RE: More on cross-platform development

[Ian Thomas]

Greg

A recent experience with a simple Android application (tablet) was that much
of the real grunt work has to be done on Windows (it could be another
desktop application), and the inter-communication between the platforms
becomes important. Depending on the immediacy required, "The Cloud" can be
useful. 

In my case, the Android application was a relatively simple (and
touch-oriented) data collection thing, but the data collation, organization,
visualization etc does require the larger screen and more capable coding. It
would be horrible to have those functions trivialized to touch simplicity,
yet having to be as capable as a desktop application can be. 

I shudder to think that 'consumer / user demand' will drive complex
applications to less-than-capable environments. I don't think it will
happen. 

I guess there is a place for a "TV and Celebrity iPad app
 " that surveys the IMDb website
  and screen-scrapes it for the most popular movies in
the USA this week (and other trivial information), but personally I would
rather look at the IMDb website itself and absorb its information in a less
superficial fashion. 

As a side issue, isn't Silverlight out the door now? 

  _  

Ian Thomas
Victoria Park, Western Australia

 

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com]
On Behalf Of Greg Keogh
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 11:30 AM
To: ozDotNet
Subject: More on cross-platform development

 

A few months ago I posted a question in here for general advice about
cross-platform development for Windows, Android, iPad and iPhone. I asked on
behalf of a colleague who has a mature sophisticated Windows desktop app and
a simplified Silverlight 4 version. The same chap rang me yesterday in a bit
of a panic as his marketing guys are now getting pressured about versions of
the app on various phones and tablets. Based upon the earlier replies from
here and what my friend has been studying it looks like cross-platform
development is getting steadily more complicated. I'd like to throw our
current impressions out and see if I'm on the right track...

In summary, it looks like we use HTML5 to share a codebase, or we go native
on each device.

The former means that the apps will be crippled because HTML5 just can't
reproduce the rich UI of GDI/WPF or Silverlight, and we'd need staff with a
totally new skillset. The latter means multiple teams with different code
and specialist skillsets, which is potentially very complex and expensive.

Apple have banned VMs and interpreters from their OSs (or is it simply
browser plugins?), rumour has it to kill off Flash, but .NET and Silverlight
seem to be collateral casualties. Is it true that Silverlight has no hope in
the Apple world?

I fear that the Silverlight version of our app is doomed to die at an early
age because it can only be seen in the ever-shrinking world of the desktop
web browser. Years of Silverlight development may be wasted.

Not only is there coding confusion about using ObjectC, Java, C#,
HTML/Javascript, etc, there are marketing problems about the functionality
of the apps on different devices. The Windows desktop app is very
sophisticated, but the versions for phones and tablets would have to be
seriously dumbed-down to be touch friendly. Even the Metro version would be
utterly incapable of expressing the full app functionality. We now have the
nightmare of managing not only different codebases and developer teams, but
mutiple versions of the app with various functionality.

Anyway, you get the idea. There must be other people in here who are going
through this multi-platform conundrum in the new phone and tablet world.
What ever happened to the promise that software development would get easier
as languages and platforms converged? Remember the promise that VMs like
Java and .NET would make our lives easier? It looks like different huge
companies have betrayed us and are forcing us to use their platforms for
their own greedy profit. That leaves the developers and the marketing people
bewildered without a clear path, and it's happening around me now.

Greg

RE: More on cross-platform development

[Rob Andrew]

