By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
440,291 Members | 3,120 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 440,291 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

There has to be a better way to develop web applications.

P: n/a
I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning curve,
but so far I've had to learn:

HTML
XML
JavaScript
ASP.NET using VB.NET
..NET Framework
ADO.NET
SSL
FormAuthentication
(and probably a few more things)

Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is
ridiculous!! The simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the
enable state of a control on another ASPX page in a frame for example). And
XML, OMG that has got to be the most ineffecient way to write out data I've
ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So far the research I've seen are
"frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This is just crazy, if the
development community has to continue on in this bizarre environment of
languages and technology, then web application development is never going to
mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.

This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get
developers up to speed on all the technology can doom a project from the
start. The pipe dream of using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework ONLY
for web development is just that -- a pipe dream, for only the simplest of
applications could anyone get away with just those three technology/tools.

I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around, but
the bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your
bound to MS server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of
"portability" (at the cost of performance) how often are you folks moving
servers around and changing platforms?? If platforms are changing that
frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like building something for
5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the majority have to take
the penalty. There has got to be a better way?

Rob.
Nov 19 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
43 Replies


P: n/a

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:uw*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
[...snip...]

TROLL POST ALERT!
Nov 19 '05 #2

P: n/a
Trolls usually do one liners, kinda like what you just posted.

So do you have an opinion or do you just like to call everyone a Troll? I
think it is often called, I can't deal with this reality, so lets bring out
the "Troll Defense". -- I think it goes something like this -- "The fabric
of time is being questioned, therefore he must be a Troll"

Your input has demonstrate your value.

"Sean M" <ta******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O8**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:uw*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
[...snip...]

TROLL POST ALERT!

Nov 19 '05 #3

P: n/a
Hello,

first of all. Using .NET and ASP.NET does not tie you to MS OS. There's also
open-source implementation for non-MS OS's
http://www.mono-project.com

Otherwise it is somewhat true. The term jungle has increased a lot,
however.NET is a effort to better as it ties APIs for these things together
in the Framework. If you try to do the same with previous versions of MS
technologies, you'd need to install tons of separate libraries such as
MSXML, MDAC (though .NET requires certain version too but that usually
exists with newer OS's).

Your example of XML being overhead is also true,. However there are
alternatives such as binary serialization, remoting etc etc. So iut's also
case.specific, not just always generally a problem.

It's a large topic to discuss but I understand the pain.

--
Teemu Keiski
ASP.NET MVP, AspInsider
Finland, EU
http://blogs.aspadvice.com/joteke
Nov 19 '05 #4

P: n/a
re:
if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS server OS.
Rob, take a look at :

http://www.dotnetpowered.com/languages.aspx
for a list of the languages/OS's which you can use with .Net.

You may have to reconsider your statement
quoted above after you see that page.

Sure, the learning curve is steep, but it's no more
steep than any other web platform's learning curve.

Progress demands fast change.

Complaining about the pace of change won't get you anywhere,
except to the place where archaic stuff is archived.

In any case, what do you suggest as an alternative ?

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:uw*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning curve, but so far
I've had to learn:

HTML
XML
JavaScript
ASP.NET using VB.NET
.NET Framework
ADO.NET
SSL
FormAuthentication
(and probably a few more things)

Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is ridiculous!! The
simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the enable state of a control on
another ASPX page in a frame for example). And XML, OMG that has got to be the most
ineffecient way to write out data I've ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So far
the research I've seen are "frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This is just
crazy, if the development community has to continue on in this bizarre environment of
languages and technology, then web application development is never going to mature and
become cost effective for companies to exploit.

This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get developers up to
speed on all the technology can doom a project from the start. The pipe dream of using
ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework ONLY for web development is just that -- a pipe
dream, for only the simplest of applications could anyone get away with just those three
technology/tools.

I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around, but the bottom
line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS server OS.
And, if this is all done in the name of "portability" (at the cost of performance) how
often are you folks moving servers around and changing platforms?? If platforms are
changing that frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like building something for
5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the majority have to take the
penalty. There has got to be a better way?

Rob.

Nov 19 '05 #5

P: n/a
"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:uw*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
There has got to be a better way?


So why don't you develop it, smart-arse, instead of whinging because you're
having to do some learning...?

No-one's forcing you to use .NET.

No-one's forcing you to write a single line of code.

No-one's forcing you even to own a PC.
Nov 19 '05 #6

P: n/a
Yes, I do actually like Serialization and use it more often.

I didn't realize it was available for non-MS. Does the non-MS
implementation ofer identical feature sets and is it stable? I haven't seen
any hosting services that offer it or support it so I'd imagine it would be
a manage in-house situation?

I think the dev tools are a LONG way off from any real sense of
"unification" -- VS 2005 doesn't appear to be much different, basically
fixes and extends on things that should have been part of VS 2003.

I'm sure it is a little better than it was with just ASP, but we're going on
5 years now and it feels like the dev tools just aren't progressing at a
pace they should be to keep up with demand. RAD is what it is about and it
really doesn't feel any fast today than it did 5 years ago.

Rob.

"Teemu Keiski" <jo****@aspalliance.com> wrote in message
news:eA**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Hello,

first of all. Using .NET and ASP.NET does not tie you to MS OS. There's
also open-source implementation for non-MS OS's
http://www.mono-project.com

Otherwise it is somewhat true. The term jungle has increased a lot,
however.NET is a effort to better as it ties APIs for these things
together in the Framework. If you try to do the same with previous
versions of MS technologies, you'd need to install tons of separate
libraries such as MSXML, MDAC (though .NET requires certain version too
but that usually exists with newer OS's).

Your example of XML being overhead is also true,. However there are
alternatives such as binary serialization, remoting etc etc. So iut's also
case.specific, not just always generally a problem.

It's a large topic to discuss but I understand the pain.

--
Teemu Keiski
ASP.NET MVP, AspInsider
Finland, EU
http://blogs.aspadvice.com/joteke

Nov 19 '05 #7

P: n/a
Juan,

That is good, but think about what your just pointed out. 97% of the listed
languages are used by <2% of the dev community -- flexible yes, but
important to RAD (rapid application development), no.

I have no problem with "Change", I do have a problem of change for the sake
of change OR change to benefit the few but penalizes the majority. I do
find it funny you point out a list of supported languages, some VERY archaic
that can now be used with .NET. Your sending a confusing message.

I don't care that I would need to learn A new language (as in one), but it
does me NO good to learned several new languages all of which are simply
different syntaxs (or exist to bridge the gap) that are ultimately used to
turn concepts into reality. All languages ultimately do the same thing and
people argue for days that language X is better than language Y, but the
reality is most good developers just want the best tool available that is
easiest to translate spec into code into reality -- as a developer, I don't
mind learning a new language, just make sure that is it -- businesses can't
afford to keep sending developers off to learn the lastest fad language
which will go out of "favor" in a few years for the next "fad" language.
Sure it maybe a money making scheme for Microsoft, but it doesn't do the
business world any good. I mean, I see resumes all the time with a list of
90 languages long and someone is "proud" of that fact -- think about it, it
is really a pretty sad state of affairs.

Rob.

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Oi**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
re:
if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS server
OS.


Rob, take a look at :

http://www.dotnetpowered.com/languages.aspx
for a list of the languages/OS's which you can use with .Net.

You may have to reconsider your statement
quoted above after you see that page.

Sure, the learning curve is steep, but it's no more
steep than any other web platform's learning curve.

Progress demands fast change.

Complaining about the pace of change won't get you anywhere,
except to the place where archaic stuff is archived.

In any case, what do you suggest as an alternative ?

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:uw*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning
curve, but so far I've had to learn:

HTML
XML
JavaScript
ASP.NET using VB.NET
.NET Framework
ADO.NET
SSL
FormAuthentication
(and probably a few more things)

Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is
ridiculous!! The simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the
enable state of a control on another ASPX page in a frame for example).
And XML, OMG that has got to be the most ineffecient way to write out
data I've ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So far the research
I've seen are "frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This is
just crazy, if the development community has to continue on in this
bizarre environment of languages and technology, then web application
development is never going to mature and become cost effective for
companies to exploit.

This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get
developers up to speed on all the technology can doom a project from the
start. The pipe dream of using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework
ONLY for web development is just that -- a pipe dream, for only the
simplest of applications could anyone get away with just those three
technology/tools.

I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around,
but the bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET
your bound to MS server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of
"portability" (at the cost of performance) how often are you folks moving
servers around and changing platforms?? If platforms are changing that
frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like building something
for 5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the majority have
to take the penalty. There has got to be a better way?

Rob.


Nov 19 '05 #8

P: n/a
Your objections are acknowledged.

What do you suggest as an alternate platform ?

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:O%****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Juan,

That is good, but think about what your just pointed out. 97% of the listed languages
are used by <2% of the dev community -- flexible yes, but important to RAD (rapid
application development), no.

I have no problem with "Change", I do have a problem of change for the sake of change OR
change to benefit the few but penalizes the majority. I do find it funny you point out
a list of supported languages, some VERY archaic that can now be used with .NET. Your
sending a confusing message.

I don't care that I would need to learn A new language (as in one), but it does me NO
good to learned several new languages all of which are simply different syntaxs (or
exist to bridge the gap) that are ultimately used to turn concepts into reality. All
languages ultimately do the same thing and people argue for days that language X is
better than language Y, but the reality is most good developers just want the best tool
available that is easiest to translate spec into code into reality -- as a developer, I
don't mind learning a new language, just make sure that is it -- businesses can't afford
to keep sending developers off to learn the lastest fad language which will go out of
"favor" in a few years for the next "fad" language. Sure it maybe a money making scheme
for Microsoft, but it doesn't do the business world any good. I mean, I see resumes all
the time with a list of 90 languages long and someone is "proud" of that fact -- think
about it, it is really a pretty sad state of affairs.

Rob.

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Oi**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
re:
if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS server OS.


Rob, take a look at :

http://www.dotnetpowered.com/languages.aspx
for a list of the languages/OS's which you can use with .Net.

You may have to reconsider your statement
quoted above after you see that page.

Sure, the learning curve is steep, but it's no more
steep than any other web platform's learning curve.

Progress demands fast change.

Complaining about the pace of change won't get you anywhere,
except to the place where archaic stuff is archived.

In any case, what do you suggest as an alternative ?

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:uw*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning curve, but so far
I've had to learn:

HTML
XML
JavaScript
ASP.NET using VB.NET
.NET Framework
ADO.NET
SSL
FormAuthentication
(and probably a few more things)

Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is ridiculous!! The
simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the enable state of a control on
another ASPX page in a frame for example). And XML, OMG that has got to be the most
ineffecient way to write out data I've ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So
far the research I've seen are "frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This
is just crazy, if the development community has to continue on in this bizarre
environment of languages and technology, then web application development is never
going to mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.

This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get developers up to
speed on all the technology can doom a project from the start. The pipe dream of
using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework ONLY for web development is just that --
a pipe dream, for only the simplest of applications could anyone get away with just
those three technology/tools.

I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around, but the bottom
line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS server OS.
And, if this is all done in the name of "portability" (at the cost of performance) how
often are you folks moving servers around and changing platforms?? If platforms are
changing that frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like building something
for 5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the majority have to take the
penalty. There has got to be a better way?

Rob.



Nov 19 '05 #9

P: n/a
Mark,

Because, learning the language of the day to accomplish the same tasks over
and over is NOT efficient -- that's why. Like I said, listing 90 languages
on my resume is more of an embarrassment than an accomplishment. The
concepts don't change, only the syntax and all the restrictions and
limitations that go with it.

MS have the resources, not I -- and we should be there by now -- but as it
stands today, we're a good 5-10 years away.

No one is forcing you to post a response -- so what is your point?? So what
is your point? Don't complain, don't make waves, just accept it -- is that
how you think -- be a sheep, baaa baaa baaa

Rob.

"Mark Rae" <ma**@mark-N-O-S-P-A-M-rae.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uc**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:uw*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
There has got to be a better way?


So why don't you develop it, smart-arse, instead of whinging because
you're having to do some learning...?

No-one's forcing you to use .NET.

No-one's forcing you to write a single line of code.

No-one's forcing you even to own a PC.

Nov 19 '05 #10

P: n/a
No more alternatives -- just get MS to freakin' pick one and stay with it --
stop re-inventing the wheel every 5 years that does more or less the same
thing. Evolve the tool, stop dumping it and starting from scratch again --
the only message I see there is that MS got lost and their "code re-use"
went out the door -- which isn't exactly a great selling point for their
lastest and great new tools.

But I am waiting for the hard back version of "How Microsoft got lost" --
version 3.1 due out this holiday season ;)

Rob.

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:em**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Your objections are acknowledged.

What do you suggest as an alternate platform ?

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:O%****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Juan,

That is good, but think about what your just pointed out. 97% of the
listed languages are used by <2% of the dev community -- flexible yes,
but important to RAD (rapid application development), no.

I have no problem with "Change", I do have a problem of change for the
sake of change OR change to benefit the few but penalizes the majority.
I do find it funny you point out a list of supported languages, some VERY
archaic that can now be used with .NET. Your sending a confusing
message.

I don't care that I would need to learn A new language (as in one), but
it does me NO good to learned several new languages all of which are
simply different syntaxs (or exist to bridge the gap) that are ultimately
used to turn concepts into reality. All languages ultimately do the same
thing and people argue for days that language X is better than language
Y, but the reality is most good developers just want the best tool
available that is easiest to translate spec into code into reality -- as
a developer, I don't mind learning a new language, just make sure that is
it -- businesses can't afford to keep sending developers off to learn the
lastest fad language which will go out of "favor" in a few years for the
next "fad" language. Sure it maybe a money making scheme for Microsoft,
but it doesn't do the business world any good. I mean, I see resumes all
the time with a list of 90 languages long and someone is "proud" of that
fact -- think about it, it is really a pretty sad state of affairs.

