.Net information

"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan" <former_mvp@spamfree.trigeminal.nospam.com> wrote:
>The original .NET announcement from MS has non-technical content but with
>virtually no semantic value... basically there is sharing, and dynamic,
>interactive web, and lots of XML.

Yes, but what's it FOR?

What is the one new type of application that could only be implemented in
.NET? What is it? Don't say "better" or "cool", or use any other vague, unsubstantiated
.NET promise. I'm looking for a good reason for adopting it.

So far, all I see is:

1. Big retraining needs.
2. Additional support requirements.
3. Developer buy-in.
4. Existing non-.NET applications incompatible.
5. Networks and infrastructure will have to be upgraded.
6. Drop in reliability until .NET Version 1 bedded in.
7. The changes will cost a lot of money.

So, there has to be a REALLY good reason to want to do this.

MM

>Yes, but what's it FOR?
>
>What is the one new type of application that could only be implemented in
>.NET? What is it? Don't say "better" or "cool", or use any other vague,
unsubstantiated
>.NET promise. I'm looking for a good reason for adopting it.
>
>So far, all I see is:
>
>1. Big retraining needs.
>2. Additional support requirements.
>3. Developer buy-in.
>4. Existing non-.NET applications incompatible.
>5. Networks and infrastructure will have to be upgraded.
>6. Drop in reliability until .NET Version 1 bedded in.
>7. The changes will cost a lot of money.
>
>So, there has to be a REALLY good reason to want to do this.
>
>MM
1. It makes some things much easier. If webservices alone acutually work
I could reduce my workload by at least 25%. I develope in a mac/pc world
(publishing). Internet deveopment is usefule but limiting. The real difficult
stuff such as complex business logic is done on the pc side. But there is
overlap. Reusing the logic from the ASP pages in the pc world is clunky.
Webservices, if done right, changes this.

2. Programmer flexibility. I work in a college town. It would be nice to
be able to get some help from the student but they mainly know c/c++. If
they could come in, take a week to learn the c# differences and then program
a couple of classes for us I could then extend them when needed. Or they
could extend the classes I have already made. This is also true of hiring
a contract programmer.

3. I can finally extend my classes!! Ok, I could always do this. In VB
it was not "real". In my company most code is and was in VB. Now I can
actually extend some base classes without referencing the .dll and writing
every call again. Or using the silly implements stuff. And if there is
a greate C# (or pearl or cobol...) class I find but I want to tweak it to
work within the unique enviroment of my company I just extend it. Whoo Hooo!!

4. Start from Main. I can't tell you how difficult it was for me to adjust
to the form_load() to determine the default starting point. Yea, starting
from main was an option but it wasn't the same. My first VB code is really
ugly since I went from the C++ and Jave training to the VB way of doing things.

All I can say to the die hard VB fans. Believe me, once you really start
doing OOP you will be happy little campers. It is just makes so much sense.
What I always loved about VB was the IDE. It made making .dlls and automation
servers easy. It hid the common but difficult stuff. As long as the IDE
still does this, but also gives me the option to do it the "hard way" I will
be happy.