Replies

For discussion purposes.

I do believe that in the long run, upgrading to .NET and C# is a must for anyone using current MS technologies.

For Java developers, it's an expensive step backwards, of course.

But if you're MS-only, in spite of the cost and pain, .NET is going to be a major step forward.

Once the bugs are worked out, once .NET server is finally released and then debugged, eventually .NET will be a net plus.

It's important for all developers to start looking into .NET now. Only by working with it can you know it's good and bad.

But if you're MS-only, in spite of the cost and pain, .NET is going to be a major step forward.

I agree.

They left Visual FoxPro out of .NET, which is a little troubling. But, VFP does work with Web Services, so we'll see.

More cost and pain from Microsoft. Oh well. .NET will be worth it this time.

Ari Bixhorn, Microsoft's product manager for Visual Basic.Net, disputed Gartner's conclusions. He said most conversions to .Net are about 95 percent error-free, meaning they can be completed at a cost much lower than what Gartner estimates.

That's a mighty tall claim there, pardner, considering the horse you rode in on.

Of course it would be a step backward for most Java developers, they're already using what works for them and what works for them probably isn't running on a Microsoft OS.
And of course there are going to be heavy costs related to switching. VB.NET is still very different from VB in many ways. C# is a new language. It would be almost as hard to go from Carbon to COCOA for MacOS X developers as it would be for Win32 developers to go to .NET. Totally new languages, totally new APIs.

The only problem with .NET is that Microsoft did not relinquish control of its patents to the W3C or some other organization as a show of good will to prove that they don't want to turn .NET into a trojan horse. What happens to the mono project 6 months to a 2 years from now when it is starting to get mature? How do they know that Microsoft won't exercise its IP "rights" and crush them through litigation and not the marketplace? Seriously, there are no benefits to using .NET right now if you aren't already stuck developing for Windows. IMO, .NET will probably just be a clean way to write Windows apps in such a way that the sophomore CS major intern code monkeys can understand. Not that that's a bad thing. That's still a major leap forward for Microsoft.

Remember that most companies who are looking at .NET and are using ASP REALLY need to upgrade to something better. (Anything is better!) So, J2EE or .NET? I'd say from ASP to ASP.NET using C# is a far shorter transition period that moving to Java, leveraging existing ASP knowledge.

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.

I just came off a two day conference on .Net. I left more than a little annoyed. Like the ADO scam, .Net is another MS scam attempting to force companies to revamp and upgrade all their MS software without delivering the huge step forward that justifies the cost. In 4 or 5 years the technology will probably be viable and useful but right now it's just bloated, slow and annoying.

It's important for all developers to start looking into .NET now. Only by working with it can you know it's good and bad.

I've done just that, sans .NET of course (through Mono). Developers must keep current no matter who makes paradigm shifts in languages. And I'm happy to say that I've quickly picked up C# since it's so close to both C++ (my proggie of choice) and Java. Now I guess I'll start tinkering with C++ .NET.

I am a computer consultant. I personally use a variety of PC's, Mac's and UNIX systems, although I do my mission critical work exclusively on Mac's and UNIX platforms. At least 2/3 of my income comes from work on Microsoft-based platforms. My remaining work comes mostly from UNIX Security setup and analysis and IT Management consulting. Since .Net will dramatically increase the need for outside consultants, such news from Gartner warms my heart. It means that I will probably be able to increase my rates from $140 per hour to $150 or even $175 per hour or more.

Thank you Microsoft.

The only problem with .Net is that my integrity will probably force me to recommend a solution to my clients that might mean much less business for me. After all, once you get them setup, networks based on Sun's and Mac's require little outside maintenance and upgrades are almost always quite painless. Fortunately, most corporate decision makers have bought thoroughly into the Microsoft propaganda and will not take such advice, so my increased income is probably assured.

That's why I like Microsoft so much. Every time they release a new product, they create more work for consultants, like me. They have convinced most of the world that problems are just a normal part of computing and, in doing so, have single-handedly created a booming IT Consulting industry, that would not exist if the Mac had become the standard.

Thank you Microsoft.