Rob.

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Oi**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
re:
if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS server
OS.

Rob, take a look at :

http://www.dotnetpowered.com/languages.aspx
for a list of the languages/OS's which you can use with .Net.

You may have to reconsider your statement
quoted above after you see that page.

Sure, the learning curve is steep, but it's no more
steep than any other web platform's learning curve.

Progress demands fast change.

Complaining about the pace of change won't get you anywhere,
except to the place where archaic stuff is archived.

In any case, what do you suggest as an alternative ?

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:uw*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning
curve, but so far I've had to learn:

HTML
XML
JavaScript
ASP.NET using VB.NET
.NET Framework
ADO.NET
SSL
FormAuthentication
(and probably a few more things)

Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is
ridiculous!! The simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting
the enable state of a control on another ASPX page in a frame for
example). And XML, OMG that has got to be the most ineffecient way to
write out data I've ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So far
the research I've seen are "frames are evil" -- great so freakin'
helpful. This is just crazy, if the development community has to
continue on in this bizarre environment of languages and technology,
then web application development is never going to mature and become
cost effective for companies to exploit.

This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get
developers up to speed on all the technology can doom a project from
the start. The pipe dream of using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET
framework ONLY for web development is just that -- a pipe dream, for
only the simplest of applications could anyone get away with just those
three technology/tools.

I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around,
but the bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET
your bound to MS server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of
"portability" (at the cost of performance) how often are you folks
moving servers around and changing platforms?? If platforms are
changing that frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like
building something for 5% that may need it while the majority don't --
so the majority have to take the penalty. There has got to be a better
way?

Rob.



Nov 19 '05 #11

P: n/a
re:
listing 90 languages on my resume
I see you're against choice.

Do you understand the difference between
*choice* of languages and learning all of them ?

re: MS have the resources, not I -- and we should be there by now
OK, if not MS, then who ? Who is doing a better job than MS ?
Who is "there by now" ?

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:Oj**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Mark,

Because, learning the language of the day to accomplish the same tasks over and over is
NOT efficient -- that's why. Like I said, listing 90 languages on my resume is more of
an embarrassment than an accomplishment. The concepts don't change, only the syntax and
all the restrictions and limitations that go with it.

MS have the resources, not I -- and we should be there by now -- but as it stands today,
we're a good 5-10 years away.

No one is forcing you to post a response -- so what is your point?? So what is your
point? Don't complain, don't make waves, just accept it -- is that how you think -- be
a sheep, baaa baaa baaa

Rob. "Mark Rae" <ma**@mark-N-O-S-P-A-M-rae.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uc**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:uw*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
There has got to be a better way?


So why don't you develop it, smart-arse, instead of whinging because you're having to
do some learning...?

No-one's forcing you to use .NET.

No-one's forcing you to write a single line of code.

No-one's forcing you even to own a PC.

Nov 19 '05 #12

P: n/a
You managed to evade the question very well.

The question is :
What do you suggest as an alternate platform ?
Or, are you only focused on bitching about MS ?

What/who is doing the job better than MS's platform is doing ?

Is that too difficult a question ?

Or, do you aim to be recognized as the troll you were accused of being ?

Please answer.

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:e5**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... No more alternatives -- just get MS to freakin' pick one and stay with it -- stop
re-inventing the wheel every 5 years that does more or less the same thing. Evolve the
tool, stop dumping it and starting from scratch again -- the only message I see there
is that MS got lost and their "code re-use" went out the door -- which isn't exactly a
great selling point for their lastest and great new tools.

But I am waiting for the hard back version of "How Microsoft got lost" -- version 3.1
due out this holiday season ;)

Rob.

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:em**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Your objections are acknowledged.

What do you suggest as an alternate platform ?

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:O%****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Juan,

That is good, but think about what your just pointed out. 97% of the listed languages
are used by <2% of the dev community -- flexible yes, but important to RAD (rapid
application development), no.

I have no problem with "Change", I do have a problem of change for the sake of change
OR change to benefit the few but penalizes the majority. I do find it funny you point
out a list of supported languages, some VERY archaic that can now be used with .NET.
Your sending a confusing message.

I don't care that I would need to learn A new language (as in one), but it does me NO
good to learned several new languages all of which are simply different syntaxs (or
exist to bridge the gap) that are ultimately used to turn concepts into reality. All
languages ultimately do the same thing and people argue for days that language X is
better than language Y, but the reality is most good developers just want the best
tool available that is easiest to translate spec into code into reality -- as a
developer, I don't mind learning a new language, just make sure that is it --
businesses can't afford to keep sending developers off to learn the lastest fad
language which will go out of "favor" in a few years for the next "fad" language. Sure
it maybe a money making scheme for Microsoft, but it doesn't do the business world any
good. I mean, I see resumes all the time with a list of 90 languages long and someone
is "proud" of that fact -- think about it, it is really a pretty sad state of affairs.

Rob.

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Oi**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
re:
> if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS server OS.

Rob, take a look at :

http://www.dotnetpowered.com/languages.aspx
for a list of the languages/OS's which you can use with .Net.

You may have to reconsider your statement
quoted above after you see that page.

Sure, the learning curve is steep, but it's no more
steep than any other web platform's learning curve.

Progress demands fast change.

Complaining about the pace of change won't get you anywhere,
except to the place where archaic stuff is archived.

In any case, what do you suggest as an alternative ?

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:uw*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning curve, but so
>far I've had to learn:
>
> HTML
> XML
> JavaScript
> ASP.NET using VB.NET
> .NET Framework
> ADO.NET
> SSL
> FormAuthentication
> (and probably a few more things)
>
> Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is ridiculous!! The
> simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the enable state of a control on
> another ASPX page in a frame for example). And XML, OMG that has got to be the most
> ineffecient way to write out data I've ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So
> far the research I've seen are "frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This
> is just crazy, if the development community has to continue on in this bizarre
> environment of languages and technology, then web application development is never
> going to mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.
>
> This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get developers up
> to speed on all the technology can doom a project from the start. The pipe dream of
> using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework ONLY for web development is just
> that -- a pipe dream, for only the simplest of applications could anyone get away
> with just those three technology/tools.
>
> I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around, but the
> bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS
> server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of "portability" (at the cost of
> performance) how often are you folks moving servers around and changing platforms??
> If platforms are changing that frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like
> building something for 5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the
> majority have to take the penalty. There has got to be a better way?
>
> Rob.
>
>



Nov 19 '05 #13

P: n/a
Why are you intent on comparisons? I'm not, so why are you? Who does it
better, I don't know, don't care -- I just want the insanity of language of
the day to be over so we can concentrate on design and produce results and
less of "oh yeah, can't do that with ASP.NET so ya have to do some
JavaScript and do a little HTML setup work and...".

So I take it you agree with the obvious problem in efficiency? yes or no?

Against choice? You on planet earth -- this ain't the business of pic your
favorite iPod color -- stay within context.

You sound like a Microsoft troll -- get over your loyality already.

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:OM**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
re:
listing 90 languages on my resume


I see you're against choice.

Do you understand the difference between
*choice* of languages and learning all of them ?

re:
MS have the resources, not I -- and we should be there by now


OK, if not MS, then who ? Who is doing a better job than MS ?
Who is "there by now" ?

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:Oj**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Mark,

Because, learning the language of the day to accomplish the same tasks
over and over is NOT efficient -- that's why. Like I said, listing 90
languages on my resume is more of an embarrassment than an
accomplishment. The concepts don't change, only the syntax and all the
restrictions and limitations that go with it.

MS have the resources, not I -- and we should be there by now -- but as
it stands today, we're a good 5-10 years away.

No one is forcing you to post a response -- so what is your point?? So
what is your point? Don't complain, don't make waves, just accept it --
is that how you think -- be a sheep, baaa baaa baaa

Rob.

"Mark Rae" <ma**@mark-N-O-S-P-A-M-rae.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uc**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:uw*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

There has got to be a better way?

So why don't you develop it, smart-arse, instead of whinging because
you're having to do some learning...?

No-one's forcing you to use .NET.

No-one's forcing you to write a single line of code.

No-one's forcing you even to own a PC.


Nov 19 '05 #14

P: n/a
re:
I don't know, don't care
Yup, that sums up your stance.

You are confirming that you'd rather complain,
than work towards getting a better product.

Do you have *anything* positive to offer ?
Like, maybe, a suggestion or two ?

Or, as is apparent, do you prefer to bitch
without offering any suggestions for improvement ?

You don't offer any alternatives,
and you don't offer any suggestions for improvement.

You just bitch. That doesn't get us anywhere.

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... Why are you intent on comparisons? I'm not, so why are you? Who does it better, I
don't know, don't care -- I just want the insanity of language of the day to be over so
we can concentrate on design and produce results and less of "oh yeah, can't do that
with ASP.NET so ya have to do some JavaScript and do a little HTML setup work and...".

So I take it you agree with the obvious problem in efficiency? yes or no?

Against choice? You on planet earth -- this ain't the business of pic your favorite
iPod color -- stay within context.

You sound like a Microsoft troll -- get over your loyality already. "Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:OM**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
re:
listing 90 languages on my resume


I see you're against choice.

Do you understand the difference between
*choice* of languages and learning all of them ?

re:
MS have the resources, not I -- and we should be there by now


OK, if not MS, then who ? Who is doing a better job than MS ?
Who is "there by now" ?

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:Oj**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Mark,

Because, learning the language of the day to accomplish the same tasks over and over
is NOT efficient -- that's why. Like I said, listing 90 languages on my resume is
more of an embarrassment than an accomplishment. The concepts don't change, only the
syntax and all the restrictions and limitations that go with it.

MS have the resources, not I -- and we should be there by now -- but as it stands
today, we're a good 5-10 years away.

No one is forcing you to post a response -- so what is your point?? So what is your
point? Don't complain, don't make waves, just accept it -- is that how you think --
be a sheep, baaa baaa baaa

Rob.

"Mark Rae" <ma**@mark-N-O-S-P-A-M-rae.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uc**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:uw*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

> There has got to be a better way?

So why don't you develop it, smart-arse, instead of whinging because you're having to
do some learning...?

No-one's forcing you to use .NET.

No-one's forcing you to write a single line of code.

No-one's forcing you even to own a PC.



Nov 19 '05 #15

P: n/a
If you understood what I was saying, you'd realize it is not a bitch
session.

Yes, do away with HTML, XHTML, JavaScript, CSS and make it --

CLD - Common Language Development, CLF - Common Language Framework

If a huge base of HTML, XHTML, JavaScript, CSS code needs to be ported,
build a very good migration tool that will generate CLD (and do it right).

Make CLD syntatically easy to follow/read and provide an rich intelligent
IDE environment that has markers that work beyond a single module, provide
more sophisticated lookup linking, improve help link system and provide MUCH
more real world code samples in the help system. Provide managed and
unmanaged connection options, provide a real debugger (similar in power to
VB6 debugger). Just make life easier for the developer so we can get more
done, higher quality, and in less time.

That would be a start -- something .NET should have been but failed. And
don't start on "cross-platform" -- make that come later as "needed" (if
needed at all)? I mean that is the way it stands right now, you don't see
many folks doing ASP.NET with .NET Framework development on Unix servers.
This is not a debate about which is better, it is a reality of the
situation. Don't build an enormous amount of cross-platform
compatibility/flexibilty that is going to be used by <2% of dev community.

Rob.

Rob.
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:uu**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
re:
I don't know, don't care


Yup, that sums up your stance.

You are confirming that you'd rather complain,
than work towards getting a better product.

Do you have *anything* positive to offer ?
Like, maybe, a suggestion or two ?

Or, as is apparent, do you prefer to bitch
without offering any suggestions for improvement ?

You don't offer any alternatives,
and you don't offer any suggestions for improvement.

You just bitch. That doesn't get us anywhere.

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Why are you intent on comparisons? I'm not, so why are you? Who does it
better, I don't know, don't care -- I just want the insanity of language
of the day to be over so we can concentrate on design and produce results
and less of "oh yeah, can't do that with ASP.NET so ya have to do some
JavaScript and do a little HTML setup work and...".

So I take it you agree with the obvious problem in efficiency? yes or
no?

Against choice? You on planet earth -- this ain't the business of pic
your favorite iPod color -- stay within context.

You sound like a Microsoft troll -- get over your loyality already.

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:OM**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
re:
listing 90 languages on my resume

I see you're against choice.

Do you understand the difference between
*choice* of languages and learning all of them ?

re:
MS have the resources, not I -- and we should be there by now

OK, if not MS, then who ? Who is doing a better job than MS ?
Who is "there by now" ?

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:Oj**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Mark,

Because, learning the language of the day to accomplish the same tasks
over and over is NOT efficient -- that's why. Like I said, listing 90
languages on my resume is more of an embarrassment than an
accomplishment. The concepts don't change, only the syntax and all the
restrictions and limitations that go with it.

MS have the resources, not I -- and we should be there by now -- but as
it stands today, we're a good 5-10 years away.

No one is forcing you to post a response -- so what is your point?? So
what is your point? Don't complain, don't make waves, just accept
it -- is that how you think -- be a sheep, baaa baaa baaa

Rob.

"Mark Rae" <ma**@mark-N-O-S-P-A-M-rae.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uc**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> "Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:uw*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
>> There has got to be a better way?
>
> So why don't you develop it, smart-arse, instead of whinging because
> you're having to do some learning...?
>
> No-one's forcing you to use .NET.
>
> No-one's forcing you to write a single line of code.
>
> No-one's forcing you even to own a PC.



