Re: .NET SUCKS --- READ FOLLOWING. MICROSOFT IS A SUCKY CO

Hi

> First of all it is not my job to market or sell Microsoft technologies to
my
> employer, especially the technologies I believe to inferior to previous
ones.

Then why state this?

"It is becoming more and more difficult to convince employers to stay with
Microsoft technologies because of such decisions. "

> Same as I do not have problem moving to Linux, except that it is not
mature enough system.

So you do have a problem with moving to Linux? I dont understand why you
hold up Linux as though it were some kind of "contender" and then tell us
all it no good because it's incomplete. If you're trying to convince us that
the .Net sky is falling then you'll need to supply evidence that supports
the claim.

If you like the pain in making love to skeletons then you'll no doubt enjoy
developing within a Linux environment.

I belong to the diminishing population of programmers, who believe
> that programs should run better (faster, more reliable, more secure) as
> technology progresses,

This could be construed as being quite an arrogant kind of thing to say. Are
you suggesting that you are a member of a small elite group that knows
better and that only you and they know whats what? Id like to know who
besides yourself endorses that claim?

>not wise versa, and that we do not need supercomputer
> to run a word processor.

This is just exaggeration not a programming argument. If you were more
specific then people like Tyrant and Damien could offer specific and simple
remedy, as demonstrated above. When you make general claims like this its
sounds as if you dont want a solution and are happier with the supposed
problem.

>should understand that it is new "dll hell" in making

Q: Is it an improvement? A: Most definitely.

Can you supply a general example of .dll hell with .Net that was NOT a
problem with previous deployment scenarios. Have you asked for the answer to
this scenario in this newsgroup and not received an answer? I can show you
many in which .NET has been of enormous benefit in managing .DLL hell.

Any argument suggesting a incremental fix cannot be a value adding fix
doesn't know much about the concept of value.

And so in your opinion what "specifically" is the problem with .Net
deployment scenarios. It's not enough to say "dll hell". What specific
deployment scenario has .NET made impossible and/or worse. Have you
confirmed that the limit of what you know is the full and final fact?

> point. .Net will eventually go away as every other innovation from
Microsoft, the systems we are developing today will probably outlive it,
the only question will > they run on Windows

Yes. This is general consensus about almost every form of technology
currently in circulation today. Its called the Information Age. Everything
about everything will "eventually go away" at a steadily increasing rate. So
what's your point?

You generalise way to much to make your argument at all convincing. All
you've said there is that Microsoft doesn't have perfect visibility into the
technological future. To which i can only reply "well duh?".

>And am realy sorry to say this, but "committment to progression, growth,
adaption and
> innovation" programmers do not talk like this, marketing people do.

For most of us the functional decomposition of an enterprises human capital
is for the most part a theoretical excerise. Its not a good thing to only be
able to speak "programmer".

Given the average programmers shepard is the systems architect are you
suggesting you would follow a design plan that wasn't comitted to some form
of "progression, growth, adaption or innovation"

What's left to form the basis of any kind "team spirit". Whats your purpose?
What would you talk to a customer about if you ever met one? Number of
Floating point ops per second?

Sorry AAO but your position is based on nothing but sentiment.

Ian

"AAO" <AAO@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:44EBBD7E-3740-4ED0-B07C-F9FD2BDAB351@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


> And no Microsoft is not moving too fast for me, in my opinion it is moving
> backward. I had no problem to learn and use any of "depreciated" Microsoft
> technologies in last 15 years. No do I have problem using .Net, from
> technological perspective, it is not a brain surgery/rocket science. Same
as
> I do not have problem moving to Linux, except that it is not mature enough
> system. I belong to the diminishing population of programmers, who believe
> that programs should run better (faster, more reliable, more secure) as
> technology progresses, not wise versa, and that we do not need
supercomputer
> to run a word processor. I also believe that simplicity is better approach
in
> programming, and anybody who have implemented custom .Net channel should
> understand that it is new "dll hell" in making.
> Microsoft technological approach was always "erratic" that is almost a
plus
> not a problem. It is only starting 2001 that Microsoft actively
depreciates
> technologies, for no other reason, but marketing. And that was the whole
> point. .Net will eventually go away as every other innovation from
Microsoft,
> the systems we are developing today will probably outlive it, the only
> question will they run on Windows? As for ".peetered off into an
> unsubstantiated woffle there.", if I understand correctly you are accusing
me
> of just crying for no reason. Well there is probably some truth in that,
but
> also consider this: I have 2 workstations under my desk , one is WinXP
pro,
> the second one is Linux, I really, really would like to work on Windows
only,
> but can not make case for it because Linux really performs better in some
> areas (TCP) and Microsoft not doing anything about it (I guess all
resources
> spent on .Net), and there is a danger of Microsoft dropping support for
the
> technology we are using (and please lets not go into Mono). And am realy
> sorry to say this, but "committment to progression, growth, adaption and
> innovation" programmers do not talk like this, marketing people do.
>
>
> "Ian Evitable" wrote:
>
> > No sorry you've just peetered off into an unsubstantiated woffle there.
> > Tyrant and Damien have clearly refuted your earilier claim and you
"still"
> > dont want to hear it. If you cant keep up then go with a slower moving
> > technology.
> >
> > Your position is basically that Microsoft is moving too fast for you.
Its
> > actually backwards compliment to Microsoft, that a company of its size
can
> > move so quickly that some learned developers simply cant keep up.
> >
> > I suppose the next snipe from the "slow down" brigade is that Microsoft
is
> > not going too fast but is rather "erractic". That seemed to be what you
were
> > trying to insinuate by listing those various technologies as though you
were
> > confessing Microsfts sins.
> >
> > But again this is a complete oversight. Each of the technologies you "",
> > represent a progression from the previous "". Thats called evolution.
> >
> > That's called a committment to progression, growth, adaption and
innovation.
> > How could you possibly have trouble selling that message to your
employers?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "AAO" <AAO@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:9F4F70FC-181E-4489-8823-7ABD6381A514@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > In the past everything marked depreciated was removed in next release.
So
> > > when I see "sprintf depreciated" warning I assume VC9 will not support
it.
> > > Which forces me to search alternatives. As for employer convincing it
is
> > > Microsoft own doing. First "dlls are the best" then it is "dll hell",
then
> > > COM is the the only way to go - after "COM is dead", "VB almost as
fast" -
> > > "you have to rewrite it". Now new best thigh is .Net, for how long I
> > wonder.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Tyrant Mikey" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Okay, so YOU know all this stuff because you've been developing
since
> > > > before fire became "the next big thing." But what about the
> > > > inexperienced developer? Is it a bad attitide that drives Microsoft
to
> > > > ensure that potential security loopholes are documented so that new
> > > > developers without YOUR experience know what to watch out for? I
> > > > thought Microsoft did all that extra documentation as part of its
> > > > effort to increase the security of its operating systems and
> > > > development tools after a series of security vulnerabilities were
> > > > exploited by hackers. Since SP2, we've seen nothing but an
escalation
> > > > in the security of Windows, and the documentation for development
tools
> > > > has been expanded to warn users against potential loopholes. That's
a
> > > > GOOD thing, in my book. If you're taking offense to it, I suggest a
> > > > nice course in humility.
> > > >
> > > > Microsoft isn't deprecating sprintf. They're telling you that, if
not
> > > > properly used, it can open a security loophole in your application.
> > > > They go on to say that you should consider a different function that
> > > > does something similar, but without the security loophole; if that
> > > > function fails to meet your needs, and you're aware of the risks and
> > > > willing to accept them, go ahead and use sprintf. (That is,
generally,
> > > > what "consider using" means.) However, you should not that (1) they
> > > > aren't dropping it from the libraries and (2) no one is FORCING you
to
> > > > use anything. Your code will still compile.
> > > >
> > > > You seem to be making a very broad generalization, and one that is
> > > > based on speculation and not fact.
> > > >
> > > > If you're having difficulty convincing an employer to stay with
> > > > Microsoft because they think Microsoft is dropping support for ANSI
> > > > C++, you should have done one thing first: Either substantiate or
> > > > refute those claims with hard facts. You have NO facts to
substantiate
> > > > the claim that Microsoft is dropping support for ANSI C++. If your
> > > > employer thinks Microsoft is doing so, you need to find out where
they
> > > > heard that and whether or not it's true. Chances are, it's more
> > > > anti-Microsoft sentiment generated by people who dislike Microsoft
> > > > because they think it's cool to do so and makes them a rebel.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >



.

Relevant Pages

  • Xahs edu corner: on Microsoft hatred
    ... It is well known that you are an avid hater of Microsoft, ... I have not used MS Windows much until 1999, ... Although i think the unix crowd are ... any MS-bred technologies, but i knew quite a lot about unix. ...
    (comp.unix.programmer)
  • Re: In the Shallow End
    ... Microsoft is interested in buzzword-compliant, technically complex ... end-user experience. ... specifying and implementing elaborate technologies, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • The future of various DB connection technologies and related technoloies
    ... Obsolete Data Access Technologies ... When you modify existing applications that are written ... THIS API CAN BE USED FROM MICROSOFT VISUAL BASIC®, ... * ADO: ACTIVEX DATA OBJECTS PROVIDES A HIGH-LEVEL PROGRAMMING ...
    (comp.databases.ms-access)
  • Re: Information Technologies Graduate Program
    ... finger tips. ... I like Microsoft trainings or certificates because they gear you to the ... If you are into java stuff, ... provided certification in their technologies. ...
    (soc.culture.laos)
  • Re: Why to use VBA?
    ... Does VBA language any special benefit that still is used by MS in Office Applications such as Word, Access, ...? ... These technologies were there before .NET came along. ... If Microsoft were to rewrite Office using the .NET platfrm instead of the ActiveX platform it uses now, they would probably be 4 years doing the rewrite with no features added. ... While the generated code is often not very good, it can often serve as a useful starting point even for experienced programmers in seeing which parts of the object model need to be used to execute a particular task. ...
    (microsoft.public.word.vba.general)
Loading