Re: DotNet is behind where we were with VB, about a dozen years ago
- From: "Kevin Spencer" <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:18:54 -0500
I hope you feel better, because I didn't see much of anything in your
message to reply to. It seemed like a rather long and disjointed rant,
followed up with a conclusion that was not supported by anything in the
rant, or explained in any way, simply an outburst of some opinion that
didn't seem to make any sense in context, laced with emotion.
But again, if it made you feel better, I'm all for it!
--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Complex things are made up of
Lots of simple things.
"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.
>
>
>
.
- Prev by Date: Re: HttpWebResponse Transfer-Encoding chunked - how to read trailers?
- Next by Date: Re: VS 2003 to VS 2005 problems
- 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
|
