> You really do need a good answer to this question, but I'm under > deadline on a couple of projects, and might not get back to this right > away, but here's a nutshell answer you can take potshots at:
Thanks for responding. > Windows development should have plowed ahead with VB 7, 8, and 9. > ASP.NET should have been released as ASP2 to give web developers a > chance to keep up with the other web development stuff while MSFT > reprised the learning curve of developing .NET into a stable, mature > and powerful framework. What would be in VB7,8,9 and what would ASP2 do? VB6 and ASP code still work today and many important applications are written with them. Both VB6 and ASP/VBScript have major fundamental problems, and simply adding on more and more onto this would have made it even more of a mess. Just look at VFP9's property sheet...... > It was enormous gaul on the part of MS to cut > off the majority of its (customer's) toolkit and replace it with a 1.0 > product. It showed a lack of appreciation for what real developers > (and by that I mean you and I) do with MS' tools in the field. It > showed a lack of respect and understanding for the crafts of > programming and application development. > > MS should have sucked it up and run .NET in parallel to its offerings, > like Sprite and Coke, and learned from its customers what the adoption > curve should be. No one was forced to move to .NET. .NET is at 3.0 now-- 5+ years later. VFP is still supported, and I believe ASP and VB6 still are(even if they're not, they're extensively used even today). I personally see their strategy as exactly what you discuss-- running in parallel. They simply didn't dedicated considerable new-development resources/releases to their old legacy products/technologies(except VFP)-- they DID, however, make sure they still worked... > > Have you looked at .NET? > > Nearly five years ago, a few of us hung out in Redmond and discussed > it in some depth: > > http://www.tedroche.com/images/RedmondJuly2002.jpg Excellent. They released 2.0 and 3.0 since.... > >For once, access to core libraries are > > somewhat standardized versus the mish-mash of win32 API's that we have > > dealt with for years. > Unquestionably, great goals, good design, and fair implementation for > a first, second and third try, so far. They're getting towards a great > product. 'try'? That implies that they started fresh each time... Rather, .NET 2.0 enhanced 1.0, and .NET 3.0 enhanced 2.0. Yes, some small misc. things got dropped with new versions. Development works this way-- 1.0, 2.0, 3.0. Releasing a new version isn't a failure, as "first, second, and third try" implies... > > Please, tell me where the setback is and > The setback is that huge amounts of time and effort have been spent on > learning MS' beta. Now that the production version is within sight, > the slideshows that Microsoft subjected us to in DevCon Miami (in > 2000!) are pretty irrelevant. Much of what people learned for .NET 1.0 is still relevent with 2.0 and 3.0 today. Basics and specifics. Sure, more has been added, and a small portion taken away, but the general structures are still there-- with some new ones added on, such as Master Pages for asp.net in 2.0 and LINQ in 3.0. > > where we SHOULD be going > > today(in 'Windows development' as you put it)? > That's the question that started this thread, isn't it? "Where do you > want to go today?" (tm) I want to go to a place where I don't have to worry about bills-- where I have enough money that I work only when/because I want to, and not because I have to. I see the path to that is far more likely going towards Microsoft versus Linux. If I cared purely about living free and making the world a better place(yet working 'till 80 'cause I have to), I might choose Linux... -- Derek _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
