Skip to comments.
Microsoft .Net software's hidden cost
Yahoo ^
| Sat Jun 22,11:11 AM ET
| Joe Wilcox
Posted on 06/22/2002 12:48:53 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 301-302 next last
To: Dominic Harr
Dude, you're such a goombah. I still say the back end was involved in the original 8 week production time, along with things like spec review and design which tends to drag things out a bit. And I still think it's incredibly rude to shave people's estimates on project you know nothing about.
I'm not selling anything. I haven't worked with .Net and since I think n-tiered distributed applications are annoying I hope I never do. You're the only one on these threads that ever tries to sell anything, and what you're trying to sell is your own brilliance which it turns out is the ultimate vaporware. If anybody says anything good about anything from MS you're all over them and accuse them of everything under the sun. You really need to ask your shrink why you have such a hard-on for MS. If you can't look at that list of companies using .Net and realize that the product is doing pretty good then you clearly have issues, deep expensive issues. That's nobody's problem but yours. I always worry about people that spend long hours complaining about everyone around them, especially when they're conservative, armed nutjobs are inherently more frightening than unarmed nutjobs.
81
posted on
06/24/2002 3:15:52 PM PDT
by
discostu
To: dheretic
How do they know that Microsoft won't exercise its IP "rights" and crush them through litigation and not the marketplace?
That's why I'm studying it like hell right now! ;-)
82
posted on
06/24/2002 3:16:17 PM PDT
by
rdb3
To: rdb3
Really, that's funny. I used to be a hardcore MS-basher. Spending time on FR around the Macheads and the Harr's is what changed my tune. The more of their ravings I read the more I started to question the sanity of defacto hatred of MS. Since that reconsideration I've decided that MS isn't the best company on the planet, they play orugh and sometimes even illegal, and their software has issues, but overall they aren't too bad and their stuff doesn't suck half as bad as the bashers say it does.
83
posted on
06/24/2002 3:19:32 PM PDT
by
discostu
To: PatrioticAmerican
AS I have posted before, the market will most likely always be split and the competition is very healthy for both sides. Without .NET pushing Java and Java pushing .NET, not much will ever get done. I actually wish another large third party would join the market with a third competing technology. Frankly, I don't believe that the best ideas can be incorporated into only two product lines. Open source certainly is another venue for ideas, but we really need more.
YES!
Hats off to you, P.A. That's what I'm talking about. To be totally honest, I want .NET to succeed. That forces Sun to step up. It forces OpenSource to get better. It's a win-win-win as far as I'm concerned.
Geeks like me want to battle it out at the workstation and in the cleanroom, NOT the courtroom.
Let the games begin!
84
posted on
06/24/2002 3:23:36 PM PDT
by
rdb3
To: Bush2000
AS I have posted before, the market will most likely always be split and the competition is very healthy for both sides. Without .NET pushing Java and Java pushing .NET, not much will ever get done. I actually wish another large third party would join the market with a third competing technology. Frankly, I don't believe that the best ideas can be incorporated into only two product lines. Open source certainly is another venue for ideas, but we really need more.
Please see my #84.
85
posted on
06/24/2002 3:25:27 PM PDT
by
rdb3
To: discostu
I hear you. And don't expect me to sling arrows at you for this opinion, either.
The way I see it, whatever works for you is what you should use. That's how I operate.
86
posted on
06/24/2002 3:26:47 PM PDT
by
rdb3
To: rdb3
You're far to sane for these threads. Run now while you still can.
87
posted on
06/24/2002 3:28:12 PM PDT
by
discostu
To: Mr. Jeeves
Ever hear of business requirements? Systems analysis? Changing user specifications? A good portion of that 8 weeks was irreducible, regardless of platform.
Add to that unreasonable managers who can't make up their minds on how they want an app to work and dissatisfied users who will complain no matter how well the apps actually works.
Thankfully, I'm now self-employed! ;-)
88
posted on
06/24/2002 3:32:36 PM PDT
by
rdb3
To: discostu
I still say the back end was involved in the original 8 week production time, along with things like spec review and design which tends to drag things out a bit. You are correct. Coding the business logic in the SQL Server stored procedures took a good part of the time. For the record it is an investment reporting application - a lot of crosstabulation and summarization. Some of the logic came from a legacy MS Access reporting system, other parts had to be written from scratch.
