something more than Miguel's monkey spanking.
* The reason Windows.Forms is so important is that there are already plenty of ways to make trivial console apps cross-platform. In order for Linux to tap into the Windows app market, we need the GUI, godamnit!
Re:You have GOT to be kidding me... (Score:2, Interesting)
It's posts like this that make me want to abandon Slashdot after 5 years of faithfully following, commenting and posting stories.
I have always generally found about 20% of the content on slashdot to be new and interesting. But in the last two years I've noticed an increasing trend for slashdot to be several days behind other news sources. Also the attempts to attack Microsoft are becoming more and more desperate.
But keep in mind that while slashbot did post this, the original article was written by some moron at eWeek. Not to lessen the responsibility of slashbot in contributing to this sad lie, but to help spread the blame of poor tech journalism.
I find the Open Source community growing up around
VA software - hello Java, goodbye .Net (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yes (Score:2, Interesting)
The focus is typically to push folks to move up to new technologies, dropping legacy systems, then rinse and repeat.
To make a statement about folks 'rich enough and naive enough to keep the
My company evaluated
When it came down to it either technology, as well as many before them, could do the job. Since we are a mixed Win/Unix shop, we decided year one to use ASP.NET on our web servers.
The decision to use
In the end, the typical arguements for using J2EE had little to no impact for us.
--begin rant--
I really do tire of seeing 'm$', 'micro$oft' et al
Really..is there anyone out there that believes that corporations purely exist to provide services out of the goodness of their hearts?
If not, may I propose the following new company slang names...
$un
Ci$co
GNU/Linu$
$lashdot
--end rant--
First time I've actually posted on
Re:.net web services (Score:3, Interesting)
I have developed specifically in C#.Net for 5 months until our funding ran out. My group did just about everything: Com Interop, XML, SOAP, WinForms, MSHTML, Web connectivity stuffs. Now I have no job but i don't feel any bad about never having to code in
First of all. Why is everybody raving about
The most terrifying thing by far is the fact that
And then you have the bugs and lack of documentation. When developing with MSHTML lib, there's ZERO documentation in
Now Winform is nice and fast but not without problems. For example, MS insisted that the damn transparancy bug is a "intended feature." (a transparent form shows it's parent, but not other things that might be stacked under it.) And refresh problems, too.
"The wonderful Visual Studio
To conclude, I believe that Microsoft have made a mistake for marketing hype of a technology that is simply not ready for prime time. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth for many developers. If you consider how fast MS dumped COM+, it's pretty scary to think that maybe
Why MS doesn't just flat out tell us that
Re:Reality is quite nice though (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Zope... (Score:2, Interesting)
free can also be achieved with
That should be enough to get you straight in there (assuming you've got a windows box to run it all on of course, but if not, then why even think about it?).
Now personally, I'm very very fond of Visual Studio.net, but for running up a quick, not-many-pages data-driven web app, the Web Matrix can sometimes be the superior tool (the major difference is that VS.net pretty much enforces code-behind and has multi-file projects, whilst the Web Matrix works with inline code and a single file at a time.
Certainly, the adoption has been slower then Microsoft would have liked, but then, my personal interpretation of the 'what is
Give it a try, have a play around (esp. the web Matrix) and see what you like and what you don't. If nothing else, you'll learn to love some of the details of your favourite environment more than you did before.
TomV
Re:Question (Score:4, Interesting)