Welcome to Foxite.COM Community Weblog Sign in | Join | Help

Whither .NET - additional ramblings

Well, my little article on “Whither .NET” certainly prompted a variety of responses! I suppose it was to be expected that most of my regular readers are fellow FoxPro travelers and are probably pre-disposed to agree with my point of view. However what I found revealing was the comments from some people who obviously read something into my article that simply was not there.

Remember, I started out by saying that not only did I consider ASP .NET a huge leap forward, but that I could only see it getting better and that I, personally, am a big fan of the ASP .NET initiative. However, that is a very small and highly focused part of the humungous and unwieldy .NET environment that Microsoft is continuing to try to force us to accept.

Interestingly several comments refer to the fact that .NET is still “only at Version 2” and repeat the maxim that “it takes Microsoft 3 versions to get it right”. To me, this is a specious argument. As I understand it, in order for someone to sell something that product must be “of marketable quality and fit for the purpose intended” – I don’t ever recall seeing a caveat that excludes software in general, or Microsoft in particular, from this (legal) requirement…

Another response that appeared in various forms is that .NET is a more productive environment (some even claimed it was “easy to use” – I’d hate to see their idea of difficult) and that may even be true in some circumstances. However, as I said, when confronted with the issue of whether to throw away an existing proven set of tools in favor of a totally new and unfamiliar set there has to be some clear benefit. I can only repeat what I said in the original article:  My problem with .NET (in this context) is that I do not see anything that could possibly be construed as “new capabilities”. All I see is different ways of doing things that we can do already.

There was even one comment, you can find it if you want to read it in its entirety, that finished up with the admonition that I must “either get on board and benefit from the .NET momentum, or you'll be left in the dust in a few years (once Longhorn and other services will be available to .NET API's only)......”. I was so pleased to see this response! It felt that it totally vindicated my decision to post this article since it offered no refutation of any point that I made and even finished with a classical threat of impending doom. My only reply to this is that, apart from having no technical merit whatever, it makes three totally unsupported assumptions, namely that:

·         That Longhorn will be the first Microsoft product that does NOT require 3 versions and that immediately on the release of Longhorn all other operating systems and environments will be redundant and no-one will ever use anything else ever again

·         That customers and end-users will demand solutions developed on the Longhorn platform to the exclusion of all else

·         That .NET will be the only possible development environment for applications based on Longhorn

My fellow VFP developers, and latterly VB6 developers, can all attest to how likely it is that these assumptions are valid! Even now there are significant numbers of applications running on Win95 platforms, using DOS-based products and that platform has been ‘dead’ for several years!

Sure Longhorn, and the limitations that it imposes may become a significant factor – but not any time in the near future (my guess would be five years minimum). What’s interesting to me is that an alternate view of the Longhorn/ .NET linkage is that it is yet another attempt by Microsoft to lock developers into their own product range and to exclude anything else. If that view gains widespread acceptance then who knows? Longhorn may even flop!

I saw another really interesting article on the “success” of .NET – this time in the context of how Venture Capitalists view companies that are basing their future on .NET. Besides offering a different perspective on the issue, I believe it asks some significant questions. You can read the full article “Is .Net Failing to Draw Venture Capital Loyalty?” here:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1837730,00.asp

I urge you read the full article but here are a couple of quotes to whet your appetite –

·         “They (…venture capitalists) don't believe that Microsoft publishes the right numbers about .Net adoption”

·         "Now I think there are legitimate questions in the software development community about investing in .Net.—such as to what extent will there be overlap with Microsoft's own efforts and to what extent is Microsoft creating opportunities for others as opposed to creating opportunities for itself?"

·         “They (Microsoft) speak as if it (.NET) IS the right answer for everything, but are they an equally heavy internal user? They seem to speak with one voice, that .Net is the programming model, but  is SQL server written in .Net? What about Word? Excel? Windows? All of MSN…?

If only Microsoft would be satisfied with the widespread acceptance that ASP .NET is the way to go for Internet/Intranet (thin client) applications and stop trying to tell us that .NET is the ONLY tool set we should be using to develop any application, for any environment, then I would probably not be writing either the last, or this, article.

 

(Warning: It appears that posting comments on this (.NET based <g>) Blog is a little tricky. If you don't include the HIP code, or mis-type your E-Mail address so that it looks invalid your comment simply goes off into oblivion. I have taken to copying my text before posting the comment - just in case it doesn't “stick“. I am assured that this is being investigated but trust me, there is no censorship, by me, or anyone else, on this blog)

 

Published Monday, July 18, 2005 1:49 PM by andykr
Filed Under:

Comment Notification

If you would like to receive an email when updates are made to this post, please register here

Subscribe to this post's comments using RSS

Comments

# re: Whither .NET - additional ramblings

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 6:39 PM by MobyDikc
Hey Andy,

I responded to some of your comments at the Universal Thread. Perhaps you would be more comfortable addressing them here.

Andy wrote:

>If you read my comments closely you will see that my concern was, and is, the extent to which Microsoft are turning themselves into a one-product company.

They always have been a one-product company. Windows.

The .NET Framework, as far as I'm concerened, is the first step in a piece-meal approach to completely replacing the Windows API with something a little more modern.


>That is, in itself not necessarily a bad thing, assuming that .NET is the 'right' one product. My position is simply that it is not.

Do you think that after DDE, OLE, COM, COM+, and WinDNA that the win32api is a sustainable platform for five or ten years down the road?

If I were Microsoft, I wouldn't be resting my one-product strategy on an outdated, discombobulated, spaghetti patch-worked code base.