Total application development time: 8 weeks.
Total traditional ASP coding time: About 1 week.
Total ASP.NET conversion time: 8 hours.
Total time spent on three upgrades since: About 1 hour.
The decision to build a 2-tier application was a deliberate part of the design, as a 3-tier architecture would have been overkill for this project. Scalability was not a design consideration - any growth in the database size will be overwhelmed by future `increases in hardware speed.
The typical run time for the set of eight SQL Server stored procedures kicked off by ASP.NET is about 10 seconds. Maybe if I had used Java and an application server it would run in 5 seconds. Hey, a 50% increase! A new benchmark for Oracle's ads...LOL!
Now y'all can argue from a coherent set of specs...
To: Dominic Harr; All
Hey, I'm just wondering... I've seen no posts on FR about the hidden costs of switching everyone from Windows/Office over to Linux/Star (most costs incurred by expensive to keep and difficult to work with open source training/support professionals).
I've seen few words on FR about the Alexis de Tocqueville Foundation's study correctly noting that it's difficult to characterize Linux and other open source software as inherently more secure since anyone and everyone can look at the source code.
I have seen a lot of conspiracy theories about all the illegal behind-the-scenes Micro$oft does, but I've never seen anything paranoid regarding open source software (like the idea that since open source software "powers" the Internet, a left wing group of anarchists could use that code to write a crippling virus that destroys all Internet communication and commerce in protest of globalization - which is much more plausible that Micro$oft sabotaging Real Player by including Windows Media Player bundled in the OS).
I'm just throwing that out for everyone.
To: discostu
Well, 'tu, you might be right. Since I live, eat, breathe, and sleep on this stuff, my pragmatism may be a bit of a wet blanket for some.
91
posted on
06/24/2002 3:37:12 PM PDT
by
rdb3
To: Dominic Harr
The 'Windows Forms' are more akin to the 'Java Web Start' tech. Downloading an app that executes locally on the client as a local app. Very, very different from an Applet executing only in a browser, with no ability to affect the local machine.
The noticeable difference, Harr, is that Java applets run within a browser frame. These WinForms don't. As for security, WinForms apps have no capability on the local machine: They are constrained by the CLR. They can't read/write files outside of their scratch directory. In short, they can't do anything to destabilize the machine.
92
posted on
06/24/2002 3:41:28 PM PDT
by
Bush2000
To: Mr. Jeeves
You know he's going to think we worked this out in Freepmail. Investment stuff, a little hairy but nothing viscious. That's about how I was seeing it. DB design and execution are the important part, that's the actual data, fronts aren't too hard. And of course crunching number back in SQL is the right answer, if only because that's probably a bigger computer than the box the front end is working on.
It'll be interesting to see what he says now that we actually have enough info to be throwing out some estimates.
93
posted on
06/24/2002 3:42:50 PM PDT
by
discostu
To: Scott McCollum
We've had some threads on the AdTF stuff, they were pretty vicsious. Those kind of revolved around out of the box AdTF is right, but every Unix administrator in the known world has his own security code that he patches in and does NOT distribute. So that's kind of a toss up.
Of course you realize that since you've brought up training and conversion costs that makes you evil, clearly a MS dupe probably in their pay and sent out to secretly talk up their clearly inferior products base on lied and FUD... at least that's what the bashers always say.
94
posted on
06/24/2002 3:47:54 PM PDT
by
discostu
To: Dominic Harr
"Actually, a developer would be encouraged to share their opinions and experiences with new technologies, especially one like this that is trying to gain acceptance. "
Harr, you are sounding like a total computer geek and not a consultant. Building apps is far more about the business and not the technologies. Such things as confidentiality are seriously important. Part of that is not publicly disclosing information. Doing so may jeopardize your market position by letting your competitors know what you doing such that they may also do it. Also, clients may not appreciate your public relationship with them. Some companies prefer to have people believe that they are completely responsible for their computer systems. Discretion is paramount. You asking for confidential information is tantamount to journalists asking the Defense Department for the secret war plans and complaining when they dont get it. Any company than can release large project information does in the form of a press release, in corporate press packet, or through the various corporate communications mediums; all of which are publicly available and usually on the companys web site. Again, you really need to do your own research; it is an easy thing to do.
