|
you completely missed the point of my comment.
I dont work for MS and I have a few thousand users running WinForms (and a heck of a lot more running webforms). There are many other consulting companies out there are selling .net to their clients. It's a lot cheaper than other solutions.
...and about the millions of dollars, the money is out there buddy. (I wish I could share more on that  )
Average user knows nothing about .net, but neither about java... ask them what's the java thing on their cell phones for... and start counting how many "I dont knows" you'll get.
|
|
|
|
|
To me, no new Windows hosted application should be development with anything other than the .NET Framework.
Although the 1.1 framework is incomplete, those shortcoming can be easily overcome with temporary portions accessed via P/Invoke or COM Interop. The 2.0 framework is complete.
.NET provides the first decent API for Windows development. Holy cow - it's a single string implementation!!!! What a novel concept!
Just look at the features - same underlying API for Windows abd Web applications, XML support throughout, consistent IO, great DB support, object models consistent with component models, versioning, security...
It's all the right stuff for all the right reasons. The .NET framework class library raises the bar well beyond the Win32 API.
In addition - there just isn't anything that is going to be added to Win32 - it's finally going the way of DOS. This alone is reason enough to move forward to .NET development.
Dale Thompson
|
|
|
|
|
expect you apps are dialog based
or is there any cad-like? (just asking)
t!
|
|
|
|
|
no new Windows hosted application
I might be willing to agree with you.
But how many applications meet those requirements really? Doesn't apply to existing or legacy applications. Doesn't apply to cross-platform applications... and since it is becoming much easier to write cross-platform apps (Java, wxWindows, QT, etc.) when writing something new, cross-platform ought to be taken into consideration. Doesn't apply to web-based apps, and there are plenty of good development choices for them, including but not limited to .NET.
An expert is somebody who learns more and more about less and less, until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
drawitem and measureitem on a listview anyone? Sortable headers? ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH All custom work, when it's actually in the functionality of the original control it's wrapping.
|
|
|
|
|
If you were a user... would you download .NET packages, if you already had one? An application for home users cannot rely on a specific version of .NET.
|
|
|
|
|
In my work environment, I hear our Windows-based customers clammoring about .NET because of many of the safety features like automatic garbage collection as well as how easy it is to build applications with multiple languages. And no, I do not work in the web development market -- actually, I deal with a lot of robotics and manufacturing. My customers are desiring something that will add safety and allow them to get up and running quickly. Now how much .NET will really deliver on that remains to be seen -- but many of my company's customers certainly believe it.
|
|
|
|
|
Despite all the hoopla from MS, the framework is still an IUnknown platform for anyone who normally uses his computer like a toaster (i.e. 90% of the population ?).
If MS was really serious about it, computer, game magazines, and the likes would bear CDs with killer applications made on the .NET framework, just to push that new platform.
I consider .NET 1.0 and 1.1 as solid beta products. And we, developers, are testing it before the big launch under .NET 2.0 and Longhorn.
Obviously, I'm talking 'bout Windows Forms here.
In the meantime, unmanaged C++ will do for me, til at least 2007 or 2008... (more probably 2010)
|
|
|
|
|
... and aren't generics supposed to come out in 2.0? So there are quite a bit of goodies coming out in 2.0 that will make .NET development a better platform.
That being said, I'll be impressed if 2.0 is the verison that takes off. Historically, it has taken Microsoft until version 3.0 of anything really to get it right. 
An expert is somebody who learns more and more about less and less, until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
The masses hardly use .NET for anything except applications that were written with .NET, and I don't think companies are gearing up for .NET as much as people thing they are. Sure, .NET may make collaboration a little easier, but who needs their browsers and e-mail clients and publishing tools to be so inter-connected with the rest of the world? so much so that you couldn't disconnect them anymore?
The consumer world won't find any use for .NET because they don't share information the same way as the larger corporate world does. In fact, your averages consumer doesn't know enough about their computer to use .NET effectively.
I think it's almost scary what .NET is trying to do. Making things connect more easily can result in more dangerous criminal acts. Find a bug in someone's .NET financial software and you could be home free with large corporate accounts that you could sap dry.
I think there's a certain level of connectivity that just pushes things a little too far into the danger zone, and .NET is bringing us that much closer.
|
|
|
|
|
I would have voted the same if given the option, though I have a slightly different opinion. The masses don't need .NET, because there already is java and CORBA. The only person who needs .NET is Microsoft, so they can stay in the driving seat.;P
|
|
|
|
|
I am not talking about web apps - becuase to me that seems out of the context of this poll. The "masses" aren't running web servers, so they don't give a hoot what is on the server side, as long as it works in their browser.
But for desktop apps, obviously that issue of having the .NET redistributable on their machine is an issue. And before you say, "Oh, come on, they only have to download it once, and then they can run any .NET app they want". Not true. .NET is hardly "stable" in the sense that the .NET framework is still being actively developed. Won't VS 2005 come with .NET framework version 2? Well, then, everyone who has the dinosaur of version 1.0 is going to have to upgrade to run new apps depending on version 2's features. (And there's a high probability that a lot of developers won't take the time to write correct installer logic to check for this, and apps will fail miserably when run in the wrong framework, but I digress...)
Perhaps a several years in to the future, when new computers are being shipped with the .NET framework, the framework itself becomes pretty stable, and most people have upgraded their legacy machines, then will .NET become widespread on the desktop.