Greg,Have you looked at something like DXTreme from DevExpress? Might not be suitable for your existing applications - but I have been looking at it for some future work. Whether it works to a sufficient level or not is unclear, but I like the idea behind it. Agree with Ian around dumb-down approaches on the 'simpler' environments.Rob- Original Message -
From: Ian Thomas [mailto:il.tho...@iinet.net.au]
To: ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com
Sent: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 12:00:39 +0800
Subject: RE: More on cross-platform development
GregA recent experience with a simple Android application (tablet) was that much of the real grunt work has to be done on Windows (it could be another desktop application), and the inter-communication between the platforms becomes important. Depending on the immediacy required, ?The Cloud? can be useful. In my case, the Android application was a relatively simple (and touch-oriented) data collection thing, but the data collation, organization, visualization etc does require the larger screen and more capable coding. It would be horrible to have those functions trivialized to touch simplicity, yet having to be as capable as a desktop application can be. I shudder to think that ?consumer / user demand? will drive complex applications to less-than-capable environments. I don?t think it will happen. I guess there is a place for a ?TV and Celebrity iPad app? that surveys the IMDb website and screen-scrapes it for the most popular movies in the USA this week (and other trivial information), but personally I would rather look at the IMDb website itself and absorb its information in a less superficial fashion. As a side issue, isn?t Silverlight out the door now? Ian ThomasVictoria Park, Western Australia From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of Greg KeoghSent: Friday, January 04, 2013 11:30 AMTo: ozDotNetSubject: More on cross-platform development A few months ago I posted a question in here for general advice about cross-platform development for Windows, Android, iPad and iPhone. I asked on behalf of a colleague who has a mature sophisticated Windows desktop app and a simplified Silverlight 4 version. The same chap rang me yesterday in a bit of a panic as his marketing guys are now getting pressured about versions of the app on various phones and tablets. Based upon the earlier replies from here and what my friend has been studying it looks like cross-platform development is getting steadily more complicated. I'd like to throw our current impressions out and see if I'm on the right track...In summary, it looks like we use HTML5 to share a codebase, or we go native on each device.The former means that the apps will be crippled because HTML5 just can't reproduce the rich UI of GDI/WPF or Silverlight, and we'd need staff with a totally new skillset. The latter means multiple teams with different code and specialist skillsets, which is potentially very complex and expensive.Apple have banned VMs and interpreters from their OSs (or is it simply browser plugins?), rumour has it to kill off Flash, but .NET and Silverlight seem to be collateral casualties. Is it true that Silverlight has no hope in the Apple world?I fear that the Silverlight version of our app is doomed to die at an early age because it can only be seen in the ever-shrinking world of the desktop web browser. Years of Silverlight development may be wasted.Not only is there coding confusion about using ObjectC, Java, C#, HTML/_javascript_, etc, there are marketing problems about the functionality of the apps on different devices. The Windows desktop app is very sophisticated, but the versions for phones and tablets would have to be seriously dumbed-down to be touch friendly. Even the Metro version would be utterly incapable of expressing the full app functionality. We now have the nightmare of managing not only different codebases and developer teams, but mutiple versions of the app with various functionality.Anyway, you get the idea. There must be other people in here who are going through this multi-platform conundrum in the new phone and tablet world. What ever happened to the promise that software development would get easier as languages and platforms converged? Remember the promise that VMs like Java and .NET would make our lives easier? It looks like different huge companies have betrayed us and are forcing us to use their platforms for their own greedy profit. That leaves the developers and the marketing people bewildered without a clear path, and it's happening around me now.Greg

Re: More on cross-platform development

[David Connors]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Greg Keogh  wrote:

>  The former means that the apps will be crippled because HTML5 just can't
> reproduce the rich UI of GDI/WPF or Silverlight,
>
Depends on the rendering engine. Throw this in Chrome:
http://www.htmlfivewow.com/slide1, my jaw dropped at this:
http://www.htmlfivewow.com/slide52

That aside, check out Xamarin.com (god I love these guys - is there nothing
they cannot do?)


> I fear that the Silverlight version of our app is doomed to die at an
> early age because it can only be seen in the ever-shrinking world of the
> desktop web browser. Years of Silverlight development may be wasted.
>
Silverlight always was a lame duck that wanted to be Flash for no other
reason than Flash was everywhere.

Not only is there coding confusion about using ObjectC, Java, C#,
> HTML/Javascript, etc, there are marketing problems about the functionality
> of the apps on different devices. The Windows desktop app is very
> sophisticated, but the versions for phones and tablets would have to be
> seriously dumbed-down to be touch friendly. Even the Metro version would be
> utterly incapable of expressing the full app functionality. We now have the
> nightmare of managing not only different codebases and developer teams, but
> mutiple versions of the app with various functionality.
>
One man's "dumbed down" is another's "optimised for specific scenarios".
There isn't anything inherently evil or bad in offering a subset of
functionality on the go *if it is the subset people actually need*.