Nov 19 '05 #16

P: n/a
"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:Oj**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Because, learning the language of the day to accomplish the same tasks
over and over is NOT efficient -- that's why. Like I said, listing 90
languages on my resume is more of an embarrassment than an accomplishment.
The concepts don't change, only the syntax and all the restrictions and
limitations that go with it.


Well, then, cast your mind back to the language in which you wrote your
first ever line of code, and stick with that...
Nov 19 '05 #17

P: n/a
> Yes, do away with HTML, XHTML, JavaScript, CSS and make it --

CLD - Common Language Development, CLF - Common Language Framework
Dude!

....

Dude!!

I hate to tell you this, but Microsoft didn't create the Internet (as we all
know, Al Gore did). Neither did Microsoft create HTML, XHTML, JavaScript,
CSS, HTTP, or any of that stuff that makes web pages what they are.

What Microsoft created was ASP.Net, which is a SERVER-SIDE technology for
working with all that stuff that Microsoft did NOT create.

Microsoft is not the God of the Intenet. If they were, I'm sure it would
have ended up much simpler to work with than it is. They are simply dealing
with it. I would suggest you do the same.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
The sun never sets on
the Kingdom of Heaven

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:ed**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... If you understood what I was saying, you'd realize it is not a bitch
session.

Yes, do away with HTML, XHTML, JavaScript, CSS and make it --

CLD - Common Language Development, CLF - Common Language Framework

If a huge base of HTML, XHTML, JavaScript, CSS code needs to be ported,
build a very good migration tool that will generate CLD (and do it right).

Make CLD syntatically easy to follow/read and provide an rich intelligent
IDE environment that has markers that work beyond a single module, provide
more sophisticated lookup linking, improve help link system and provide
MUCH more real world code samples in the help system. Provide managed and
unmanaged connection options, provide a real debugger (similar in power to
VB6 debugger). Just make life easier for the developer so we can get more
done, higher quality, and in less time.

That would be a start -- something .NET should have been but failed. And
don't start on "cross-platform" -- make that come later as "needed" (if
needed at all)? I mean that is the way it stands right now, you don't see
many folks doing ASP.NET with .NET Framework development on Unix servers.
This is not a debate about which is better, it is a reality of the
situation. Don't build an enormous amount of cross-platform
compatibility/flexibilty that is going to be used by <2% of dev community.

Rob.

Rob.
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:uu**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
re:
I don't know, don't care


Yup, that sums up your stance.

You are confirming that you'd rather complain,
than work towards getting a better product.

Do you have *anything* positive to offer ?
Like, maybe, a suggestion or two ?

Or, as is apparent, do you prefer to bitch
without offering any suggestions for improvement ?

You don't offer any alternatives,
and you don't offer any suggestions for improvement.

You just bitch. That doesn't get us anywhere.

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Why are you intent on comparisons? I'm not, so why are you? Who does
it better, I don't know, don't care -- I just want the insanity of
language of the day to be over so we can concentrate on design and
produce results and less of "oh yeah, can't do that with ASP.NET so ya
have to do some JavaScript and do a little HTML setup work and...".

So I take it you agree with the obvious problem in efficiency? yes or
no?

Against choice? You on planet earth -- this ain't the business of pic
your favorite iPod color -- stay within context.

You sound like a Microsoft troll -- get over your loyality already.

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:OM**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
re:
> listing 90 languages on my resume

I see you're against choice.

Do you understand the difference between
*choice* of languages and learning all of them ?

re:
> MS have the resources, not I -- and we should be there by now

OK, if not MS, then who ? Who is doing a better job than MS ?
Who is "there by now" ?

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:Oj**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Mark,
>
> Because, learning the language of the day to accomplish the same tasks
> over and over is NOT efficient -- that's why. Like I said, listing 90
> languages on my resume is more of an embarrassment than an
> accomplishment. The concepts don't change, only the syntax and all
> the restrictions and limitations that go with it.
>
> MS have the resources, not I -- and we should be there by now -- but
> as it stands today, we're a good 5-10 years away.
>
> No one is forcing you to post a response -- so what is your point??
> So what is your point? Don't complain, don't make waves, just accept
> it -- is that how you think -- be a sheep, baaa baaa baaa
>
> Rob.

> "Mark Rae" <ma**@mark-N-O-S-P-A-M-rae.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:uc**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:uw*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>
>>> There has got to be a better way?
>>
>> So why don't you develop it, smart-arse, instead of whinging because
>> you're having to do some learning...?
>>
>> No-one's forcing you to use .NET.
>>
>> No-one's forcing you to write a single line of code.
>>
>> No-one's forcing you even to own a PC.



Nov 19 '05 #18

P: n/a

While you're at it, suggest that Microsoft should do away
with the W3C ( which is the standards body for HTML,
XHTML, CSS, and a host of other web "standards" ).

Then, Microsoft should do away with whomever
it is that controls Javascript standards, so Microsoft
can replace Javascript, HTML, XHTML, CSS with
a Microsoft-created unified system to be called
CLD - Common Language Development and with
CLF - Common Language Framework

How soon would the Justice Dept. breathe
on Microsoft's neck for attempting to do that ?

Maybe you should give this a bit more thought...


Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:ed**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
If you understood what I was saying, you'd realize it is not a bitch session.

Yes, do away with HTML, XHTML, JavaScript, CSS and make it --

CLD - Common Language Development, CLF - Common Language Framework

If a huge base of HTML, XHTML, JavaScript, CSS code needs to be ported, build a very
good migration tool that will generate CLD (and do it right).

Make CLD syntatically easy to follow/read and provide an rich intelligent IDE
environment that has markers that work beyond a single module, provide more
sophisticated lookup linking, improve help link system and provide MUCH more real world
code samples in the help system. Provide managed and unmanaged connection options,
provide a real debugger (similar in power to VB6 debugger). Just make life easier for
the developer so we can get more done, higher quality, and in less time.

That would be a start -- something .NET should have been but failed. And don't start on
"cross-platform" -- make that come later as "needed" (if needed at all)? I mean that is
the way it stands right now, you don't see many folks doing ASP.NET with .NET Framework
development on Unix servers. This is not a debate about which is better, it is a reality
of the situation. Don't build an enormous amount of cross-platform
compatibility/flexibilty that is going to be used by <2% of dev community.

Rob.

Rob.
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:uu**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
re:
I don't know, don't care


Yup, that sums up your stance.

You are confirming that you'd rather complain,
than work towards getting a better product.

Do you have *anything* positive to offer ?
Like, maybe, a suggestion or two ?

Or, as is apparent, do you prefer to bitch
without offering any suggestions for improvement ?

You don't offer any alternatives,
and you don't offer any suggestions for improvement.

You just bitch. That doesn't get us anywhere.

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Why are you intent on comparisons? I'm not, so why are you? Who does it better, I
don't know, don't care -- I just want the insanity of language of the day to be over
so we can concentrate on design and produce results and less of "oh yeah, can't do
that with ASP.NET so ya have to do some JavaScript and do a little HTML setup work
and...".

So I take it you agree with the obvious problem in efficiency? yes or no?

Against choice? You on planet earth -- this ain't the business of pic your favorite
iPod color -- stay within context.

You sound like a Microsoft troll -- get over your loyality already.

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:OM**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
re:
> listing 90 languages on my resume

I see you're against choice.

Do you understand the difference between
*choice* of languages and learning all of them ?

re:
> MS have the resources, not I -- and we should be there by now

OK, if not MS, then who ? Who is doing a better job than MS ?
Who is "there by now" ?

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:Oj**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Mark,
>
> Because, learning the language of the day to accomplish the same tasks over and over
> is NOT efficient -- that's why. Like I said, listing 90 languages on my resume is
> more of an embarrassment than an accomplishment. The concepts don't change, only
> the syntax and all the restrictions and limitations that go with it.
>
> MS have the resources, not I -- and we should be there by now -- but as it stands
> today, we're a good 5-10 years away.
>
> No one is forcing you to post a response -- so what is your point?? So what is your
> point? Don't complain, don't make waves, just accept it -- is that how you
> think -- be a sheep, baaa baaa baaa
>
> Rob.

> "Mark Rae" <ma**@mark-N-O-S-P-A-M-rae.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:uc**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:uw*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>
>>> There has got to be a better way?
>>
>> So why don't you develop it, smart-arse, instead of whinging because you're having
>> to do some learning...?
>>
>> No-one's forcing you to use .NET.
>>
>> No-one's forcing you to write a single line of code.
>>
>> No-one's forcing you even to own a PC.



Nov 19 '05 #19

P: n/a
>>Because, learning the language of the day to accomplish the same tasks over
and over is NOT efficient -- that's why. Like I said, listing 90
languages
on my resume is more of an embarrassment than an accomplishment. The
concepts don't change, only the syntax and all the restrictions and
limitations that go with it.<<

Are you suggesting that MS should come out with ONE language and
somehow make everyone use it? That's ridiculous. The Microsoft = Borg
crowd would have a field day with that. You want on language for
everything, you go ahead and get all the programmers to agree on one,
and maybe then MS will do it.

Also, look at the list you provided in your original post. Only two of
the things listed there are languages (VB and Javascript), and even in
that case VB script exists, so you could get away with only one
language. The rest are tools for different tasks. You're basically
wondering why GM can't come up with a car that toasts my bread, so I
won't have to learn how to use a toaster.

-Phil

Nov 19 '05 #20

P: n/a
Ok, read your "interesting" conversation. Pretty nice, really. But for a
constructive thought you have to think longer. We all know there are just two
platforms which have "legal" right to claim to be the platform of tomorrow,
Java and .NET. Of course, .NET is a bit better because it had Java to learn
from. That is what I read in most third party .NET documentations. But that's
not the main problem here. .NET is better because of its properties, events,
delegates and so on. Too bad it hasn't added alreadey generics. Mono is doing
a great job porting .NET to other platforms and Microsoft should be thankful.
Because whithout Mono, .NET wouldn't last. I am using Linux and I know what
I'm talkong about.

I think Rob's problem is that Java, nor .NET offers true "productivity
whithout hedache" programming. Java is totaly nowhere whith its MVC patterns,
which only make things hard to code, and C# makes things worst because it
spoiles all expectancies of being the "one perfect language" we all heard
about the way Microsoft presents it. So the problem here is actually
Microsoft's way of presenting things as being the best, when they are not.
It's the same policy applied with Windows (please excuse me if you think what
I say is rude) and whith SQL Server. Oh, and even with Visual Studio. I am
not complaining just to complain. But .NET is just another language - why
then it is presented as being the best? I repeat, I AM a .NET coder, I DO
like .NET better than Java because of its events and properties, but I would
expect more.
Nov 19 '05 #21

P: n/a
All you needed to learn was HTML and Javascript.

http://www.askblax.com

Rob R. Ainscough wrote:
I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning curve,
but so far I've had to learn:

HTML
XML
JavaScript
ASP.NET using VB.NET
.NET Framework
ADO.NET
SSL
FormAuthentication
(and probably a few more things)

Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is
ridiculous!! The simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the
enable state of a control on another ASPX page in a frame for example). And
XML, OMG that has got to be the most ineffecient way to write out data I've
ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So far the research I've seen are
"frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This is just crazy, if the
development community has to continue on in this bizarre environment of
languages and technology, then web application development is never going to
mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.

This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get
developers up to speed on all the technology can doom a project from the
start. The pipe dream of using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework ONLY
for web development is just that -- a pipe dream, for only the simplest of
applications could anyone get away with just those three technology/tools.

I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around, but
the bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your
bound to MS server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of
"portability" (at the cost of performance) how often are you folks moving
servers around and changing platforms?? If platforms are changing that
frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like building something for
5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the majority have to take
the penalty. There has got to be a better way?

Rob.


Nov 19 '05 #22

P: n/a
Juan T. Llibre wrote:
You managed to evade the question very well.

The question is :
What do you suggest as an alternate platform ?
Or, are you only focused on bitching about MS ?

What/who is doing the job better than MS's platform is doing ?


The Open Source Community is... I think Rob has some very valid
points. Learning new for the sake of learning new is just plain
stupid. It impedes real development, impedes learning and impedes the
advancement of technology.

http://www.askblax.com
Is that too difficult a question ?

Or, do you aim to be recognized as the troll you were accused of being ?

Please answer.

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:e5**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
No more alternatives -- just get MS to freakin' pick one and stay with it -- stop
re-inventing the wheel every 5 years that does more or less the same thing. Evolve the
tool, stop dumping it and starting from scratch again -- the only message I see there
is that MS got lost and their "code re-use" went out the door -- which isn't exactly a
great selling point for their lastest and great new tools.

But I am waiting for the hard back version of "How Microsoft got lost" -- version 3.1
due out this holiday season ;)

Rob.

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:em**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Your objections are acknowledged.

What do you suggest as an alternate platform ?

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:O%****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Juan,

That is good, but think about what your just pointed out. 97% of thelisted languages
are used by <2% of the dev community -- flexible yes, but important to RAD (rapid
application development), no.

I have no problem with "Change", I do have a problem of change for the sake of change
OR change to benefit the few but penalizes the majority. I do find itfunny you point
out a list of supported languages, some VERY archaic that can now be used with .NET.
Your sending a confusing message.

