Comments on: The Latest .NET, a Brilliant Strategy http://truckingnerd.com/index.php/2007/11/22/the-latest-net-a-brilliant-strategy/ A technology evangelist's adventures in the trucking industry. Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:04:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: XBAP - Write Once, Deploy Everywhere | The Trucking Nerd http://truckingnerd.com/index.php/2007/11/22/the-latest-net-a-brilliant-strategy/#comment-67 XBAP - Write Once, Deploy Everywhere | The Trucking Nerd Tue, 04 Dec 2007 04:48:19 +0000 http://truckingnerd.com/index.php/2007/11/22/the-latest-net-a-brilliant-strategy/#comment-67 [...] my earlier post regarding the new release of the .NET 3.5 Framework and Visual Studio 2008, I mentioned a very [...] [...] my earlier post regarding the new release of the .NET 3.5 Framework and Visual Studio 2008, I mentioned a very [...]

]]> By: Doc http://truckingnerd.com/index.php/2007/11/22/the-latest-net-a-brilliant-strategy/#comment-60 Doc Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:20:14 +0000 http://truckingnerd.com/index.php/2007/11/22/the-latest-net-a-brilliant-strategy/#comment-60 I was using V2.0 of the .NET runtime, and like I said, it worked well enough for my needs (although there was some issue with performing a join between two tables I had retrieved into a ??? object). My VB-related problems were back in the pre-.NET days (and before they allowed easy access to the win32 system functions). I did think it was encouraging that they finally seemed to "get" OOP; a lot of their previous stuff was clearly intended for procedural programming (passing objects to functions instead of calling methods on the objects themselves, stuff like that). I was using V2.0 of the .NET runtime, and like I said, it worked well enough for my needs (although there was some issue with performing a join between two tables I had retrieved into a ??? object). My VB-related problems were back in the pre-.NET days (and before they allowed easy access to the win32 system functions). I did think it was encouraging that they finally seemed to “get” OOP; a lot of their previous stuff was clearly intended for procedural programming (passing objects to functions instead of calling methods on the objects themselves, stuff like that).

]]> By: Becker http://truckingnerd.com/index.php/2007/11/22/the-latest-net-a-brilliant-strategy/#comment-59 Becker Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:15:56 +0000 http://truckingnerd.com/index.php/2007/11/22/the-latest-net-a-brilliant-strategy/#comment-59 Rob, like I said to Fred, if it is simple and works, it's good enough for me...so far MS has been able to backup all the fluff with solid products. Actually in my consulting days, before entering the SMB arena, I used to be a non-MS guy, running linux, oracle, mysql, php and all the other popular non MS solutions. MS is making some relatively inexpensive products that work nicely for the SMB arena, so I have slowly been won over. So for now, I guess I'm going to keep on drinking the cool aide. Rob, like I said to Fred, if it is simple and works, it’s good enough for me…so far MS has been able to backup all the fluff with solid products. Actually in my consulting days, before entering the SMB arena, I used to be a non-MS guy, running linux, oracle, mysql, php and all the other popular non MS solutions. MS is making some relatively inexpensive products that work nicely for the SMB arena, so I have slowly been won over. So for now, I guess I’m going to keep on drinking the cool aide.

]]> By: Rob http://truckingnerd.com/index.php/2007/11/22/the-latest-net-a-brilliant-strategy/#comment-57 Rob Wed, 28 Nov 2007 04:10:39 +0000 http://truckingnerd.com/index.php/2007/11/22/the-latest-net-a-brilliant-strategy/#comment-57 Yeah, I used to drink the MS marketing Cool Aide too, now I know better. This is all typical MS marketing speak... the more things change the more they stay the same. Yeah, I used to drink the MS marketing Cool Aide too, now I know better. This is all typical MS marketing speak… the more things change the more they stay the same.

]]> By: Becker http://truckingnerd.com/index.php/2007/11/22/the-latest-net-a-brilliant-strategy/#comment-56 Becker Wed, 28 Nov 2007 02:58:58 +0000 http://truckingnerd.com/index.php/2007/11/22/the-latest-net-a-brilliant-strategy/#comment-56 Doc, what version of .NET were you experimenting with? It has come a long ways since the days of 1.0 and 1.1. I think you need to re-evaluate, there is nothing short of amazing of the ease and flexibility of the latest framework, it's worth checking out...i think you'll agree. Doc, what version of .NET were you experimenting with? It has come a long ways since the days of 1.0 and 1.1. I think you need to re-evaluate, there is nothing short of amazing of the ease and flexibility of the latest framework, it’s worth checking out…i think you’ll agree.

