Re: DotNet is behind where we were with VB, about a dozen years ago
- From: "Kevin Spencer" <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:21:24 -0500
>I disagree a bit with the post that programming has been "dumbed down" with
>.NET.
I must admit, that remark is very odd to me as well. In all my experience,
I've never had to work so hard or study so much, as when I got involved with
..Net. I've been working with it for 4 years now, and am only comfortable
with about half of it. And I'm no dummy. Of course, I do quite a variety of
projects.
--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Complex things are made up of
Lots of simple things.
"Pete Davis" <pdavis68@[nospam]hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:U9-dnSlJ18kPA-nenZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>I disagree a bit with the post that programming has been "dumbed down" with
>.NET. Sure, I can develop code faster, and maybe the entry bar has been set
>a little lower, but to write a good, professional application, takes quite
>a bit more skill and experience than writing a simple "Hello World" app.
>And when it comes to making moeny doing it, you need the skill and
>experience to provide professional quality.
>
> As for the browser side, I haven't done much, but I've seen severeal
> "rich" applications on the web. If you know anything about AJAX, you know
> it's possible. It also takes a lot of the aforementioned skill and
> experience since it uses several different technologies together to
> provide that "rich" experience. Now that AJAX is gaining in popularity, I
> suspect we'll be seeing more and more of them.
>
> Pete
>
> "JustObserviing TMH MVP" <please@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:d8p8n15i6esvo3djb64ilunheeuh8a1vvv@xxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> I know I'm asking for a flamewar, and I really don't mean to because I
>> love programming in C# and VB.Net almost equally, just as I enjoyed
>> C++ 13 years ago and COBOL and Pascal 4 years before that.
>>
>> Now that you know my programming history in its entirety :)... please
>> bear with me and read on.
>>
>> As a group of programmers, striving to make progress, we have gone
>> absolutely no where. The questions I see posted here in this
>> newsgroup are valid in the sense that all of us, including myself, are
>> trying to figure out "how do I do this" or "why doesnt this work" in
>> .Net.
>>
>> There is a fundamental flaw here, one that needs to be pointed out, if
>> only for posterity.
>>
>> And that is... we are splitting hairs over the wrong things. Its not
>> even a Microsoft vs Java or Flash or competing technology problem.
>>
>> The ubiquitous WEB got us started. Suddenly in 1995 or so,
>> everything needed to be a web app that was centrally deployed and
>> available everywhere. There was a problem. Web apps were based on
>> HTML and CGI, which was a bunch of unstructured GOTOs, masquerading as
>> "links". People loved the concept of "links"... Because as long as
>> you were braindead you were capable of putting your mouse over a link
>> and clicking it, and magically it would take you somewhere. It was
>> accessible to anyone, even the mentally disabled, as some prominent
>> industry observers have noted, "especially the mentally disabled".
>>
>> An overnight hero was born. A new breed of newcomers to the
>> information technology field came along, with HTML on their brain.
>> They believed that if end users should see it, it must be rendered in
>> HTML. The problem here is that HTML is suited for the web, and web
>> browsers, and that's wonderful for people who are browsing.
>>
>> But as a development platform, a web BROWSER, which is suited for
>> browsing (page flipping), HTML is not a particularly "rich"
>> environment. Oh, the average consumer will tell you HTML is "rich".
>> Because as long as they see graphics, pictures... pretty, pretty
>> pictures... with gradients and pretty fonts. They will prefer HTML
>> over raw text. Its human nature. On its own, the porn industry has
>> probably lured more "end users" (as we used to call them) into the
>> observation of modern software than any other application ever created
>> (except perhaps the web browser, which Microsoft didn't even but
>> appears to have standardized).
>>
>> Lets talk about end users for moment. End users deserve the most
>> readable, the most cosmetically appealing solution available. If that
>> last sentence sounds like a marketing statement, it should. Because
>> as developers, if we do not provide the end users the most compelling
>> solution available, its inevitable thatanother vendor will.
>>
>> That is our challenge. If you want to succeed in software development
>> as a career path, you really..... and I mean REALLY...... need to
>> understand the challenges you face.
>>
>> Personally, I keep hearing from Microsoft that various SmartClient
>> "over the web" technologies will solve this for us, and I hope its
>> true.
>>
>> But if the evolving base of programmers gets progressively stupider,
>> as it appears to have become with offshoring and the current u.s.
>> administration, then all of us who love to program are in trouble.
>>
>> From a technology standpoint, we are about 10 years behind VB6 and COM
>> and striving to see who can go backwards further.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
.
- References:
- Re: DotNet is behind where we were with VB, about a dozen years ago
- From: Pete Davis
- Re: DotNet is behind where we were with VB, about a dozen years ago
- Prev by Date: Re: VS 2003 to VS 2005 problems
- Next by Date: Re: Serialization/Deserialization
- Previous by thread: Re: DotNet is behind where we were with VB, about a dozen years ago
- Next by thread: Re: DotNet is behind where we were with VB, about a dozen years ago
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