I don't care that I would need to learn A new language (as in one), but it does me NO
good to learned several new languages all of which are simply different syntaxs (or
exist to bridge the gap) that are ultimately used to turn concepts into reality. All
languages ultimately do the same thing and people argue for days thatlanguage X is
better than language Y, but the reality is most good developers just want the best
tool available that is easiest to translate spec into code into reality -- as a
developer, I don't mind learning a new language, just make sure that is it --
businesses can't afford to keep sending developers off to learn the lastest fad
language which will go out of "favor" in a few years for the next "fad" language. Sure
it maybe a money making scheme for Microsoft, but it doesn't do the business world any
good. I mean, I see resumes all the time with a list of 90 languageslong and someone
is "proud" of that fact -- think about it, it is really a pretty sad state of affairs.

Rob.

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Oi**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> re:
>> if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS server OS.
>
> Rob, take a look at :
>
> http://www.dotnetpowered.com/languages.aspx
> for a list of the languages/OS's which you can use with .Net.
>
> You may have to reconsider your statement
> quoted above after you see that page.
>
> Sure, the learning curve is steep, but it's no more
> steep than any other web platform's learning curve.
>
> Progress demands fast change.
>
> Complaining about the pace of change won't get you anywhere,
> except to the place where archaic stuff is archived.
>
> In any case, what do you suggest as an alternative ?
>
>
>
> Juan T. Llibre
> ASP.NET MVP
> http://asp.net.do/foros/
> Foros de ASP.NET en Español
> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
> ======================
>
> "Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:uw*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learningcurve, but so
>>far I've had to learn:
>>
>> HTML
>> XML
>> JavaScript
>> ASP.NET using VB.NET
>> .NET Framework
>> ADO.NET
>> SSL
>> FormAuthentication
>> (and probably a few more things)
>>
>> Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is ridiculous!! The
>> simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the enable state of a control on
>> another ASPX page in a frame for example). And XML, OMG that has got to be the most
>> ineffecient way to write out data I've ever seen -- the overhead isstaggering!! So
>> far the research I've seen are "frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This
>> is just crazy, if the development community has to continue on in this bizarre
>> environment of languages and technology, then web application development is never
>> going to mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.
>>
>> This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get developers up
>> to speed on all the technology can doom a project from the start. The pipe dream of
>> using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework ONLY for web development is just
>> that -- a pipe dream, for only the simplest of applications could anyone get away
>> with just those three technology/tools.
>>
>> I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around, but the
>> bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET yourbound to MS
>> server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of "portability" (at the cost of
>> performance) how often are you folks moving servers around and changing platforms??
>> If platforms are changing that frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like
>> building something for 5% that may need it while the majority don't-- so the
>> majority have to take the penalty. There has got to be a better way?
>>
>> Rob.
>>
>>
>
>



Nov 19 '05 #23

P: n/a
Ben
And YOU managed to miss Rob's point very well. He clearly stated he doesn't
even know if an ideal platform exists. But he seems to have enough faith in
Microsoft hearing and maybe even realizing a thing or two.

Rob has some very valid points here and - especially with MS's customer base
- they'd benefit from introducing a more ColdFusion-like RAD web platform.
Save the XML and SOAP and CodeBehind and ViewStates, etc. for Amazon-type
sites. Most developers can get by on a lighter-weight platform.
"Juan T. Llibre" wrote:
You managed to evade the question very well.

The question is :
What do you suggest as an alternate platform ?


Or, are you only focused on bitching about MS ?

What/who is doing the job better than MS's platform is doing ?

Is that too difficult a question ?

Or, do you aim to be recognized as the troll you were accused of being ?

Please answer.

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:e5**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
No more alternatives -- just get MS to freakin' pick one and stay with it -- stop
re-inventing the wheel every 5 years that does more or less the same thing. Evolve the
tool, stop dumping it and starting from scratch again -- the only message I see there
is that MS got lost and their "code re-use" went out the door -- which isn't exactly a
great selling point for their lastest and great new tools.

But I am waiting for the hard back version of "How Microsoft got lost" -- version 3.1
due out this holiday season ;)

Rob.

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:em**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Your objections are acknowledged.

What do you suggest as an alternate platform ?

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:O%****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Juan,

That is good, but think about what your just pointed out. 97% of the listed languages
are used by <2% of the dev community -- flexible yes, but important to RAD (rapid
application development), no.

I have no problem with "Change", I do have a problem of change for the sake of change
OR change to benefit the few but penalizes the majority. I do find it funny you point
out a list of supported languages, some VERY archaic that can now be used with .NET.
Your sending a confusing message.

I don't care that I would need to learn A new language (as in one), but it does me NO
good to learned several new languages all of which are simply different syntaxs (or
exist to bridge the gap) that are ultimately used to turn concepts into reality. All
languages ultimately do the same thing and people argue for days that language X is
better than language Y, but the reality is most good developers just want the best
tool available that is easiest to translate spec into code into reality -- as a
developer, I don't mind learning a new language, just make sure that is it --
businesses can't afford to keep sending developers off to learn the lastest fad
language which will go out of "favor" in a few years for the next "fad" language. Sure
it maybe a money making scheme for Microsoft, but it doesn't do the business world any
good. I mean, I see resumes all the time with a list of 90 languages long and someone
is "proud" of that fact -- think about it, it is really a pretty sad state of affairs.

Rob.

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Oi**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> re:
>> if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS server OS.
>
> Rob, take a look at :
>
> http://www.dotnetpowered.com/languages.aspx
> for a list of the languages/OS's which you can use with .Net.
>
> You may have to reconsider your statement
> quoted above after you see that page.
>
> Sure, the learning curve is steep, but it's no more
> steep than any other web platform's learning curve.
>
> Progress demands fast change.
>
> Complaining about the pace of change won't get you anywhere,
> except to the place where archaic stuff is archived.
>
> In any case, what do you suggest as an alternative ?
>
>
>
> Juan T. Llibre
> ASP.NET MVP
> http://asp.net.do/foros/
> Foros de ASP.NET en Español
> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
> ======================
>
> "Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:uw*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning curve, but so
>>far I've had to learn:
>>
>> HTML
>> XML
>> JavaScript
>> ASP.NET using VB.NET
>> .NET Framework
>> ADO.NET
>> SSL
>> FormAuthentication
>> (and probably a few more things)
>>
>> Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is ridiculous!! The
>> simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the enable state of a control on
>> another ASPX page in a frame for example). And XML, OMG that has got to be the most
>> ineffecient way to write out data I've ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So
>> far the research I've seen are "frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This
>> is just crazy, if the development community has to continue on in this bizarre
>> environment of languages and technology, then web application development is never
>> going to mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.
>>
>> This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get developers up
>> to speed on all the technology can doom a project from the start. The pipe dream of
>> using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework ONLY for web development is just
>> that -- a pipe dream, for only the simplest of applications could anyone get away
>> with just those three technology/tools.
>>
>> I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around, but the
>> bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS
>> server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of "portability" (at the cost of
>> performance) how often are you folks moving servers around and changing platforms??
>> If platforms are changing that frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like
>> building something for 5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the
>> majority have to take the penalty. There has got to be a better way?
>>
>> Rob.
>>
>>
>
>



Nov 19 '05 #24

P: n/a
> Too bad it hasn't added alreadey generics.

..Net Platform 2.0
Because whithout Mono, .NET wouldn't last. I am using Linux and I know
what
I'm talkong about.
Odd. I thought Windows was the most prevalent platform in the world.
Remember, .Net and Java are NOT just for servers. But I don't use Linux, so
I guess I don't know what I'm talkong about.
So the problem here is actually
Microsoft's way of presenting things as being the best, when they are not.
Um, who doesn't? Does Sun present their technologies as NOT being the best?
How about IBM? In fact, can you mention ONE company that advertises their
product as not being the best?
It's the same policy applied with Windows (please excuse me if you think
what
I say is rude) and whith SQL Server.
I wouldn't say "rude." "Silly" comes to mind.
But .NET is just another language
And here I've always thought .Net was language neutral. Oh well. Live and
learn!

--

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
The sun never sets on
the Kingdom of Heaven

"Win948576" <Wi*******@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:54**********************************@microsof t.com... Ok, read your "interesting" conversation. Pretty nice, really. But for a
constructive thought you have to think longer. We all know there are just
two
platforms which have "legal" right to claim to be the platform of
tomorrow,
Java and .NET. Of course, .NET is a bit better because it had Java to
learn
from. That is what I read in most third party .NET documentations. But
that's
not the main problem here. .NET is better because of its properties,
events,
delegates and so on. Too bad it hasn't added alreadey generics. Mono is
doing
a great job porting .NET to other platforms and Microsoft should be
thankful.
Because whithout Mono, .NET wouldn't last. I am using Linux and I know
what
I'm talkong about.

I think Rob's problem is that Java, nor .NET offers true "productivity
whithout hedache" programming. Java is totaly nowhere whith its MVC
patterns,
which only make things hard to code, and C# makes things worst because it
spoiles all expectancies of being the "one perfect language" we all heard
about the way Microsoft presents it. So the problem here is actually
Microsoft's way of presenting things as being the best, when they are not.
It's the same policy applied with Windows (please excuse me if you think
what
I say is rude) and whith SQL Server. Oh, and even with Visual Studio. I am
not complaining just to complain. But .NET is just another language - why
then it is presented as being the best? I repeat, I AM a .NET coder, I DO
like .NET better than Java because of its events and properties, but I
would
expect more.

Nov 19 '05 #25

P: n/a
I'm not going to argue this beyond this post.

My point is that he was requesting that Microsoft do what
clearly is beyond Microsoft's, or any other company's, reach.

To request that Microsoft, or any other company, unify
HTML, XHTML, CSS, JavaScript, and a bunch of other
standards into a "Common Language Development"
and a "Common Language Framework" is, simply, nuts.

I'd like to see Sun attempt that,
or see the Open Source community and IBM attempt that.

re:
But he seems to have enough faith in Microsoft
hearing and maybe even realizing a thing or two.
Not in the terms in which he expressed his "request".
To comply with such a request is impossible.

The DOJ and the EU's anti-monopoly commision would breathe
fire down the neck of any company which tried to do that.

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Ben" <Be*@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:79**********************************@microsof t.com... And YOU managed to miss Rob's point very well. He clearly stated he doesn't
even know if an ideal platform exists. But he seems to have enough faith in
Microsoft hearing and maybe even realizing a thing or two.

Rob has some very valid points here and - especially with MS's customer base
- they'd benefit from introducing a more ColdFusion-like RAD web platform.
Save the XML and SOAP and CodeBehind and ViewStates, etc. for Amazon-type
sites. Most developers can get by on a lighter-weight platform.
"Juan T. Llibre" wrote:
You managed to evade the question very well.

The question is :
> What do you suggest as an alternate platform ?


Or, are you only focused on bitching about MS ?

What/who is doing the job better than MS's platform is doing ?

Is that too difficult a question ?

Or, do you aim to be recognized as the troll you were accused of being ?

Please answer.

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:e5**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> No more alternatives -- just get MS to freakin' pick one and stay with it -- stop
> re-inventing the wheel every 5 years that does more or less the same thing. Evolve
> the
> tool, stop dumping it and starting from scratch again -- the only message I see
> there
> is that MS got lost and their "code re-use" went out the door -- which isn't exactly
> a
> great selling point for their lastest and great new tools.
>
> But I am waiting for the hard back version of "How Microsoft got lost" -- version
> 3.1
> due out this holiday season ;)
>
> Rob.
>
> "Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:em**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Your objections are acknowledged.
>>
>> What do you suggest as an alternate platform ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Juan T. Llibre
>> ASP.NET MVP
>> http://asp.net.do/foros/
>> Foros de ASP.NET en Español
>> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
>> ======================
>>
>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:O%****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>> Juan,
>>>
>>> That is good, but think about what your just pointed out. 97% of the listed
>>> languages
>>> are used by <2% of the dev community -- flexible yes, but important to RAD (rapid
>>> application development), no.
>>>
>>> I have no problem with "Change", I do have a problem of change for the sake of
>>> change
>>> OR change to benefit the few but penalizes the majority. I do find it funny you
>>> point
>>> out a list of supported languages, some VERY archaic that can now be used with
>>> .NET.
>>> Your sending a confusing message.
>>>
>>> I don't care that I would need to learn A new language (as in one), but it does me
>>> NO
>>> good to learned several new languages all of which are simply different syntaxs (or
>>> exist to bridge the gap) that are ultimately used to turn concepts into reality.
>>> All
>>> languages ultimately do the same thing and people argue for days that language X is
>>> better than language Y, but the reality is most good developers just want the best
>>> tool available that is easiest to translate spec into code into reality -- as a
>>> developer, I don't mind learning a new language, just make sure that is it --
>>> businesses can't afford to keep sending developers off to learn the lastest fad
>>> language which will go out of "favor" in a few years for the next "fad" language.
>>> Sure
>>> it maybe a money making scheme for Microsoft, but it doesn't do the business world
>>> any
>>> good. I mean, I see resumes all the time with a list of 90 languages long and
>>> someone
>>> is "proud" of that fact -- think about it, it is really a pretty sad state of
>>> affairs.
>>>
>>> Rob.
>>>
>>> "Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Oi**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>> re:
>>>>> if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS server OS.
>>>>
>>>> Rob, take a look at :
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dotnetpowered.com/languages.aspx
>>>> for a list of the languages/OS's which you can use with .Net.
>>>>
>>>> You may have to reconsider your statement
>>>> quoted above after you see that page.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, the learning curve is steep, but it's no more
>>>> steep than any other web platform's learning curve.
>>>>
>>>> Progress demands fast change.
>>>>
>>>> Complaining about the pace of change won't get you anywhere,
>>>> except to the place where archaic stuff is archived.
>>>>
>>>> In any case, what do you suggest as an alternative ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Juan T. Llibre
>>>> ASP.NET MVP
>>>> http://asp.net.do/foros/
>>>> Foros de ASP.NET en Español
>>>> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
>>>> ======================
>>>>
>>>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:uw*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>>>I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning curve, but so
>>>>>far I've had to learn:
>>>>>
>>>>> HTML
>>>>> XML
>>>>> JavaScript
>>>>> ASP.NET using VB.NET
>>>>> .NET Framework
>>>>> ADO.NET
>>>>> SSL
>>>>> FormAuthentication
>>>>> (and probably a few more things)
>>>>>
>>>>> Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is ridiculous!!
>>>>> The
>>>>> simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the enable state of a control
>>>>> on
>>>>> another ASPX page in a frame for example). And XML, OMG that has got to be the
>>>>> most
>>>>> ineffecient way to write out data I've ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!!
>>>>> So
>>>>> far the research I've seen are "frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful.
>>>>> This
>>>>> is just crazy, if the development community has to continue on in this bizarre
>>>>> environment of languages and technology, then web application development is
>>>>> never
>>>>> going to mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get developers
>>>>> up
>>>>> to speed on all the technology can doom a project from the start. The pipe dream
>>>>> of
>>>>> using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework ONLY for web development is just
>>>>> that -- a pipe dream, for only the simplest of applications could anyone get
>>>>> away
>>>>> with just those three technology/tools.
>>>>>
>>>>> I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around, but the
>>>>> bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS
>>>>> server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of "portability" (at the cost of
>>>>> performance) how often are you folks moving servers around and changing
>>>>> platforms??
>>>>> If platforms are changing that frequently, that begs the question why?! It's
>>>>> like
>>>>> building something for 5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the
>>>>> majority have to take the penalty. There has got to be a better way?
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


Nov 19 '05 #26

P: n/a
Ben
I agree that it did get a little out of hand when the thread was taken to the
point of the 'one unified language' thing. But look at ColdFusion as a great
example. They combined HTML with their server side markup language CFML very
fluidly.