Anyway, you get the idea. There must be other people in here who are going
> through this multi-platform conundrum in the new phone and tablet world.
> What ever happened to the promise that software development would get
> easier as languages and platforms converged? Remember the promise that VMs
> like Java and .NET would make our lives easier? It looks like different
> huge companies have betrayed us and are forcing us to use their platforms
> for their own greedy profit.
>
Well, Java is shit slow and does a great job of providing uniformly garbage
experiences across platforms. MS has never been very good at
cross-platform. .NET's cross-platformness died when they started building
the framework out of thin wrappers around pre-existing WIn32/COM IP.

On the plus side, there are companies of pure genius out there making stuff
like Xamarin, Phonegap etc. Reading between the lines - it sounds like
Xamarin is what you are after.


> That leaves the developers and the marketing people bewildered without a
> clear path, and it's happening around me now.
>
You would have to post some more detail on what the app does. Unless there
are specific and compelling reasons (i.e. needs GPU shaders, camera and
stuff) I would do the whole thing web based.

-- 
David Connors
da...@connors.com | M +61 417 189 363
Download my v-card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors
Follow me on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/davidconnors
Connect with me on LinkedIn: http://au.linkedin.com/in/davidjohnconnors

Re: More on cross-platform development

[BC]

I think David is on the money Greg.

Have a look at
http://blog.xamarin.com/eight-reasons-c-sharp-is-the-best-language-for-mobile-development/
if
you're interested in Xamarin's view of the cross platform space and C# /
.NET's fit.

Brenden


On 4 January 2013 14:11, David Connors  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Greg Keogh  wrote:
>
>>  The former means that the apps will be crippled because HTML5 just
>> can't reproduce the rich UI of GDI/WPF or Silverlight,
>>
> Depends on the rendering engine. Throw this in Chrome:
> http://www.htmlfivewow.com/slide1, my jaw dropped at this:
> http://www.htmlfivewow.com/slide52
>
> That aside, check out Xamarin.com (god I love these guys - is there
> nothing they cannot do?)
>
>
>> I fear that the Silverlight version of our app is doomed to die at an
>> early age because it can only be seen in the ever-shrinking world of the
>> desktop web browser. Years of Silverlight development may be wasted.
>>
> Silverlight always was a lame duck that wanted to be Flash for no other
> reason than Flash was everywhere.
>
> Not only is there coding confusion about using ObjectC, Java, C#,
>> HTML/Javascript, etc, there are marketing problems about the functionality
>> of the apps on different devices. The Windows desktop app is very
>> sophisticated, but the versions for phones and tablets would have to be
>> seriously dumbed-down to be touch friendly. Even the Metro version would be
>> utterly incapable of expressing the full app functionality. We now have the
>> nightmare of managing not only different codebases and developer teams, but
>> mutiple versions of the app with various functionality.
>>
> One man's "dumbed down" is another's "optimised for specific scenarios".
> There isn't anything inherently evil or bad in offering a subset of
> functionality on the go *if it is the subset people actually need*.
>
> Anyway, you get the idea. There must be other people in here who are going
>> through this multi-platform conundrum in the new phone and tablet world.
>> What ever happened to the promise that software development would get
>> easier as languages and platforms converged? Remember the promise that VMs
>> like Java and .NET would make our lives easier? It looks like different
>> huge companies have betrayed us and are forcing us to use their platforms
>> for their own greedy profit.
>>
> Well, Java is shit slow and does a great job of providing uniformly
> garbage experiences across platforms. MS has never been very good at
> cross-platform. .NET's cross-platformness died when they started building
> the framework out of thin wrappers around pre-existing WIn32/COM IP.
>
> On the plus side, there are companies of pure genius out there making
> stuff like Xamarin, Phonegap etc. Reading between the lines - it sounds
> like Xamarin is what you are after.
>
>
>> That leaves the developers and the marketing people bewildered without a
>> clear path, and it's happening around me now.
>>
> You would have to post some more detail on what the app does. Unless there
> are specific and compelling reasons (i.e. needs GPU shaders, camera and
> stuff) I would do the whole thing web based.
>
> --
> David Connors
> da...@connors.com | M +61 417 189 363
> Download my v-card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors
> Follow me on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/davidconnors
> Connect with me on LinkedIn: http://au.linkedin.com/in/davidjohnconnors
>