To: Dominic Harr
The DB has to build temporary tables and does all the number crunching in a very, very inefficient manner, processing data relationally. In an language like C# or Java, you do number crunching in an OO manner, optimized to the specific report to be churned. For any complex report, the DB will be the absolute slowest way to number crunch possible.
That's an interesting straw man, Harr, but it has little to do with anything. Jeeves never said he was doing his report-formatting in the stored procs. He said he's retrieving the basic data and then dumping it into documents on the middle tier. How you twisted that to mean he was doing the reports on the backend tier is a mystery.
96
posted on
06/24/2002 4:06:24 PM PDT
by
Bush2000
To: Dominic Harr
I said it would take *him* a week, if he were not very experienced with Java. But it sounds like *I* could do it in a day or two.
This is precisely the reason I'd never hire you, Harr. You confuse writing the code with the entire application development process. Coding is one of the last things you do. In a lot of ways, it's the least important.
Forget it, dude. Once again, a thread has boiled down to MS-only people trying to sell *me* on MS solutions, while everyone else has abandoned the thread.
Nobody's trying to sell you anything, Harr. You're entrenched in your ignorance. No, most people are here to prevent you from spreading more lies and making estimates that pull out of your rear end...
97
posted on
06/24/2002 4:26:42 PM PDT
by
Bush2000
To: rdb3
Know what would REALLY be cool? IBM creating a mainframe version just for mainframes! Imagine the big iron ideas that have yet to introduced into the server market, and there are some. I have always loved microcomputers, but I also was working with mainframes and knew there were serious differences.
To: Scott McCollum
Oh, we've trashed that subject as well. ;>
To: discostu
I still say the back end was involved in the original 8 week production time, along with things like spec review and design which tends to drag things out a bit. You appear to have been correct, and I was incorrect in this one detail.
But I was still right about the point -- what was done in ASP could have been done better or faster in Java, but he was working for an MS-only shop and prevented from using a better solution if it wasn't an MS product.
What took 1 week in ASP could have been done better in Java or ASP.NET in 1 day -- what it actually took to do it in ASP.NET, which does indeed develop as fast as Java. It still seems clear that he was paid to use an inferior MS solution when a better, non-MS solution was available, and eventually had to upgrade that solution. But he was not allowed to upgrade until MS had made something better.
So you were right about the one detail -- it wasn't 8 weeks of work that should have taken a day, it was 1 week of work that should have taken a day. I did misunderstand that one part of the estimate. As I made clear to you, I was only talking about the ASP part, and asked him that specifically. I apparently misunderstood when he said it took 8 weeks, and thought he was referring to the piece that was replaced in a few hours, as he said. His original statement was led me awry, and I missed that.
Now I wonder, are you likewise willing to admit where you were wrong about the main debate point?
Or are you only worried about the small things, and not the big ones?
The funniest thing here is, I am *trying* to be positive about .NET here in this thread. But you folks have made the entire thread an attack on me. I think, looking back, I've been polite and honest. I've even been up-beat on .NET.
I think .NET is a good, new tech. Both Java and ASP.NET beats the heck out of the old ASP. C# is the best MS technology yet for web development.
But the interesting thing about the MS-only crowd is how they won't allow me to even qualify my support with caution. Their defensive reaction makes me think .NET may be in some trouble I'm unaware of. Salesmen who are confident in a product usually can't wait to talk your ear off giving you details about their product.
You can't have missed how they're attacking any suggestion that a brand new tech like .NET has issues. I haven't said one negative thing about .NET here in this thread, have I?
I do, indeed, feel Java is better. Is that opinion just not allowed in your world? I do feel that .NET is good. I've been very, very clear.
Is that just not pro-.NET enough for you? Is it necessary to be a complete cheerleader, in your mind?
I'm not here selling anything -- especially not my own brilliance. I'm here asking questions, and trying to encourage people to look into .NET.
They *are* here selling .NET, and as such are making promises about .NET that are unsubstantiated. I am only asking them *about* those promises, asking for some sort of subastatiation beyond press releases.
I'll be interested to see your response. I've been polite, honest and forthright. It appears you've been anything but, up until now.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 301-302 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson