Re: Any .Net controls you'd recommend?
- From: "Jim Hubbard" <Jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 21:46:54 -0500
"Mike" <vimakefile@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23Xrq3a69FHA.1288@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Jim Hubbard" <Jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:Pa5kf.11375$wi2.3756@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> "Miguel Arenas" <MiguelArenas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:A603461B-365D-460E-8EEF-92DC28B5C658@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> http://www.infragistics.com
>>
>> These guys have ruled for years. They really have their act together.
>>
>> Now, if they only made a development language........
>
> Okay - damn, I'll bite...
> What's your deal with C# and .Net?
No problem with C#. I am not a C/C++/C# programmer......never liked the
syntax. Just a personal thing.
As far as .Net......IMHO, it was an answer to JAVA, it consolidated
Microsoft resources to (mostly) a single set of classes instead of 4/5
development languages and it fit their idea of software-as-a-service.
What is did NOT do, is give us a way to write code that can't easily be
copied by a competitor (unless you leave your code on the server - as
Microsoft is planning on doing).
It did NOT solve DLL Hell (which never existed anyway), but gave us .Net
Version Hell as it's bigger, badder, more pissed off brother. Have you seen
the patches over at KBAlertz for 1.1? First, you have to CALL Microsoft to
get most of them - WTF is that about and who has time for it? Then, if you
patch your .Net framework, you have to patch your customers'.....breaking
work arounds for God-only-knows how many other developers.
It did NOT continue the tradition of allowing part-time-programmers (which
is the largest group of programmers by a long shot) to keep developing
applications in a RAD way like VB6. Most business applications are started
by part-time-programmers.....make that "WERE stareted...".
It did NOT continue the time-honored VB tradition of forward compatability.
Ever try and port a VB 6 enterprise app to VB.Net? You're better off
re-writing the whole thing. So, there goes the savings in time Microsoft
crowed about.....it just isn't there if you have to re-write most of your
apps.
It DID increase the size of required runtimes from just over 1 MB to 25 MB -
screwing up downloadable applications for approx 50% of US users who are
still on dialup (because DSL or cable just hasn't reached them yet). And
just why is the .Net runtime an optional download? This is the basket
Microsoft has tossed all of its eggs into.....why wouldn;t you push it to
every desktop? Better yet, just as your .Net app can do on its own, why not
have the ,Net executables only dl the parts of the .Net runtime that they
need from MS servers before running? It would reduce the size of
distributed apps and save downloading the whole 25MB mess at once for those
unfortunate 50% of Microsoft customers on dialup.
It DID alienate the world's largest programmer base. That's why they either
quit developing (which most of the part-time-programmers did) or moved to C#
or to an entire other language like REALbasic.
I could go on.....but why? Microsoft isn't gonna listen to me now anymore
than they listened to actual VB developers before they stabbed them in the
backs when they forced VB.Net on them.
It's like when a government screws up......they simply ignore the questions
and act like everything is OK. The people adjust.....only because they HAVE
to. Had they another choice, they'd make it.
>I was programming with VB before it was publically available up until C#
>was released, and IMHO I think C# and .Net is a huge step forward in just
>about every direction.
(See above)
>90% of VB controls were shovel-ware -- mostly wrappers around Win32 that
>you don't need anymore (or never needed) because most of it is in the
>framework now in a nicer form.
Actually, they were needed. The majority of VB programmers were not
programmers by trade. They programmed to make their trade better. They
were part-time-programmers who's primary work was not programming, but
having an easy-to-use language like VB6 (with tomns of drag and drop
controls) allowed them to write code that made their primary jobs easier -
and even resulted in widely distributed apps in many cases. Not so with
VB.Net's first 2 iterations.
>The forementioned controls in this thread (and others) are great - well
>beyond what was available in VB. VB was cool, for sure, and still has a
>little ease-of-use over VS2003/5, but I think the tradeoffs are really
>worth it. (Of course, I'm complaining about (lacking) .Net2.0/1.1 interop
>on another thread, but you wouldn't expect a VB program to run with the
>wrong copy of VBRUN.DLL or VB to produce code for a previous runttime
>either - but I expect more now...)
Again....see above and hope that another developer continues to write
work-arounds in the framework instead of patching it.
.
- References:
- Any .Net controls you'd recommend?
- From: Jim Hubbard
- Re: Any .Net controls you'd recommend?
- From: Jim Hubbard
- Re: Any .Net controls you'd recommend?
- From: Mike
- Any .Net controls you'd recommend?
- Prev by Date: RE: Breaking changes in .Net 2.0 - Something missing
- Next by Date: RE: C# control in MFC Window/Frame
- Previous by thread: Re: Any .Net controls you'd recommend?
- Next by thread: Re: Any .Net controls you'd recommend?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