]]> By: Carlsbad Home Insurance Quotes http://truckingnerd.com/index.php/2007/11/22/the-latest-net-a-brilliant-strategy/#comment-55 Carlsbad Home Insurance Quotes Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:58:34 +0000 http://truckingnerd.com/index.php/2007/11/22/the-latest-net-a-brilliant-strategy/#comment-55 Hi there! Found your blog on yahoo while searching for Carlsbad Home Insurance Quotes - quite some good info thanks, J.Sanders Hi there! Found your blog on yahoo while searching for Carlsbad Home Insurance Quotes – quite some good info thanks, J.Sanders

]]> By: Doc http://truckingnerd.com/index.php/2007/11/22/the-latest-net-a-brilliant-strategy/#comment-54 Doc Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:49:09 +0000 http://truckingnerd.com/index.php/2007/11/22/the-latest-net-a-brilliant-strategy/#comment-54 I'd be a little concerned if I was a .NET developer. If .NET abstracts <em>everything</em> out that isn't part of the business requirements, then you're constrained to whatever .NET says is your requirements. What if you need to use a protocol that .NET doesn't handle? Is there some sort of plug-in framework for protocol handlers (probably, this isn't a real-world example)? And assuming that .NET is extensible, how much work is it? Will you have to purchase what you need from a specialty company, because the coding is just too hairy? Just curious. I used .NET briefly for a small project, and it was fine for my needs, but I got into a couple of situations back in my VB days when VB couldn't do what I needed, and I wound up spending a <em>lot</em> of time writing around its deficiencies. I’d be a little concerned if I was a .NET developer. If .NET abstracts everything out that isn’t part of the business requirements, then you’re constrained to whatever .NET says is your requirements. What if you need to use a protocol that .NET doesn’t handle? Is there some sort of plug-in framework for protocol handlers (probably, this isn’t a real-world example)? And assuming that .NET is extensible, how much work is it? Will you have to purchase what you need from a specialty company, because the coding is just too hairy?

Just curious. I used .NET briefly for a small project, and it was fine for my needs, but I got into a couple of situations back in my VB days when VB couldn’t do what I needed, and I wound up spending a lot of time writing around its deficiencies.

]]> By: OJ http://truckingnerd.com/index.php/2007/11/22/the-latest-net-a-brilliant-strategy/#comment-53 OJ Sun, 25 Nov 2007 22:23:36 +0000 http://truckingnerd.com/index.php/2007/11/22/the-latest-net-a-brilliant-strategy/#comment-53 fred: Doomed? Are you kidding? If it's not too changeant/erratic then it's "stagnant and losing touch". It's never too late to come up with a new technology that's designed to make it easier to solve problems. As developers it's our job to create such technology. So why do you think .NET is too late? Too late for what? Too late for you perhaps, but not too late for many others. Utilising a layer of abstraction to make certain jobs easier doesn't mean you don't "care" about a protocol or how it works under the hood. Let's not jump to conclusions. People will always have negative things to say about a technology they don't like (or don't understand) regardless of the timing of its release and the rate in which the language is maintained/modified/updated. fred: Doomed? Are you kidding?

If it’s not too changeant/erratic then it’s “stagnant and losing touch”.
It’s never too late to come up with a new technology that’s designed to make it easier to solve problems. As developers it’s our job to create such technology. So why do you think .NET is too late? Too late for what? Too late for you perhaps, but not too late for many others.

Utilising a layer of abstraction to make certain jobs easier doesn’t mean you don’t “care” about a protocol or how it works under the hood. Let’s not jump to conclusions.

People will always have negative things to say about a technology they don’t like (or don’t understand) regardless of the timing of its release and the rate in which the language is maintained/modified/updated.