I'm a lil rusty but the syntax was something like:

<cfquery name="getCustomers" datasource="myDSN">
SELECT *
FROM CUSTOMERS
</cfquery>

<table>
<tr><td>Name</td><td>Phone</td></tr>
<cfloop query="getCustomers">
<tr><td>#Name#</td><td>#Phone#</td></tr>
</cfloop>
</table>
</cfloop>

"Juan T. Llibre" wrote:
I'm not going to argue this beyond this post.

My point is that he was requesting that Microsoft do what
clearly is beyond Microsoft's, or any other company's, reach.

To request that Microsoft, or any other company, unify
HTML, XHTML, CSS, JavaScript, and a bunch of other
standards into a "Common Language Development"
and a "Common Language Framework" is, simply, nuts.

I'd like to see Sun attempt that,
or see the Open Source community and IBM attempt that.

re:
But he seems to have enough faith in Microsoft
hearing and maybe even realizing a thing or two.


Not in the terms in which he expressed his "request".
To comply with such a request is impossible.

The DOJ and the EU's anti-monopoly commision would breathe
fire down the neck of any company which tried to do that.

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Ben" <Be*@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:79**********************************@microsof t.com...
And YOU managed to miss Rob's point very well. He clearly stated he doesn't
even know if an ideal platform exists. But he seems to have enough faith in
Microsoft hearing and maybe even realizing a thing or two.

Rob has some very valid points here and - especially with MS's customer base
- they'd benefit from introducing a more ColdFusion-like RAD web platform.
Save the XML and SOAP and CodeBehind and ViewStates, etc. for Amazon-type
sites. Most developers can get by on a lighter-weight platform.
"Juan T. Llibre" wrote:
You managed to evade the question very well.

The question is :
> What do you suggest as an alternate platform ?

Or, are you only focused on bitching about MS ?

What/who is doing the job better than MS's platform is doing ?

Is that too difficult a question ?

Or, do you aim to be recognized as the troll you were accused of being ?

Please answer.

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:e5**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> No more alternatives -- just get MS to freakin' pick one and stay with it -- stop
> re-inventing the wheel every 5 years that does more or less the same thing. Evolve
> the
> tool, stop dumping it and starting from scratch again -- the only message I see
> there
> is that MS got lost and their "code re-use" went out the door -- which isn't exactly
> a
> great selling point for their lastest and great new tools.
>
> But I am waiting for the hard back version of "How Microsoft got lost" -- version
> 3.1
> due out this holiday season ;)
>
> Rob.
>
> "Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:em**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Your objections are acknowledged.
>>
>> What do you suggest as an alternate platform ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Juan T. Llibre
>> ASP.NET MVP
>> http://asp.net.do/foros/
>> Foros de ASP.NET en Español
>> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
>> ======================
>>
>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:O%****************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>> Juan,
>>>
>>> That is good, but think about what your just pointed out. 97% of the listed
>>> languages
>>> are used by <2% of the dev community -- flexible yes, but important to RAD (rapid
>>> application development), no.
>>>
>>> I have no problem with "Change", I do have a problem of change for the sake of
>>> change
>>> OR change to benefit the few but penalizes the majority. I do find it funny you
>>> point
>>> out a list of supported languages, some VERY archaic that can now be used with
>>> .NET.
>>> Your sending a confusing message.
>>>
>>> I don't care that I would need to learn A new language (as in one), but it does me
>>> NO
>>> good to learned several new languages all of which are simply different syntaxs (or
>>> exist to bridge the gap) that are ultimately used to turn concepts into reality.
>>> All
>>> languages ultimately do the same thing and people argue for days that language X is
>>> better than language Y, but the reality is most good developers just want the best
>>> tool available that is easiest to translate spec into code into reality -- as a
>>> developer, I don't mind learning a new language, just make sure that is it --
>>> businesses can't afford to keep sending developers off to learn the lastest fad
>>> language which will go out of "favor" in a few years for the next "fad" language.
>>> Sure
>>> it maybe a money making scheme for Microsoft, but it doesn't do the business world
>>> any
>>> good. I mean, I see resumes all the time with a list of 90 languages long and
>>> someone
>>> is "proud" of that fact -- think about it, it is really a pretty sad state of
>>> affairs.
>>>
>>> Rob.
>>>
>>> "Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Oi**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>> re:
>>>>> if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS server OS.
>>>>
>>>> Rob, take a look at :
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dotnetpowered.com/languages.aspx
>>>> for a list of the languages/OS's which you can use with .Net.
>>>>
>>>> You may have to reconsider your statement
>>>> quoted above after you see that page.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, the learning curve is steep, but it's no more
>>>> steep than any other web platform's learning curve.
>>>>
>>>> Progress demands fast change.
>>>>
>>>> Complaining about the pace of change won't get you anywhere,
>>>> except to the place where archaic stuff is archived.
>>>>
>>>> In any case, what do you suggest as an alternative ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Juan T. Llibre
>>>> ASP.NET MVP
>>>> http://asp.net.do/foros/
>>>> Foros de ASP.NET en Español
>>>> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
>>>> ======================
>>>>
>>>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:uw*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>>>I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning curve, but so
>>>>>far I've had to learn:
>>>>>
>>>>> HTML
>>>>> XML
>>>>> JavaScript
>>>>> ASP.NET using VB.NET
>>>>> .NET Framework
>>>>> ADO.NET
>>>>> SSL
>>>>> FormAuthentication
>>>>> (and probably a few more things)
>>>>>
>>>>> Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is ridiculous!!
>>>>> The
>>>>> simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the enable state of a control
>>>>> on
>>>>> another ASPX page in a frame for example). And XML, OMG that has got to be the
>>>>> most
>>>>> ineffecient way to write out data I've ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!!
>>>>> So
>>>>> far the research I've seen are "frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful.
>>>>> This
>>>>> is just crazy, if the development community has to continue on in this bizarre
>>>>> environment of languages and technology, then web application development is
>>>>> never
>>>>> going to mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get developers
>>>>> up
>>>>> to speed on all the technology can doom a project from the start. The pipe dream
>>>>> of
>>>>> using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework ONLY for web development is just
>>>>> that -- a pipe dream, for only the simplest of applications could anyone get
>>>>> away
>>>>> with just those three technology/tools.
>>>>>
>>>>> I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around, but the
>>>>> bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS
>>>>> server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of "portability" (at the cost of
>>>>> performance) how often are you folks moving servers around and changing
>>>>> platforms??
>>>>> If platforms are changing that frequently, that begs the question why?! It's
>>>>> like
>>>>> building something for 5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the
>>>>> majority have to take the penalty. There has got to be a better way?
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


Nov 19 '05 #27

P: n/a


Kevin Spencer wrote:
Too bad it hasn't added alreadey generics.
.Net Platform 2.0
Because whithout Mono, .NET wouldn't last. I am using Linux and I know
what
I'm talkong about.


Odd. I thought Windows was the most prevalent platform in the world.
Remember, .Net and Java are NOT just for servers.


Exactly the point, IMO. Stick with something that understands and
allows developers to implement what IS exactly intended for servers --
web servers!
But I don't use Linux, so
I guess I don't know what I'm talkong about.
So the problem here is actually
Microsoft's way of presenting things as being the best, when they are not.
Um, who doesn't? Does Sun present their technologies as NOT being the best?
How about IBM? In fact, can you mention ONE company that advertises their
product as not being the best?


Sun presented its solution and kicked Microsoft's butt when Microsoft
tried to throw the monkey in the wrench for the sake of imposing its
own standards. But, yeah, you are right, I would present my stuff as
the best for xyz reason, too. Problem is, Microsoft's
if-we-can't-beat-em-we'll-buy-em approach stopped at the Sun door... at
the Netscape door... at the [awaiting the next contender -- looking
more and more and more like the developers of mySQL, PHP, anything Open
Source, etc.]. True developers that CAN advance technology (because
they are better/best) AND have long money for legal battles and
customer bases and can and will present their stuff as the best -- and
STILL maintain a respectable face in the business/tech-geek community.

Microsoft [anything] is a custom solution for people who do not want to
advance technology, but rather, want you to waste time (and money)
learning their syntax.
It's the same policy applied with Windows (please excuse me if you think
what
I say is rude) and whith SQL Server.


I wouldn't say "rude." "Silly" comes to mind.


I partially agree that the notion would be silly at this late date. It
would have been nice some time shortly after HTML was chosen as the
*standard* markup and Javascript came along to offer client-side speed
and functionality.
But .NET is just another language


And here I've always thought .Net was language neutral. Oh well. Live and
learn!


..Net is Microsoft's Java wannabe. Also, my marketing intuit tells me
that when .com extensions started running out, Microsoft simply tried
to capture the next most popular extension that would appeal to the
tech community. Glitz and glamour? Maybe... Pays the bills, but
don't see much new to learn exact syntax.
--

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
The sun never sets on
the Kingdom of Heaven

"Win948576" <Wi*******@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:54**********************************@microsof t.com...
Ok, read your "interesting" conversation. Pretty nice, really. But for a
constructive thought you have to think longer. We all know there are just
two
platforms which have "legal" right to claim to be the platform of
tomorrow,
Java and .NET. Of course, .NET is a bit better because it had Java to
learn
from. That is what I read in most third party .NET documentations. But
that's
not the main problem here. .NET is better because of its properties,
events,
delegates and so on. Too bad it hasn't added alreadey generics. Mono is
doing
a great job porting .NET to other platforms and Microsoft should be
thankful.
Because whithout Mono, .NET wouldn't last. I am using Linux and I know
what
I'm talkong about.

I think Rob's problem is that Java, nor .NET offers true "productivity
whithout hedache" programming. Java is totaly nowhere whith its MVC
patterns,
which only make things hard to code, and C# makes things worst because it
spoiles all expectancies of being the "one perfect language" we all heard
about the way Microsoft presents it. So the problem here is actually
Microsoft's way of presenting things as being the best, when they are not.
It's the same policy applied with Windows (please excuse me if you think
what
I say is rude) and whith SQL Server. Oh, and even with Visual Studio. I am
not complaining just to complain. But .NET is just another language - why
then it is presented as being the best? I repeat, I AM a .NET coder, I DO
like .NET better than Java because of its events and properties, but I
would
expect more.


Nov 19 '05 #28

P: n/a
Roy
>"There has to be a better way to develop web applications."

Nope. Not really.
"I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning curve,
but so far I've had to learn:
HTML
XML
JavaScript
ASP.NET using VB.NET
.NET Framework
ADO.NET
SSL
FormAuthentication
(and probably a few more things)
Way to go! Keep up the good work.
"Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is
ridiculous!! The simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the
It sounds like you don't understand what you just said above: "I'm
learning web development and there is a STEEP learning curve"
enable state of a control on another ASPX page in a frame for example). And
XML, OMG that has got to be the most ineffecient way to write out data I've
ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So far the research I've seen are
"frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This is just crazy, if the
development community has to continue on in this bizarre environment of
languages and technology, then web application development is never going to
mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.
But it has matured and become cost effective for most companies to
exploit.
"This is NOT an efficient way to get work done --
I find that the speed and efficiency of any programming task is
*directly* tied to how skilled management is at organizing the whole
affair. Research agile programming or any number of other programming
strategies.
just the cost to get developers up to speed on all the technology can doom a >project from the
This attitude strikes me as a little... well... spoiled. Who the heck
"gets the developers up to speed?" Certainly not most companies. In
every organization I've worked for the onus fell on the programmer to
sink or swim.
start. The pipe dream of using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework ONLY
for web development is just that -- a pipe dream, for only the simplest of
applications could anyone get away with just those three technology/tools.


asp.net is a huge umbrella, which makes me question how much you truly
know of it... Given "those three technology/tools," I could make damn
near any web app I wanted, regardless of complexity.

<snip>

In summation: if it was easy, everyone would be doing it.