Re: More on cross-platform development

[David Connors]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 3:15 PM, BC  wrote:

> I think David is on the money Greg.
>
> Have a look at
> http://blog.xamarin.com/eight-reasons-c-sharp-is-the-best-language-for-mobile-development/
>  if
> you're interested in Xamarin's view of the cross platform space and C# /
> .NET's fit.
>

Imagine where .NET would be today if MS had executed on cross platform the
way Xamarin do.

-- 
David Connors
da...@connors.com | M +61 417 189 363
Download my v-card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors
Follow me on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/davidconnors
Connect with me on LinkedIn: http://au.linkedin.com/in/davidjohnconnors

Re: More on cross-platform development

[Craig van Nieuwkerk]

I would love if MS bought Xamarin and created a first class .NET tool for
developing Mobile and cross platform apps. The only problem I can see is
that Apple and Google would try and block it.


Imagine where .NET would be today if MS had executed on cross platform the
> way Xamarin do.
>
>

Re: More on cross-platform development

[BC]

I'm not quite sure I follow Craig - what is missing from Xamarin's toolset
that MS may add? From my experience (admittedly not exhaustive), Xamarin
already have a first class toolkit for cross platform mobile and desktop
apps. Web's not quite where I'd like it to be, but with HTML5 / CSS3 etc
it's not a big deal. Xamarin and Mono are now "native" for Windows, Mac,
Linux, BSD varieties, iOS and Android.

Not trying to be facetious by the way, genuinely interested in what you
feel is missing.

Brenden


On 4 January 2013 14:49, Craig van Nieuwkerk  wrote:

> I would love if MS bought Xamarin and created a first class .NET tool for
> developing Mobile and cross platform apps. The only problem I can see is
> that Apple and Google would try and block it.
>
>
> Imagine where .NET would be today if MS had executed on cross platform the
>> way Xamarin do.
>>
>>
>

Re: More on cross-platform development

[Greg Keogh]

Thank chaps, I've forwarded the bodies of your replies to my colleague.

Ian, I'm certainly aftraid that consumer demand for apps on mobile devices
will result in a dumb versions of sophisticatd applications and will
probably require developing parallel apps. I have some Windows WinForms and
WPF apps out live now that have complex UIs and comprehensive
functionality, and I have no idea on earth how these apps could be ported
to mobile devices, let alone to Metro style on Win8. It would be like
trying to squeeze a 747 into a Cessna. Even if most of the functionality
was converted, the Metro UI would be so jammed with gestures and charms and
navigation that you'd get lost, despite the claims that such apps are
easier to use. However, I'm saying this without any experience in writing a
"serious" Metro app yet. We have vague plans to write a mini experimental
version of one of our apps in Java or C# for Android, but by the very
nature of the device the UI functionality would be vastly reduced and
simplified. However it would still be useful for people on the road but it
could never replace the desktop app.

David, the HTML5 showcase is impressive, but I had to install Chrome in a
VM to see it, and I'm not even sure what I'm looking at. Is it yet another
framework extending Javascript? Or am I looking at vanilla HTML5? Oh lord,
I don't want to be become a Javascript boffin if I can help it, but I
suppose it's that or try to live on Macklin's $35 a day.

Xamarin looks too good to be true. I'll have to read more fine print. It
seems to contradict much of what I said about .NET and C# being useless on
different devices. This xamarin
listalso
seems too good to be true, but it gives some hints about how it works.
Some study to do.

Anyway, thanks again. Perhaps I'm not feeling so hopeless now, and since
it's Friday pm perhaps I can drink myself happy.