]]> By: Becker http://truckingnerd.com/index.php/2007/11/22/the-latest-net-a-brilliant-strategy/#comment-47 Becker Sun, 25 Nov 2007 18:48:00 +0000 http://truckingnerd.com/index.php/2007/11/22/the-latest-net-a-brilliant-strategy/#comment-47 Fred, if .NET is doomed, what language(s) do you think will prevail? I can't say that I agree with many of your points, but nonetheless respect your opinion and appreciate your comment. You are right in the fact that I do live in the world of "quick and dirty" code as you state. It's the reality of the constraints of time and limited resources which I live, not so uncommon in the small to medium business arena, particularly in many trucking shops. I have to produce solutions on a slim budget, little manpower, tight time constraints and across a variety of systems...so in my world, the simpler the better. I'll take the single codeline which meets my 80% need and tweak it from there. Unlike you, I honestly don't care about all the specificities across protocols. If I can get it to work and it meet's the business requirements, I move on, I don't have time to noodle around the world of theoretical pefectness. Honestly, if I did, I'd probably be bored out of my mind :) Fred, if .NET is doomed, what language(s) do you think will prevail? I can’t say that I agree with many of your points, but nonetheless respect your opinion and appreciate your comment.

You are right in the fact that I do live in the world of “quick and dirty” code as you state. It’s the reality of the constraints of time and limited resources which I live, not so uncommon in the small to medium business arena, particularly in many trucking shops.

I have to produce solutions on a slim budget, little manpower, tight time constraints and across a variety of systems…so in my world, the simpler the better. I’ll take the single codeline which meets my 80% need and tweak it from there.

Unlike you, I honestly don’t care about all the specificities across protocols. If I can get it to work and it meet’s the business requirements, I move on, I don’t have time to noodle around the world of theoretical pefectness. Honestly, if I did, I’d probably be bored out of my mind :)

]]> By: fred http://truckingnerd.com/index.php/2007/11/22/the-latest-net-a-brilliant-strategy/#comment-46 fred Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:37:41 +0000 http://truckingnerd.com/index.php/2007/11/22/the-latest-net-a-brilliant-strategy/#comment-46 Mhhh. well, it is brilliant because they decided to make APIS? I quite don't understand your reasonning. There is nothing new here. Seperate configuration from logic is a great way to... mess and problems. Sure, if you want to make quick and dirty code with no proper handling of errors/mistakes/ and want users to tweak a ini file to use your program i wish you courage in getting where unix and linux were born are still floating. (mud and dirt, that is) Not caring of the protocol is not caring for each protocol's specificities and in the end not caring for quality of your software. Don't expect any API to act and react correctly for everyone. A single code can't fit all. With the description you gave, imho, .net is doomed. Too changeant, too erratic, too late, not needed except maybe for beauty of competition.... Mhhh. well, it is brilliant because they decided to make APIS?
I quite don’t understand your reasonning. There is nothing new here.

Seperate configuration from logic is a great way to… mess and problems.
Sure, if you want to make quick and dirty code with no proper handling of errors/mistakes/ and want users to tweak a ini file to use your program i wish you courage in getting where unix and linux were born are still floating. (mud and dirt, that is)

Not caring of the protocol is not caring for each protocol’s specificities and in the end not caring for quality of your software.
Don’t expect any API to act and react correctly for everyone. A single code can’t fit all.

With the description you gave, imho, .net is doomed. Too changeant, too erratic, too late, not needed except maybe for beauty of competition….

]]> By: Becker http://truckingnerd.com/index.php/2007/11/22/the-latest-net-a-brilliant-strategy/#comment-42 Becker Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:19:16 +0000 http://truckingnerd.com/index.php/2007/11/22/the-latest-net-a-brilliant-strategy/#comment-42 Daniel, please feel free to drop me a line if you have specific points mentioned here you need more information on, I'll be happy to see if I can point you in the right direction! Daniel, please feel free to drop me a line if you have specific points mentioned here you need more information on, I’ll be happy to see if I can point you in the right direction!

]]> By: Daniel http://truckingnerd.com/index.php/2007/11/22/the-latest-net-a-brilliant-strategy/#comment-41 Daniel Fri, 23 Nov 2007 07:26:15 +0000 http://truckingnerd.com/index.php/2007/11/22/the-latest-net-a-brilliant-strategy/#comment-41 I couldn't understand some parts of this article nnial 2007 - salvatore iaconesi - del.icio.us poetry, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting. I couldn’t understand some parts of this article nnial 2007 – salvatore iaconesi – del.icio.us poetry, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.

]]>