Nov 19 '05 #29

P: n/a
Well FWIW, I have been reading this conv and wanted to put in my .02. I
guess like any technology, you need to appreciate the need to upgrade your
skills as a developer. But I agree with the general statements that the
learning curve porting anything to .NET is steep. MS does a great job of
providing resources for anyone trying to upgrade their skillset, the problem
is time. Unless your a large corp developer getting paid to upgrade your
skills, the upgrade is a lot more intimidating. I find it difficult to put a
full day in at work supporting vb6 and .asp apps, then try to burn another
3-4 hours a day trying to upgrade your skillset. It has nothing to do with
your proficiency as a developer.

"Roy" wrote:
"There has to be a better way to develop web applications."


Nope. Not really.
"I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning curve,
but so far I've had to learn:
HTML
XML
JavaScript
ASP.NET using VB.NET
.NET Framework
ADO.NET
SSL
FormAuthentication
(and probably a few more things)


Way to go! Keep up the good work.
"Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is
ridiculous!! The simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the


It sounds like you don't understand what you just said above: "I'm
learning web development and there is a STEEP learning curve"
enable state of a control on another ASPX page in a frame for example). And
XML, OMG that has got to be the most ineffecient way to write out data I've
ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So far the research I've seen are
"frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This is just crazy, if the
development community has to continue on in this bizarre environment of
languages and technology, then web application development is never going to
mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.


But it has matured and become cost effective for most companies to
exploit.
"This is NOT an efficient way to get work done --


I find that the speed and efficiency of any programming task is
*directly* tied to how skilled management is at organizing the whole
affair. Research agile programming or any number of other programming
strategies.
just the cost to get developers up to speed on all the technology can doom a >project from the


This attitude strikes me as a little... well... spoiled. Who the heck
"gets the developers up to speed?" Certainly not most companies. In
every organization I've worked for the onus fell on the programmer to
sink or swim.
start. The pipe dream of using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework ONLY
for web development is just that -- a pipe dream, for only the simplest of
applications could anyone get away with just those three technology/tools.


asp.net is a huge umbrella, which makes me question how much you truly
know of it... Given "those three technology/tools," I could make damn
near any web app I wanted, regardless of complexity.

<snip>

In summation: if it was easy, everyone would be doing it.

Nov 19 '05 #30

P: n/a
First of all ASP.Net does make our life simpler compared to the previous
methods of web programming. Also in the ASP.Net 1.x we have some annoyances
like we cannot post a form to a different url(*see note below). Microsoft can
never become a panacea of application development on Internet. Instead of
arguing about which technology is good, we need to focus on creating a
standard for server side technologies. This brings in a lot of advantages we
have right now with the client side HTML, Javascript, etc. Is there one
already which I am unaware of?
*: I want to run the form in server, I dont think it is possible even if
both the pages are inherited from the same class. Please excuse me if I dont
know how to do it officially in ASP.net.

"Rob R. Ainscough" wrote:
I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning curve,
but so far I've had to learn:

HTML
XML
JavaScript
ASP.NET using VB.NET
..NET Framework
ADO.NET
SSL
FormAuthentication
(and probably a few more things)

Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is
ridiculous!! The simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the
enable state of a control on another ASPX page in a frame for example). And
XML, OMG that has got to be the most ineffecient way to write out data I've
ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So far the research I've seen are
"frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This is just crazy, if the
development community has to continue on in this bizarre environment of
languages and technology, then web application development is never going to
mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.

This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get
developers up to speed on all the technology can doom a project from the
start. The pipe dream of using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework ONLY
for web development is just that -- a pipe dream, for only the simplest of
applications could anyone get away with just those three technology/tools.

I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around, but
the bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your
bound to MS server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of
"portability" (at the cost of performance) how often are you folks moving
servers around and changing platforms?? If platforms are changing that
frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like building something for
5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the majority have to take
the penalty. There has got to be a better way?

Rob.

Nov 19 '05 #31

P: n/a
re:
we cannot post a form to a different url
*: I want to run the form in server, I dont think it is possible
It should be possible, both in ASP.NET 1.1 as well as in 2.0 :

[Visual Basic]
Private Sub Page_Load(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles MyBase.Load
Form1.Action = "Somepage.aspx"
End Sub

[C#]
private void Page_Load(object sender, System.EventArgs e)
{
Form1.Action = "Somepage.aspx";
}

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"balrag" <ba****@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote in message news:F4**********************************@microsof t.com...
First of all ASP.Net does make our life simpler compared to the previous
methods of web programming. Also in the ASP.Net 1.x we have some annoyances
like we cannot post a form to a different url(*see note below). Microsoft can
never become a panacea of application development on Internet. Instead of
arguing about which technology is good, we need to focus on creating a
standard for server side technologies. This brings in a lot of advantages we
have right now with the client side HTML, Javascript, etc. Is there one
already which I am unaware of? *: I want to run the form in server, I dont think it is possible even if
both the pages are inherited from the same class. Please excuse me if I dont
know how to do it officially in ASP.net.

Nov 19 '05 #32

P: n/a
RCS
I don't know if you're serious - but I'll respond anyhow.

This is like anything else you'd do with programming - you have to take some
time, to set up some templates/standards/etc - so that you can later "crank
out" applications with ease. We needed to do the same thing with a sort of a
tab/subtab layout - that we've used for the past 6+ years in ASP. We
initially spent about 4 months making a tabbed-type layout that was
extensible and integrated with our single-signon.. so that after that, it
was a matter of making up a logo, changing the CSS classes, layout your
tabs - and start development.

So - these technologies aren't so much the enemy - as they are your friend -
to help you do your job. And it only behooves you to know these. It doesn't
matter if it were big technology called "Bob" with 8 sub-categories - or if
it's called 8 different names. The things you mentioned below are the
elements of what it takes to write applications.

As for XML overhead - I think you have have needed to come through the "flat
file" era of computing to see the advantage. For years (and sadly, still
today) - companies pass text files (like comma-seperated or tab-seperated
text files) back and forth. Think about this. How do you get that data into
your database? Well - most would start by writing a parser - to turn those
"hopefully it's the right format" file, into meaningful database fields.
Most people write what I call a "write-once/use-once" parser. You write a
parser specific to that file. You could obviously also spend time making a
more flexible parser, but it needs to be robust. The core problem with a
hand-written parser is that it not only needs to handle all the things you
can think of... it also needs to handle the things you can't think of.
Like - what if you get an end-of-file right in the middle of a record.. what
if there is text in the presumed date/time field.. etc, etc, etc, etc. So
for people who lived through that headache - XML is just staggering. Yes -
there is a little bit of size overhead (not that it matters in these days of
nearly unlimited RAM and disk space) - but there is one parser. The XML
parser. Which, right off the bat - if it's not valid XML, it won't even
load!! Then, you can apply a schema - and XML will check to make sure you
have "exactly one" of these elements and one or more of these elements. So
it's become an infinitely more efficient way to process foreign files - and
files from different computing environments.

HTML forms ARE bad. Especially in an ASP.NET environment. The main reason,
is that it becomes very difficult to keep "user state". That is, "who is
this user and exaclty what are they doing". Which, on a single ASP page for
example, is 100% controllable. If you have frames, it would take a
significant chunk of work - to tell the navigation frame if the current
frame is doing anything that should make the navigation change. Because -
the navigation has absolutely-no-idea what is going on in the other frames.
So it's a false sense of integration - it looks like the frames make up a
whole website - but really, it's a couple of completely unrelated pages -
that if you wanted to make them related - would take a significant effort.
And if you are in a situation where you want to "post" to another page in
ASP.NET - I wouldn't spend my time trying to make it work, I would spend my
time thinking *why* I am trying to do that, and see if there is a more
natural way to accomplish what I am trying to do.

Lastly, you say it's a pipedream to use ASP.NET and the .NET Framework to
write applications. First, the .NET Framework is what houses the logic for
ASP.NET, XML, VB.NET, ADO.NET (are they still calling it that?) and
FormAuthentication. But dare I say, you almost don't need to know HTML,
because the design editors are so good now - and you can even drag-and-drop
your database connection/command/etc and technically not do any coding. So
if you are looking for the "good-old-days of point-n-click development" like
MS-Access/VB3/VB6, they've made room for you in VS.NET. But if you want to
embrace these new technologies and use them to leverage your development and
become a more efficient developer, they've done that too.

I've been in hip-deep in .NET since it came out and I have two consistent
thoughts: 1) .NET is the biggest leap in software development and developer
productivity that I've ever seen (see comment below) and 2) This is a great
time to be a developer.

You could argue the first one, that "Java has been around for years and
never got the recognition!". Well, .NET is about the technology (and yes, C#
is pretty much Java) - but it's also about how it's
bundled/sold/trained/etc.. Because the Java people are so caught up in being
open and not locking down developers - they became so open that they can't
accomplish anything. So yes, Microsofts solution is a boxed/shrink-wrapped
solution and they do force the developer to use one tool, etc... but it's
for his own good, because forcing everyone to limit the tools they use,
enables them to make forward progress.

You can either run on one system, and become an advanced, proprietary
system... or you can be an open system, and spend all your time NOT using
any one thing that limits you. In the end, open-systems and forward-progress
are mutually exclusive.

I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning
curve,
but so far I've had to learn:

HTML
XML
JavaScript
ASP.NET using VB.NET
..NET Framework
ADO.NET
SSL
FormAuthentication
(and probably a few more things)

Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is
ridiculous!! The simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the
enable state of a control on another ASPX page in a frame for example).
And
XML, OMG that has got to be the most ineffecient way to write out data
I've
ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So far the research I've seen
are
"frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This is just crazy, if
the
development community has to continue on in this bizarre environment of
languages and technology, then web application development is never going
to
mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.

This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get
developers up to speed on all the technology can doom a project from the
start. The pipe dream of using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework
ONLY
for web development is just that -- a pipe dream, for only the simplest
of
applications could anyone get away with just those three
technology/tools.

I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around,
but
the bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your
bound to MS server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of
"portability" (at the cost of performance) how often are you folks moving
servers around and changing platforms?? If platforms are changing that
frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like building something
for
5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the majority have to
take
the penalty. There has got to be a better way?

Rob.

Nov 19 '05 #33

P: n/a
The problem is multi-faceted. Disparate technology platforms, the hunger for
companies to have loyal followers( read: internal champions and customers),
the changing nature of technology in general.

The problem with the concept of RAD is that, frankly, it's never happened.
By that I mean, RAD dictates that your engineers, developers, architects,
implementation and support people are already a well-oiled machine. If this
is the case, then you don't necessarily need to standardize on any single
vendor platform - it could be anything. But practically speaking, Microsoft
seems to have a major foothold in the server / web development marketplace
by virture of the fact that IIS 6.0 comes bundled for free with WS03.

Another obesrvation in terms of the technological learning / use curve is
that RARELY does a program manager / client / project have a clear and
concise framework around what THEY want to achieve. How many times have I
heard "I'd like a Button that I can click...(that will essentially run my
super-complex business/role). That's certainly contributes to
cross-pollenating across 15 different technology iterations. IT professionals
use whatever is in the toolbox to get the job done. More often than not, by
design, the products (even freebies) are inter-related and dependent. This is
done to drive business. If you think tht this is all just R&D - think again.
We (sic.) are being led in a very specific direction, one bite at a time.
Companies are the ones that are forced to absorb the "hit"; the actual people
who suffer are the IT professionals who see the pervasive interpretation of
the business community at large of their roles as hemmoraging expenses and
disfunctional agents of change. This is precisely why some 50% of the
business community was still using WIndows NT 4.0 as of 2 years ago.

Software comapnies (and hence developers) need to slow down and put out
something that has some serious meat to it - and stick with it. I mean a
finished product. Good examples of this busines model can be found with Adobe
and Macromedia - both of whom are th only companies I see as having pushed
finsihed products suites. You'll notice, as a result, that they don't have a
new version every 18 months. What they have currently rocks, needs little
tweakage, and it essentially a customizable, scalable platform (ColdFusion /
J2EE anyone??). This are highly under-rated technologies, imo.

If the development community as a whole demands that their be business value
in requiring our time to absorb/use/champion the use of new technologies,
then it will require software manufacturers to make better products - and
hence, stop wasting our time (as in the original poster's commentary). If
we're all going the "geek" path of the newest, latest, greatest "toys" on the
block (e,g, software, tools, etc.) then there's no substantial reason for
software manufacturers to hold to the aforementioned model. I put the owness
back on us as developers and champions of our individual talents and tools.
"RCS" wrote:
I don't know if you're serious - but I'll respond anyhow.

This is like anything else you'd do with programming - you have to take some
time, to set up some templates/standards/etc - so that you can later "crank
out" applications with ease. We needed to do the same thing with a sort of a
tab/subtab layout - that we've used for the past 6+ years in ASP. We
initially spent about 4 months making a tabbed-type layout that was
extensible and integrated with our single-signon.. so that after that, it
was a matter of making up a logo, changing the CSS classes, layout your
tabs - and start development.

So - these technologies aren't so much the enemy - as they are your friend -
to help you do your job. And it only behooves you to know these. It doesn't
matter if it were big technology called "Bob" with 8 sub-categories - or if
it's called 8 different names. The things you mentioned below are the
elements of what it takes to write applications.