Just my opinion though. 
An expert is somebody who learns more and more about less and less, until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree completely. Web apps are irrelevant - ASP.Net is a joy to work with compared to the legacy version available (barely) using InterDev in VS6. But users couldn't care less what creates the pages they view.
The rest of the .Net experience is dependent upon having the Framework installed on the user's machine. MS marketing talks about the numbers growing, but in reality the vast majority of user machines do not have it and probably won't for a long time to come. Savvy sysadmins have probably installed the Framework on most corporate machines by now, but average users don't have it. Worse, there are currently two, soon to be three, completely incompatible versions out there. That's going to be a challenge for programmers, especially (as you mention) those who write installers. They simply won't do it right. Most don't even bother to check for which version of Windows is installed - now they have to check for the correct version of the Framework? Not likely...
When the current, stable version of the .Net Framework is ubiquitous, then the .Net platform will be viable.
"My kid was Inmate of the Month at Adobe Mountain Juvenile Corrections Center" - Bumper Sticker in Bullhead City
|
|
|
|
|
Well, anyone that uses windows update should have the .NET framework as it is on there.
Signature under construction.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I don't think it's listed as a "critical update", which means even when using Windows Update, you'd have to explicitly look for it and pick it in order to get it installed.
An expert is somebody who learns more and more about less and less, until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
But it is installed with the service packs, and is included in all new Windows XP installations, and is of course included in Win2003 Server. Recent figures suggest 70 million internet connected machines have Everett (.NET 1.1) installed, which is not a shabby base by any means.
Of course, come 2006-7, Longhorn itself will be a managed OS built on .NET itself, certainly by then the framework will be almost ubiquitous.
What needs to happen in the meantime is Microsoft distributing the .NET framework with Office, Internet Explorer, default Windows installations, service packs, and critical Windows Update installs.
Judah Himango
|
|
|
|
|
I have yet to see it on any machine not running XP, except my own. No one in his/her right mind will download the Framework without a broadband connection, and most people don't have one. Except for those few that have recently purchased new computers, nearly all small businesses and individuals I know are still using Win98/Me or NT, and are stuck on dialup connections. Unless they purchase a ridiculously overpriced Office product, they won't be using .Net for quite some time.
"My kid was Inmate of the Month at Adobe Mountain Juvenile Corrections Center" - Bumper Sticker in Bullhead City
|
|
|
|
|
Worse, there are currently two, soon to be three, completely incompatible versions out there.
Actually, they aren't completely incompatible. Apps written with an older version of the framework can run seamlessly on a newer version, but not the other way around.
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
|
|
|
|
|
I certainly agree with you.
I have a friend who I am writing software for, who said that he didn't want to download 20mb of .net crap to run my app. I switched to C++ and Win32.
Kyle
|
|
|
|
|
Frankly, I don't want install linux on my PC.
So it mean that masses don't ready for linux?
I think no.
Really, Microsoft .NET was created that masses was ready
for future operating system such as Longhorn.
I think Microsoft .NET it is a big Microsoft's experiment and
testing area to prepare masses for new generation of OS.
And I think, masses are ready for it know.
|
|
|
|
|
Navin wrote:
.NET is hardly "stable" in the sense that the .NET framework is still being actively developed. Won't VS 2005 come with .NET framework version 2? Well, then, everyone who has the dinosaur of version 1.0 is going to have to upgrade to run new apps depending on version 2's features. (And there's a high probability that a lot of developers won't take the time to write correct installer logic to check for this, and apps will fail miserably when run in the wrong framework, but I digress...)
That's what they used to say about MFC, COM, OpenGL, DirectX.
|
|
|
|
|
COM and OpenGL haven't changed much in th elast several years, I'd say they're stable. 
And MFC - even while it was in development, you had an easy out - you could simply statically link your programs to it, for a not-too-huge size cost.
COM came with all versions of Windows, I believe. DCOM almost did - I think Windows 95 needed a special update, but all the others had it. DirectX had a niche in games, as it won't run on Windows NT. I have seen far more OpenGL apps (not talking about games) than DirectX ones, becuase OpenGL exists on far more platforms.
And believe me, MFC apps *DO* run miserably if you have the wrong MFC dll's on your system. 
So there will likely be a time when .NET is ubiquitious, but that time is not now.
An expert is somebody who learns more and more about less and less, until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
An interesting view but really shouldn't the developers be distributing the re-distributable on CDs with there product? To say that .NET isn't ready just because users don't have the framework on their machine is just plain laziness on the part of developers IMHO. As for your point about developers not writing the correct installer logic, maybe they won't be employed much longer as developers if they don't. I would only hope that any company that is releasing software to the masses would realize that they need to test there software and installation packages before they ship it. If they did they should catch any such installation problems.
Just my 2 cents.
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
I voted yes but very much agree it depends on the context. dotnet is simply used over to wide a spectrum. ASP.net, at least department level creation of web services, and for client consumption of web services seams solid enough for mass usage. Other areas are open.
I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
|
|
|
|
|
I voted almost. For the simple reason that our code shall be obfuscated by default. We shouldn't have to obfuscate it everytime.
Well... Now... I think that .NET will be more and more web-based. I mean by that... that they're will be less and less desktop app and more and more of ASP.NET app.
What do you think ?
If someone says "Die mortal!", don't stay to see if he isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