Cheers, Greg







On 4 January 2013 15:58, BC  wrote:

> I'm not quite sure I follow Craig - what is missing from Xamarin's toolset
> that MS may add? From my experience (admittedly not exhaustive), Xamarin
> already have a first class toolkit for cross platform mobile and desktop
> apps. Web's not quite where I'd like it to be, but with HTML5 / CSS3 etc
> it's not a big deal. Xamarin and Mono are now "native" for Windows, Mac,
> Linux, BSD varieties, iOS and Android.
>
> Not trying to be facetious by the way, genuinely interested in what you
> feel is missing.
>
> Brenden
>
>
> On 4 January 2013 14:49, Craig van Nieuwkerk  wrote:
>
>> I would love if MS bought Xamarin and created a first class .NET tool for
>> developing Mobile and cross platform apps. The only problem I can see is
>> that Apple and Google would try and block it.
>>
>>
>> Imagine where .NET would be today if MS had executed on cross platform
>>> the way Xamarin do.
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: More on cross-platform development

[Craig van Nieuwkerk]

I don't think you should try and port complex business applications to a
phone, but specific features suit a phone. For example I sell a Beauty
Salon specific Point of Sale SAAS package. Will I could never imagine
anyone trying to run their whole business from it, my users are crying out
for a mobile app that will allow them to take appointments while on the
road or at home (I am currently building this).


>
> Ian, I'm certainly aftraid that consumer demand for apps on mobile devices
> will result in a dumb versions of sophisticatd applications and will
> probably require developing parallel apps. I have some Windows WinForms and
> WPF apps out live now that have complex UIs and comprehensive
> functionality, and I have no idea on earth how these apps could be ported
> to mobile devices, let alone to Metro style on Win8.
>

Re: More on cross-platform development

[Greg Keogh]

>
> I don't think you should try and port complex business applications to a
> phone, but specific features suit a phone.
>

Dead right! Your salon app is a perfect example. But as progress produces
more smaller and useful devices of various kinds we developers suffer with
more code and app versions. I can live with that.

In future, whenever anyone asks me about writing an app for any serious
purpose, I'll ask them "... and what functionality of this new app would
you like on a mobile device?". Gotta think about this right from the start
from now on.

Greg

P.S. Although Metro apps still sit in some weird middle ground that worries
me. I'm still disturbed on Win8 when I'm pushing big clunky touchy things
around on my 2560x1440 monitor. I still haven't found a Metro app that
impresses me yet, or one that comes anywhere near the functionality of my
WinForms/WPF apps.

RE: More on cross-platform development

[Katherine Moss]

I suppose it's a question of who is right in terms of the future.  I have read 
so many articles that insult .net to the core, and it kills me.  I'll never 
forget the guy who called the .NET Framework and it's set of development tools 
a McDonalds assembly line!  Anyway, what I mean, is with all of this stuff 
leading to mobile development, does that mean that Microsoft is actually right 
and that the desktop computer, the on-premise server, the .NET Framework, and 
all the rest, are dying rather hard?  I mean, seasoned developers like you 
guys, and learners like me, how much of our time is being wasted in this 
century?

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Greg Keogh
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 3:33 AM
To: ozDotNet
Subject: Re: More on cross-platform development

I don't think you should try and port complex business applications to a phone, 
but specific features suit a phone.

Dead right! Your salon app is a perfect example. But as progress produces more 
smaller and useful devices of various kinds we developers suffer with more code 
and app versions. I can live with that.

In future, whenever anyone asks me about writing an app for any serious 
purpose, I'll ask them "... and what functionality of this new app would you 
like on a mobile device?". Gotta think about this right from the start from now 
on.

Greg

P.S. Although Metro apps still sit in some weird middle ground that worries me. 
I'm still disturbed on Win8 when I'm pushing big clunky touchy things around on 
my 2560x1440 monitor. I still haven't found a Metro app that impresses me yet, 
or one that comes anywhere near the functionality of my WinForms/WPF apps.

Re: More on cross-platform development

[David Connors]

On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 5:02 AM, Katherine Moss wrote:

>  I suppose it’s a question of who is right in terms of the future.  I
> have read so many articles that insult .net to the core, and it kills me.
> I’ll never forget the guy who called the .NET Framework and it’s set of
> development tools a McDonalds assembly line!
>
I like this topic and I remember the post:
http://blog.expensify.com/2011/03/25/ceo-friday-why-we-dont-hire-net-programmers/
Best
part is where he calls .NET a language. Epic fail. I am surprised how much
it still irritates me given how long ago it originally came out.

The guy's post is emblematic of software development junk/pop culture.
These guys are always quick to the draw when it comes to saying MS is this
or that but rarely have I seen a reasoned bit of introspection in how they
conduct their own work. His hatred for .NET is based on what? RDP, that MS
platforms use a \ instead of a / for path delineation (ironically, this is
abstracted in .NET - not that he'd know).

How about as a comparison: it is 2013 and PHP (which expensify is written
in) still isn't thread safe - or at least no one can agree on whether it is
which is even worse. Maybe he should try a few posts about I/O completion,
thread pooling, getting the best utilisation out of CPU and IO in his
server farm, etc instead of the merits of the slash over the backslash.

I have worked on a lot of projects on a lot of platforms over the years.
I've also done a lot of application assurance/security reviews on a lot of
other people's work in my time and I can say without a shadow of a doubt,
work that I review from people writing in PHP is, on the whole, horrific.
 Go have a look at the guts of phpBB some day - he's dead right about Lord
of the Flies.

Work I have reviewed from people working in .NET and Java is, on the whole,
a much higher calibre. It is very rarely that I have seen the same abject
lack of planning and forethought in .NET/Java projects that I have seen in
PHP projects from customers.

Sure there is more overhead in getting a .NET project up and running
compared to putting  in a text file - but so
what? Maybe he doesn't know you can whack <%@ Page Language="C#"  %> at the
top of an aspx to make .NET 'just as productive as PHP'. Saves all that
nasty thinking about overall systems architecture and long term
maintainability.

> Anyway, what I mean, is with all of this stuff leading to mobile
> development, does that mean that Microsoft is actually right and that the
> desktop computer, the on-premise server, the .NET Framework, and all the
> rest, are dying rather hard?  I mean, seasoned developers like you guys,
> and learners like me, how much of our time is being wasted in this century?
>
Don't panic - nothing is dying hard. The future is heterogeneous.

We had a Windows hegemony for a long time because MS was the only company
in the world that:

   - had a clue about the benefits of building ecosystems
   - wrote the only stable and well supported mass scale OS (OS9 was junk,
   Linux is just too hard for end users and no one is going to rebuild kernals
   to make bluetooth work OS/2 tried to solve problems that didn't exist)
   - had the money to do all of the above
   - had the money to focus massive resources on really mundane stuff like
   having awesome drivers and rallying OEMs together to support stuff like
   plug and play etc

The stuff that made Windows so successful was really pretty basic. It
was/is a dependable workhorse with great driver support and you could get
it running on almost anything. That was always the hard part for
competitors that came over the years. OS/2 might have been great on a
number of technical merits, but it was the same old story, crappy hardware
support, system resource requirements too high, backwards compatibility
story was junk (the Windows subsystem on OS/2 was beyond slow - and if you
want to run Windows apps why not just run Windows?)

I reckon the key difference today is that there are a lot of players with -
for all intents and purposes - bottomless pockets. Linux is starting to get
there (check out Ubuntu) and when you couple it with cheapo asian fabs then
you can slap together stuff like a new phone or tablet easily (well, easily
if you're a corporate with bottomless pockets :). Making some fandagled 3D
accelerated mobile device with amazing display and so on doesn't require
much first-principals work these days. The chips are cheap and plenty or
reference designs available for a relatively cheap price. Hell, you can buy
tablets at retail for <$300 and they are *good*.

The economics have shifted such that a company like Google can take a hit
on the acquisition of Android and subsequent development for the better
part of a decade just because it has a long range interest in ensuring that
Internet access doesn't become locked up in closed app-based ecosystems so
it can flog ads. The fact that Samsung can take over most of the mobile
market using the technical 

RE: More on cross-platform development

[Greg Low (GregLow.com)]

Well said David.

 

One thing I'd like to add to the conversation though is that I see people
all the time that consider their mobile interfaces as a "low functionality
add-on" to the "real" application. While I've dealt with mobile apps that
way in the past, I'm increasingly changing my view.

 

We're moving into a world where the majority of Internet users will have the
primary Internet experience via a mobile device. It's not some add-on access
to their "real" usage like it has been for us in the past. I think we ignore
that at our peril. We need to be thinking about how to make that experience
be as rich as possible.

 

Regards,

 

Greg

 

Dr Greg Low

 

1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913 fax


SQL Down Under | Web:  <http://www.sqldownunder.com/> www.sqldownunder.com

 

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com]
On Behalf Of David Connors
Sent: Saturday, 5 January 2013 9:35 AM
To: ozDotNet
Subject: Re: More on cross-platform development

 

On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 5:02 AM, Katherine Moss 
wrote:

I suppose it's a question of who is right in terms of the future.  I have
read so many articles that insult .net to the core, and it kills me.  I'll
never forget the guy who called the .NET Framework and it's set of
development tools a McDonalds assembly line! 

I like this topic and I remember the post:
http://blog.expensify.com/2011/03/25/ceo-friday-why-we-dont-hire-net-program
mers/ Best part is where he calls .NET a language. Epic fail. I am surprised
how much it still irritates me given how long ago it originally came out. 

 

The guy's post is emblematic of software development junk/pop culture. These
guys are always quick to the draw when it comes to saying MS is this or that
but rarely have I seen a reasoned bit of introspection in how they conduct
their own work. His hatred for .NET is based on what? RDP, that MS platforms
use a \ instead of a / for path delineation (ironically, this is abstracted
in .NET - not that he'd know). 

 

How about as a comparison: it is 2013 and PHP (which expensify is written
in) still isn't thread safe - or at least no one can agree on whether it is
which is even worse. Maybe he should try a few posts about I/O completion,
thread pooling, getting the best utilisation out of CPU and IO in his server
farm, etc instead of the merits of the slash over the backslash. 

 

I have worked on a lot of projects on a lot of platforms over the years.
I've also done a lot of application assurance/security reviews on a lot of
other people's work in my time and I can say without a shadow of a doubt,
work that I review from people writing in PHP is, on the whole, horrific.
Go have a look at the guts of phpBB some day - he's dead right about Lord of
the Flies.

 

Work I have reviewed from people working in .NET and Java is, on the whole,
a much higher calibre. It is very rarely that I have seen the same abject
lack of planning and forethought in .NET/Java projects that I have seen in
PHP projects from customers.

 

Sure there is more overhead in getting a .NET project up and running
compared to putting  in a text file - but so
what? Maybe he doesn't know you can whack <%@ Page Language="C#"  %> at the
top of an aspx to make .NET 'just as productive as PHP'. Saves all that
nasty thinking about overall systems architecture and long term
maintainability.

Anyway, what I mean, is with all of this stuff leading to mobile
development, does that mean that Microsoft is actually right and that the
desktop computer, the on-premise server, the .NET Framework, and all the
rest, are dying rather hard?  I mean, seasoned developers like you guys, and
learners like me, how much of our time is being wasted in this century? 

Don't panic - nothing is dying hard. The future is heterogeneous. 

 

We had a Windows hegemony for a long time because MS was the only company in
the world that:

*   had a clue about the benefits of building ecosystems
*   wrote the only stable and well supported mass scale OS (OS9 was
junk, Linux is just too hard for end users and no one is going to rebuild
kernals to make bluetooth work OS/2 tried to solve problems that didn't
exist)
*   had the money to do all of the above
*   had the money to focus massive resources on really mundane stuff
like having awesome drivers and rallying OEMs together to support stuff like
plug and play etc

The stuff that made Windows so successful was really pretty basic. It was/is
a dependable workhorse with great driver support and you could get it
running on almost anything. That was always the hard part for competitors
that came over the years. OS/2 might have been great on a number of
technical merits, but it was the same old story, crappy hardware support,
system resource requirements too high, b

RE: More on cross-platform development

[Katherine Moss]

I still find this a little odd because I have a friend who is a bit more in the 
Unix world than I am, though I want to eventually excel at both operating 
systems.  My friend here, he told me the reasoning for my college's lack of 
interest for the .NET platform, saying that it is a cross platform issue for 
them; they think that what can be taught in .NET can just as easily be taught 
in Java, so that's what they use.  This bothers me to know end, for I am 
getting the feeling that their attitude further expresses and spreads the 
belief that Microsoft and cross platform and open source development do not go 
together.  But speaking of Open source and cross platform and cross device 
development, has anyone ever been concerned with Microsoft's restriction of 
modern interface apps to their store?  Does anybody ever worry about where our 
freedom has gone?  In other words, my goal is to become an open source 
developer (not developing for money, not doing any of that.)  Instead, I want 
to develop and show the world what I can do led by intrinsic rewards.  My 
career interest is in administration, not development.  That's not to say that 
I might not sell something in the future, but what is in the new model of 
development for those in the world of open source?  I mean, if applications and 
projects have to be inspected by Microsoft to even be considered for inclusion 
in the store, how in the world is that innovation?  And with this new model, I 
am struggling with the layout of my first project; should the front end be 
developed as a modern interface application or as a regular desktop 
application?  If you want my opinion, then I'll just say that Microsoft is 
pretty shallow when they say that their store model is to ward off malware and 
the bad guys.  Look at it, and then look at two other things; the speculation 
that BizTalk Server 2013 is the last of the on-premise versions of Microsoft's 
integration server, and then the limits that developers are placed under when 
developing with new and supposedly innovative programming models (namely modern 
interface applications.  What do you see?  Innovation and cross platform 
victory, or do you see what I see, consumer's freedom being taken away?

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On 
Behalf Of Greg Low (GregLow.com)
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 6:37 PM
To: 'ozDotNet'
Subject: RE: More on cross-platform development

Well said David.

One thing I'd like to add to the conversation though is that I see people all 
the time that consider their mobile interfaces as a "low functionality add-on" 
to the "real" application. While I've dealt with mobile apps that way in the 
past, I'm increasingly changing my view.

We're moving into a world where the majority of Internet users will have the 
primary Internet experience via a mobile device. It's not some add-on access to 
their "real" usage like it has been for us in the past. I think we ignore that 
at our peril. We need to be thinking about how to make that experience be as 
rich as possible.

Regards,

Greg

Dr Greg Low

1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913 fax
SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com<http://www.sqldownunder.com/>

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> 
[mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On Behalf Of David Connors
Sent: Saturday, 5 January 2013 9:35 AM
To: ozDotNet
Subject: Re: More on cross-platform development

On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 5:02 AM, Katherine Moss 
mailto:katherine.m...@gordon.edu>> wrote:
I suppose it's a question of who is right in terms of the future.  I have read 
so many articles that insult .net to the core, and it kills me.  I'll never 
forget the guy who called the .NET Framework and it's set of development tools 
a McDonalds assembly line!
I like this topic and I remember the post: 
http://blog.expensify.com/2011/03/25/ceo-friday-why-we-dont-hire-net-programmers/
 Best part is where he calls .NET a language. Epic fail. I am surprised how 
much it still irritates me given how long ago it originally came out.

The guy's post is emblematic of software development junk/pop culture. These 
guys are always quick to the draw when it comes to saying MS is this or that 
but rarely have I seen a reasoned bit of introspection in how they conduct 
their own work. His hatred for .NET is based on what? RDP, that MS platforms 
use a \ instead of a / for path delineation (ironically, this is abstracted in 
.NET - not that he'd know).

How about as a comparison: it is 2013 and PHP (which expensify is written in) 
still isn't thread safe - or at least no one can agree on whether it is which 
is even worse. Maybe he should try a few posts about I/O completion, thread 
pooling, getting the best utilisation out of CPU and I

Re: More on cross-platform development

[Greg Keogh]

I think this guy must be lurking in our group. Amazing coincidence for the
topic -- Greg

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/how-the-internet-became-a-closed-shop-20121221-2brcp.html