As for XML overhead - I think you have have needed to come through the "flat
file" era of computing to see the advantage. For years (and sadly, still
today) - companies pass text files (like comma-seperated or tab-seperated
text files) back and forth. Think about this. How do you get that data into
your database? Well - most would start by writing a parser - to turn those
"hopefully it's the right format" file, into meaningful database fields.
Most people write what I call a "write-once/use-once" parser. You write a
parser specific to that file. You could obviously also spend time making a
more flexible parser, but it needs to be robust. The core problem with a
hand-written parser is that it not only needs to handle all the things you
can think of... it also needs to handle the things you can't think of.
Like - what if you get an end-of-file right in the middle of a record.. what
if there is text in the presumed date/time field.. etc, etc, etc, etc. So
for people who lived through that headache - XML is just staggering. Yes -
there is a little bit of size overhead (not that it matters in these days of
nearly unlimited RAM and disk space) - but there is one parser. The XML
parser. Which, right off the bat - if it's not valid XML, it won't even
load!! Then, you can apply a schema - and XML will check to make sure you
have "exactly one" of these elements and one or more of these elements. So
it's become an infinitely more efficient way to process foreign files - and
files from different computing environments.

HTML forms ARE bad. Especially in an ASP.NET environment. The main reason,
is that it becomes very difficult to keep "user state". That is, "who is
this user and exaclty what are they doing". Which, on a single ASP page for
example, is 100% controllable. If you have frames, it would take a
significant chunk of work - to tell the navigation frame if the current
frame is doing anything that should make the navigation change. Because -
the navigation has absolutely-no-idea what is going on in the other frames.
So it's a false sense of integration - it looks like the frames make up a
whole website - but really, it's a couple of completely unrelated pages -
that if you wanted to make them related - would take a significant effort.
And if you are in a situation where you want to "post" to another page in
ASP.NET - I wouldn't spend my time trying to make it work, I would spend my
time thinking *why* I am trying to do that, and see if there is a more
natural way to accomplish what I am trying to do.

Lastly, you say it's a pipedream to use ASP.NET and the .NET Framework to
write applications. First, the .NET Framework is what houses the logic for
ASP.NET, XML, VB.NET, ADO.NET (are they still calling it that?) and
FormAuthentication. But dare I say, you almost don't need to know HTML,
because the design editors are so good now - and you can even drag-and-drop
your database connection/command/etc and technically not do any coding. So
if you are looking for the "good-old-days of point-n-click development" like
MS-Access/VB3/VB6, they've made room for you in VS.NET. But if you want to
embrace these new technologies and use them to leverage your development and
become a more efficient developer, they've done that too.

I've been in hip-deep in .NET since it came out and I have two consistent
thoughts: 1) .NET is the biggest leap in software development and developer
productivity that I've ever seen (see comment below) and 2) This is a great
time to be a developer.

You could argue the first one, that "Java has been around for years and
never got the recognition!". Well, .NET is about the technology (and yes, C#
is pretty much Java) - but it's also about how it's
bundled/sold/trained/etc.. Because the Java people are so caught up in being
open and not locking down developers - they became so open that they can't
accomplish anything. So yes, Microsofts solution is a boxed/shrink-wrapped
solution and they do force the developer to use one tool, etc... but it's
for his own good, because forcing everyone to limit the tools they use,
enables them to make forward progress.

You can either run on one system, and become an advanced, proprietary
system... or you can be an open system, and spend all your time NOT using
any one thing that limits you. In the end, open-systems and forward-progress
are mutually exclusive.

I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning
curve,
but so far I've had to learn:

HTML
XML
JavaScript
ASP.NET using VB.NET
..NET Framework
ADO.NET
SSL
FormAuthentication
(and probably a few more things)

Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is
ridiculous!! The simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the
enable state of a control on another ASPX page in a frame for example).
And
XML, OMG that has got to be the most ineffecient way to write out data
I've
ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So far the research I've seen
are
"frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This is just crazy, if
the
development community has to continue on in this bizarre environment of
languages and technology, then web application development is never going
to
mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.

This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get
developers up to speed on all the technology can doom a project from the
start. The pipe dream of using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework
ONLY
for web development is just that -- a pipe dream, for only the simplest
of
applications could anyone get away with just those three
technology/tools.

I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around,
but
the bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your
bound to MS server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of
"portability" (at the cost of performance) how often are you folks moving
servers around and changing platforms?? If platforms are changing that
frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like building something
for
5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the majority have to
take
the penalty. There has got to be a better way?

Rob.


Nov 19 '05 #34

P: n/a
"Juan T. Llibre" wrote:
The DOJ and the EU's anti-monopoly commision would breathe
fire down the neck of any company which tried to do that.


This is far and away the most pertinent post in this thread. To rephrase,
if you should dare to design a system that is so functional that it is
difficult if not impossible to compete against, the DOJ, many of the U.S.
states' attorney generals, and the EU's anti-monopoly commission will hand
you your head on a platter.

If those organizations had existed when God was creating the Earth, the
Earth wouldn't exist. Some of us would be frying on Mercury, some of us
would be struggling to breath on Mars, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Nov 19 '05 #35

P: n/a
Rob,

if you want to try non-MS version of the .net framework (Mono) without all
the hasle over installing and configuring then check http://www.monoppix.com.
Monoppix is fully configured mono system based on debian linux which you can
load from cd and test mono, asp.net, winforms etc etc. On the cd and on the
monoppix website you have also tutorials to help you get started.

grtz

Perica

"Rob R. Ainscough" wrote:
Yes, I do actually like Serialization and use it more often.

I didn't realize it was available for non-MS. Does the non-MS
implementation ofer identical feature sets and is it stable? I haven't seen
any hosting services that offer it or support it so I'd imagine it would be
a manage in-house situation?

I think the dev tools are a LONG way off from any real sense of
"unification" -- VS 2005 doesn't appear to be much different, basically
fixes and extends on things that should have been part of VS 2003.

I'm sure it is a little better than it was with just ASP, but we're going on
5 years now and it feels like the dev tools just aren't progressing at a
pace they should be to keep up with demand. RAD is what it is about and it
really doesn't feel any fast today than it did 5 years ago.

Rob.

"Teemu Keiski" <jo****@aspalliance.com> wrote in message
news:eA**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Hello,

first of all. Using .NET and ASP.NET does not tie you to MS OS. There's
also open-source implementation for non-MS OS's
http://www.mono-project.com

Otherwise it is somewhat true. The term jungle has increased a lot,
however.NET is a effort to better as it ties APIs for these things
together in the Framework. If you try to do the same with previous
versions of MS technologies, you'd need to install tons of separate
libraries such as MSXML, MDAC (though .NET requires certain version too
but that usually exists with newer OS's).

Your example of XML being overhead is also true,. However there are
alternatives such as binary serialization, remoting etc etc. So iut's also
case.specific, not just always generally a problem.

It's a large topic to discuss but I understand the pain.

--
Teemu Keiski
ASP.NET MVP, AspInsider
Finland, EU
http://blogs.aspadvice.com/joteke


Nov 19 '05 #36

P: n/a
What exactly are you arguing here? Who cares what language you use. Visual
Studio allows you to drag and drop web controls and regular html controls
instead of manually writing the HTML. It checks for browser capabilities and
outputs HTML and javascript in the correct form AUTOMATICALLY. It maintains
page state AUTOMATICALLY. It allows you to bind data to controls which then
output to the page wihout even having to write a single loop statement.
Moving from ASP to ASP.net I have cut my development time in half, easily. I
don't understand your issue with interoperability either. If you can read
HTML over HTTP then you can interop with every operating system that is
Internet capable. I mean, what is XML? Its an extension of HTML. What is
SOAP, its just XML, which is just HTML. Technology is complicated. Try
being a mechanic or a doctor or a physicist.

"Rob R. Ainscough" wrote:
Juan,

That is good, but think about what your just pointed out. 97% of the listed
languages are used by <2% of the dev community -- flexible yes, but
important to RAD (rapid application development), no.

I have no problem with "Change", I do have a problem of change for the sake
of change OR change to benefit the few but penalizes the majority. I do
find it funny you point out a list of supported languages, some VERY archaic
that can now be used with .NET. Your sending a confusing message.

I don't care that I would need to learn A new language (as in one), but it
does me NO good to learned several new languages all of which are simply
different syntaxs (or exist to bridge the gap) that are ultimately used to
turn concepts into reality. All languages ultimately do the same thing and
people argue for days that language X is better than language Y, but the
reality is most good developers just want the best tool available that is
easiest to translate spec into code into reality -- as a developer, I don't
mind learning a new language, just make sure that is it -- businesses can't
afford to keep sending developers off to learn the lastest fad language
which will go out of "favor" in a few years for the next "fad" language.
Sure it maybe a money making scheme for Microsoft, but it doesn't do the
business world any good. I mean, I see resumes all the time with a list of
90 languages long and someone is "proud" of that fact -- think about it, it
is really a pretty sad state of affairs.

Rob.

"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Oi**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
re:
if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS server
OS.


Rob, take a look at :

http://www.dotnetpowered.com/languages.aspx
for a list of the languages/OS's which you can use with .Net.

You may have to reconsider your statement
quoted above after you see that page.

Sure, the learning curve is steep, but it's no more
steep than any other web platform's learning curve.

Progress demands fast change.

Complaining about the pace of change won't get you anywhere,
except to the place where archaic stuff is archived.

In any case, what do you suggest as an alternative ?

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Español
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <ro*****@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:uw*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning
curve, but so far I've had to learn:

HTML
XML
JavaScript
ASP.NET using VB.NET
.NET Framework
ADO.NET
SSL
FormAuthentication
(and probably a few more things)

Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is
ridiculous!! The simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the
enable state of a control on another ASPX page in a frame for example).
And XML, OMG that has got to be the most ineffecient way to write out
data I've ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So far the research
I've seen are "frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This is
just crazy, if the development community has to continue on in this
bizarre environment of languages and technology, then web application
development is never going to mature and become cost effective for
companies to exploit.

This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get
developers up to speed on all the technology can doom a project from the
start. The pipe dream of using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework
ONLY for web development is just that -- a pipe dream, for only the
simplest of applications could anyone get away with just those three
technology/tools.

I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around,
but the bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET
your bound to MS server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of
"portability" (at the cost of performance) how often are you folks moving
servers around and changing platforms?? If platforms are changing that
frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like building something
for 5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the majority have
to take the penalty. There has got to be a better way?

Rob.



Nov 19 '05 #37

P: n/a
I think it's common for people fear of change especially when they get comfy
of what they are doing.

New technologies are created to deal with new problems and requirements.

I think people are free not to use new technologies when they come out, if
you do not like new things then do not learn or use them, though free to bash
them as you like.

"Rob R. Ainscough" wrote:
Juan,

That is good, but think about what your just pointed out. 97% of the listed
languages are used by <2% of the dev community -- flexible yes, but
important to RAD (rapid application development), no.

I have no problem with "Change", I do have a problem of change for the sake
of change OR change to benefit the few but penalizes the majority. I do
find it funny you point out a list of supported languages, some VERY archaic
that can now be used with .NET. Your sending a confusing message.

I don't care that I would need to learn A new language (as in one), but it
does me NO good to learned several new languages all of which are simply
different syntaxs (or exist to bridge the gap) that are ultimately used to
turn concepts into reality. All languages ultimately do the same thing and
people argue for days that language X is better than language Y, but the
reality is most good developers just want the best tool available that is
easiest to translate spec into code into reality -- as a developer, I don't
mind learning a new language, just make sure that is it -- businesses can't
afford to keep sending developers off to learn the lastest fad language
which will go out of "favor" in a few years for the next "fad" language.
Sure it maybe a money making scheme for Microsoft, but it doesn't do the
business world any good. I mean, I see resumes all the time with a list of
90 languages long and someone is "proud" of that fact -- think about it, it
is really a pretty sad state of affairs.


Nov 19 '05 #38

P: n/a
I think it's common for people fear of change especially when they get comfy
of what they are doing.

New technologies are created to deal with new problems and requirements.

I think people are free not to use new technologies when they come out, if
you do not like new things then do not learn or use them, though free to bash
them as you like.

"Rob R. Ainscough" wrote:
Juan,

That is good, but think about what your just pointed out. 97% of the listed
languages are used by <2% of the dev community -- flexible yes, but
important to RAD (rapid application development), no.

I have no problem with "Change", I do have a problem of change for the sake
of change OR change to benefit the few but penalizes the majority. I do
find it funny you point out a list of supported languages, some VERY archaic
that can now be used with .NET. Your sending a confusing message.

I don't care that I would need to learn A new language (as in one), but it
does me NO good to learned several new languages all of which are simply
different syntaxs (or exist to bridge the gap) that are ultimately used to
turn concepts into reality. All languages ultimately do the same thing and
people argue for days that language X is better than language Y, but the
reality is most good developers just want the best tool available that is
easiest to translate spec into code into reality -- as a developer, I don't
mind learning a new language, just make sure that is it -- businesses can't
afford to keep sending developers off to learn the lastest fad language
which will go out of "favor" in a few years for the next "fad" language.
Sure it maybe a money making scheme for Microsoft, but it doesn't do the
business world any good. I mean, I see resumes all the time with a list of
90 languages long and someone is "proud" of that fact -- think about it, it
is really a pretty sad state of affairs.


Nov 19 '05 #39

P: n/a
I have been reading this thread with some interest but also noting that in
the context being discussed all of the arguements are on technology and not
on how to use the technology to increase productivity and to provide value to
our customers. Maybe that sounds strange to some of u, but as a MS Architect
I know this to be true and I've seen it on so many projects.

It's is my experience, 25+ yrs, that most developers will continue to
re-invent the wheel for each project. Remember, 'I don't know why he did
that but I can do it much better'. The oft used word 'reuse' is generally
thought to be reusing business objects, but I suggest the benfits of reuse
are really felt in reusing code bases and coding patterns, they are
repeatable therefore prompting reuse.