# re: Whither .NET - additional ramblings

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 6:59 PM by Andy Kramek
Hi Mike

I am sorry, clearly you were expecting a reply to your posting. The fact is that, as you know, I only visit the Universal Thread rarely and even more rarely participate. Whilst I did indeed see your posting there, it did not seem to need any response from me since I was merely stating my personal position and opinion and I interpreted your post as a similar statement rather than a direct question to me. However, since you insist:

>They always have been a one-product company. Windows

This is plainly nonsense. How would you characterize SQL Server, Office, BizTalk - and even .NET itself if not as "products"?

>The .NET Framework, as far as I'm concerened, is the first step in a piece-meal approach to completely replacing the Windows API with something a little more modern.

That is your opinion.

>Do you think that after DDE, OLE, COM, COM+, and WinDNA that the win32api is a sustainable platform for five or ten years down the road?

I have never considered the matter and so have no opinion.

> If I were Microsoft, I wouldn't be resting my one-product strategy on an outdated, discombobulated, spaghetti patch-worked code base

Again, you make your opinion clear, but as before I have no opinion and nothing sensible to add.

# re: Whither .NET - additional ramblings

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 8:25 PM by MobyDikc
Hey Andy,

>>The .NET Framework, as far as I'm concerened, is the first step in a piece-meal approach to completely replacing the Windows API with something a little more modern.

>That is your opinion.

I prefer to think of it as self-evident truth.

In your opinion:

Will the win32api need to be replaced?
When will it need to be replaced?
Logistically, how could you obsolete and replace the most widely adopted programming API in the world?

The answers that Microsoft came up with are quite simple and brilliant (which is why .NET's role in Microsoft's plans should be self-evident to anyone paying attention):

We'll introduce the libraries that will eventually become the win64api as a set of class libraries that currently run on win32api. We'll mature these class libraries as developers start to write applications that target these libraries instead of the win32api. In several years (between 5-10 years) when the libraries have evolved and their exists a siginifant catalog of applications, the win64api (the platform formerly known as .NET) will become the native API in a Windows product, leaving the win32api to be supported by emulation ontop of win64api.

And there you have it. A slow, gradual change to an object oriented, web oriented, security oriented, and 64bit oriented Windows API.

Without that milestone in Microsoft's sites, they are as good as bankrupt. They know that. I know that.

Why's that so hard to accept?

# re: Whither .NET - additional ramblings

Thursday, July 21, 2005 6:51 PM by Andy Kramek
Re:MobyDikc

>> I prefer to think of it as self-evident truth.

Which still doesn't make it anything more than your opinion. It is worth neither more, nor less, because of this statement.

>> Why's that so hard to accept?

I simply don't understand what any of this has to do with my thoughts as expressed here. I have already said that I have no opinion on the matters you raise. I confess that they are of little concern to me at the moment (you will presumably consider this a fault on my part, but that's how it is), and so I have no basis for an opinion one way or the other.

If you are seeking my agreement, I am afraid that you won't get it because I would have to investigate the topic before saying anything and I have neither the time, nor the interest to do so.

What's so hard to accept about the fact that I don't have an opinion?

# re: Whither .NET - additional ramblings

Friday, July 22, 2005 6:26 PM by MobyDikc
Hey Andy,

>What's so hard to accept about the fact that I don't have an opinion?

Because you expressed this opinion:

"If only Microsoft would be satisfied with the widespread acceptance that ASP .NET is the way to go for Internet/Intranet (thin client) applications and stop trying to tell us that .NET is the ONLY tool set we should be using to develop any application, for any environment, then I would probably not be writing either the last, or this, article."

If .NET were an application framework or an IDE, you would have a point, that Microsoft's insistence on this half cooked tool is detrimental to their customers.

But my argument is that is not what .NET is. My argument is that .NET is a half cooked platform, a prototype of what will eventually obsolete and replace the Win32 API.

If I'm right, and it seems to be a near certainty that I am, then the opinion you've expressed deserves to be recast in the new context.

# re: Whither .NET - additional ramblings

Saturday, July 23, 2005 5:41 AM by Joey Carroll
>>We'll introduce the libraries that will eventually become the win64api as a set of class libraries that currently run on win32api. We'll mature these class libraries as developers start to write applications that target these libraries instead of the win32api. In several years (between 5-10 years) when the libraries have evolved and their exists a siginifant catalog of applications, the win64api (the platform formerly known as .NET) will become the native API in a Windows product, leaving the win32api to be supported by emulation ontop of win64api.<<

There's certainly a lot of "We" in this post. Work for Microsoft, do you?

# re: Whither .NET - additional ramblings

Saturday, July 23, 2005 11:56 AM by Andy Kramek
Re: Joey Carroll:

I don't believe the author of those comments works for Microsoft, but you never know :-)

# re: Whither .NET - additional ramblings

Saturday, July 23, 2005 12:03 PM by Andy Kramek
Re: MobyDikc

>> If .NET were an application framework or an IDE, you would have a point

I am sorry, I may be missing the whole issue entirely but this is EXACTLY how I see .NET (and exactly how it is promoted) i.e. As the ONLY IDE and application framework to use for all forms of development.

QED!

It is your contention that it is something else - based on evidence that I have not considered or evaluated. On that contention, as I keep saying, I am not qualified to comment and I have no sensible opinion to offer.

# re: Whither .NET - additional ramblings

Monday, July 25, 2005 6:01 PM by MobyDikc
Well, they do promote VS.NET in a very aggresive way, which sends the message that it is the tool for development.

They also sell VFP and Access. Which sends the message "Hey, you can program in these too."

Andy wrote:

>I am sorry, I may be missing the whole issue entirely but this is EXACTLY how I see .NET (and exactly how it is promoted)

You're saying that Microsoft's promotion accurately reflects Microsoft's big picture for .NET?

I'm not gonna buy that.

What do you think?

(required) 
required 
(required)