No and I mean no technology or application development will be productive
without interaction with the customer, understanding what they are asking for
and having them validate your design and implementation. The best thing a
developer can do to increase productivity, technology independent, is a good
design that is validated against use cases. I'm of the opinion that with
OOA/OOD you need to perform a 'standard' OOD then implement that design. It
will make the engineer more productive!!

What does this have to do with the technology discussion we have here? Many
of the issues that have been discussed can be overcome with design goals. In
other words, the design will determine which technology and how it is to be
developed.

Additionally, I have been developing, specifically, with MS technologies
since late 80s. At that time I came from the mainframe era and with the
coming of events, properties and object orientation I knew that a revolution
in development was on the horizon and still is with the advent of Object
oriented technologies. The speed with which development can occur has
increased many fold. In 2000 I designed and led the development of a 3M
project, for over 20K pensioners and their families paying out over 345M for
over two yrs. I did this with 5 developers and 4 SMEs; I would sure like to
see you do this with Java platform.

Despite what some has said on this post, .Net platform creation was not
developed based on Java, remember Java is a language not a platform. The JVM
and Java application servers are the platform. If you want to argue the
benefits of one language vs another I don't think you do that in the context
of the platform. if you will look at the
distributed architecture for both platforms you will discover how different
these two platforms are.

As was said, somewhere above, unless you get rid of W3, html, etc. aren't
going away and that is a good thing, no one company controls the standards.

Learning curve; .Net supports multiple languages not because of portability,
as was mentioned, but for reduced training costs to move into object oriented
programming. Do you think it is more expensive to teach a cobol developer to
code C# or have the cobol developer us the .Net version of cobol? This makes
a better case for this platform rather than a platform that locks a developer
into one language, now that is control; anyway portability in Java is a
misnomer. Every platform u go to has a different JVM and different
application server, all of these require complier changes to run on that
platform and some designs changes

Since I was using VB6 in an object oriented way my trip to dotnet wasn't a
huge learning curve, I already understood object orientation and how to use
it. Example, use callback in VB6 and use delegates with events in .Net to
have callback capability, Remoting replaced DCOM, is that a bad thing, no it
is not, it did improve on the way DCOM worked, primarily allowing remote
communication thru a firewall.

As of this writing I can't think of very many things that I can't do with
..Net whether or not it is C# (or come other language), asp.net, etc. .Net
gives me access to windows APIs which means I can do anything the windows
server will allow me to do.
I'm sorry but imho, this thread is much to do about nothing; with the
exception that it allows the religous among us to prostalize about our
beliefs of which languages are better. Engineers should worry how do I apply
the technology rather than the state of the development world. It is like
abortion, everyone has their opinion so we never come to completion or
agreement.

Regarding productivity in VS: I use two add-ins to add additional
functionality to VS that is useful and adds to VS' already awesome IDE. The
first is from JetBrains and is called ReSharper and their profiler, sorry but
I don't remember that name. the other product has to do with my architectual
duties (design) and it is visual-paradigm's SDE, software development
environment. It allows me to do a complete OOA/OOD and have it generate
code, even code with implementation in it. You can reverse engineer to keep
your model uptodate and you can regenerate and not impact your
implementation. This capability gives a developer the capability to keep
technical specs uptodate with code.

Regarding the '90' languages on a resume. I'm one of those who has multiple
languages on his resume and it is not that I have used many languages but
demostrates to the interviewer that I can go into many environments and pick
up and understand what is going easier than those who haven 't experienced
such varied environments. It is not a matter of numbers, maybe I have been
interviewing more than most of you, after all I'm a consultant, but this info
is very valuable in getting interviews.

"Christopher Hansen" wrote:
The problem is multi-faceted. Disparate technology platforms, the hunger for
companies to have loyal followers( read: internal champions and customers),
the changing nature of technology in general.

The problem with the concept of RAD is that, frankly, it's never happened.
By that I mean, RAD dictates that your engineers, developers, architects,
implementation and support people are already a well-oiled machine. If this
is the case, then you don't necessarily need to standardize on any single
vendor platform - it could be anything. But practically speaking, Microsoft
seems to have a major foothold in the server / web development marketplace
by virture of the fact that IIS 6.0 comes bundled for free with WS03.

Another obesrvation in terms of the technological learning / use curve is
that RARELY does a program manager / client / project have a clear and
concise framework around what THEY want to achieve. How many times have I
heard "I'd like a Button that I can click...(that will essentially run my
super-complex business/role). That's certainly contributes to
cross-pollenating across 15 different technology iterations. IT professionals
use whatever is in the toolbox to get the job done. More often than not, by
design, the products (even freebies) are inter-related and dependent. This is
done to drive business. If you think tht this is all just R&D - think again.
We (sic.) are being led in a very specific direction, one bite at a time.
Companies are the ones that are forced to absorb the "hit"; the actual people
who suffer are the IT professionals who see the pervasive interpretation of
the business community at large of their roles as hemmoraging expenses and
disfunctional agents of change. This is precisely why some 50% of the
business community was still using WIndows NT 4.0 as of 2 years ago.

Software comapnies (and hence developers) need to slow down and put out
something that has some serious meat to it - and stick with it. I mean a
finished product. Good examples of this busines model can be found with Adobe
and Macromedia - both of whom are th only companies I see as having pushed
finsihed products suites. You'll notice, as a result, that they don't have a
new version every 18 months. What they have currently rocks, needs little
tweakage, and it essentially a customizable, scalable platform (ColdFusion /
J2EE anyone??). This are highly under-rated technologies, imo.

If the development community as a whole demands that their be business value
in requiring our time to absorb/use/champion the use of new technologies,
then it will require software manufacturers to make better products - and
hence, stop wasting our time (as in the original poster's commentary). If
we're all going the "geek" path of the newest, latest, greatest "toys" on the
block (e,g, software, tools, etc.) then there's no substantial reason for
software manufacturers to hold to the aforementioned model. I put the owness
back on us as developers and champions of our individual talents and tools.
"RCS" wrote:
I don't know if you're serious - but I'll respond anyhow.

This is like anything else you'd do with programming - you have to take some
time, to set up some templates/standards/etc - so that you can later "crank
out" applications with ease. We needed to do the same thing with a sort of a
tab/subtab layout - that we've used for the past 6+ years in ASP. We
initially spent about 4 months making a tabbed-type layout that was
extensible and integrated with our single-signon.. so that after that, it
was a matter of making up a logo, changing the CSS classes, layout your
tabs - and start development.

So - these technologies aren't so much the enemy - as they are your friend -
to help you do your job. And it only behooves you to know these. It doesn't
matter if it were big technology called "Bob" with 8 sub-categories - or if
it's called 8 different names. The things you mentioned below are the
elements of what it takes to write applications.

As for XML overhead - I think you have have needed to come through the "flat
file" era of computing to see the advantage. For years (and sadly, still
today) - companies pass text files (like comma-seperated or tab-seperated
text files) back and forth. Think about this. How do you get that data into
your database? Well - most would start by writing a parser - to turn those
"hopefully it's the right format" file, into meaningful database fields.
Most people write what I call a "write-once/use-once" parser. You write a
parser specific to that file. You could obviously also spend time making a
more flexible parser, but it needs to be robust. The core problem with a
hand-written parser is that it not only needs to handle all the things you
can think of... it also needs to handle the things you can't think of.
Like - what if you get an end-of-file right in the middle of a record.. what
if there is text in the presumed date/time field.. etc, etc, etc, etc. So
for people who lived through that headache - XML is just staggering. Yes -
there is a little bit of size overhead (not that it matters in these days of
nearly unlimited RAM and disk space) - but there is one parser. The XML
parser. Which, right off the bat - if it's not valid XML, it won't even
load!! Then, you can apply a schema - and XML will check to make sure you
have "exactly one" of these elements and one or more of these elements. So
it's become an infinitely more efficient way to process foreign files - and
files from different computing environments.

HTML forms ARE bad. Especially in an ASP.NET environment. The main reason,
is that it becomes very difficult to keep "user state". That is, "who is
this user and exaclty what are they doing". Which, on a single ASP page for
example, is 100% controllable. If you have frames, it would take a
significant chunk of work - to tell the navigation frame if the current
frame is doing anything that should make the navigation change. Because -
the navigation has absolutely-no-idea what is going on in the other frames.
So it's a false sense of integration - it looks like the frames make up a
whole website - but really, it's a couple of completely unrelated pages -
that if you wanted to make them related - would take a significant effort.
And if you are in a situation where you want to "post" to another page in
ASP.NET - I wouldn't spend my time trying to make it work, I would spend my
time thinking *why* I am trying to do that, and see if there is a more
natural way to accomplish what I am trying to do.

Lastly, you say it's a pipedream to use ASP.NET and the .NET Framework to
write applications. First, the .NET Framework is what houses the logic for
ASP.NET, XML, VB.NET, ADO.NET (are they still calling it that?) and
FormAuthentication. But dare I say, you almost don't need to know HTML,
because the design editors are so good now - and you can even drag-and-drop
your database connection/command/etc and technically not do any coding. So
if you are looking for the "good-old-days of point-n-click development" like
MS-Access/VB3/VB6, they've made room for you in VS.NET. But if you want to
embrace these new technologies and use them to leverage your development and
become a more efficient developer, they've done that too.

I've been in hip-deep in .NET since it came out and I have two consistent
thoughts: 1) .NET is the biggest leap in software development and developer
productivity that I've ever seen (see comment below) and 2) This is a great
time to be a developer.

You could argue the first one, that "Java has been around for years and
never got the recognition!". Well, .NET is about the technology (and yes, C#
is pretty much Java) - but it's also about how it's
bundled/sold/trained/etc.. Because the Java people are so caught up in being
open and not locking down developers - they became so open that they can't
accomplish anything. So yes, Microsofts solution is a boxed/shrink-wrapped
solution and they do force the developer to use one tool, etc... but it's
for his own good, because forcing everyone to limit the tools they use,
enables them to make forward progress.

You can either run on one system, and become an advanced, proprietary
system... or you can be an open system, and spend all your time NOT using
any one thing that limits you. In the end, open-systems and forward-progress
are mutually exclusive.

> I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning
> curve,
> but so far I've had to learn:
>
> HTML
> XML
> JavaScript
> ASP.NET using VB.NET
> ..NET Framework
> ADO.NET
> SSL
> FormAuthentication
> (and probably a few more things)
>
> Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is
> ridiculous!! The simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the
> enable state of a control on another ASPX page in a frame for example).
> And
> XML, OMG that has got to be the most ineffecient way to write out data
> I've
> ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So far the research I've seen
> are
> "frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This is just crazy, if
> the
> development community has to continue on in this bizarre environment of
> languages and technology, then web application development is never going
> to
> mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.
>
> This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get
> developers up to speed on all the technology can doom a project from the
> start. The pipe dream of using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework
> ONLY
> for web development is just that -- a pipe dream, for only the simplest
> of
> applications could anyone get away with just those three
> technology/tools.
>
> I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around,
> but
> the bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your
> bound to MS server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of
> "portability" (at the cost of performance) how often are you folks moving
> servers around and changing platforms?? If platforms are changing that
> frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like building something
> for
> 5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the majority have to
> take
> the penalty. There has got to be a better way?
>
> Rob.
>
>
>


Nov 19 '05 #40

P: n/a
KJ
Thank you cbwardsr!!

As I read through this thread I felt something was missing, was not sure if
I was missing some point or concept, but it didn't feel like anyone was
getting to the root. There were a couple of posts that eluded to it; but I
feel that yours put into words what I felt the best.

It's not always a question of having to learn the latest new language or
even platform. It has to do with "can I accomplish what I need to with the
toolset that I have at my disposal." It's nice to know everything but not
necessary. And if your learning something just because it is the latest I
question why your doing it.

I've worked for a company that continues to always be a day late and a
dollar short on the cutting edge of technology but for what they were trying
to accomplish they had the right tools for what they needed. I tried to
explain how OO methodologies would improve development cycles and patterns
would lead to reuse, but the managers at the time did not see it. Even now
one manager still feels VB is not a programmers language, I guess it has to
be C++ and only C++ (not sure if he even knows what .NET is). But for
developing business applications/tools, VB is way more productive language
than any "programmer languages" that I've had the pleasure of learning
(including Java). Looking back I understand why they didn't want to go down
the OO path at the time. It was new and had a cost that they could not
justify. But they're going down that road now and to them it's justified as
they are pulling together their global business processes.

Anyways, I don't want to ramble and I hope I've stayed on topic. I just want
to say that web development is as complex as you want to make it. If you
don't want complex and can live with a tool such as Coldfusion, all the power
to you. If you need to be on the cutting edge, for what ever reason, then
understand that; yes it is a steep learning curve and yes you will need to
learn every tom dick and harry language, standard, and platform so you can
make solid choices on the path you take to developement. This is one thing
that I think Rob is missing the point on. No one company has the ability to
drive the web to a single development source.

BTW I do all my personal development with .NET (since I love the platform)
and I work with (almost) everything else on the job (excluding .NET).

KJ

"cbwardsr" wrote:
I have been reading this thread with some interest but also noting that in
the context being discussed all of the arguements are on technology and not
on how to use the technology to increase productivity and to provide value to
our customers. Maybe that sounds strange to some of u, but as a MS Architect
I know this to be true and I've seen it on so many projects.

It's is my experience, 25+ yrs, that most developers will continue to
re-invent the wheel for each project. Remember, 'I don't know why he did
that but I can do it much better'. The oft used word 'reuse' is generally
thought to be reusing business objects, but I suggest the benfits of reuse
are really felt in reusing code bases and coding patterns, they are
repeatable therefore prompting reuse.

No and I mean no technology or application development will be productive
without interaction with the customer, understanding what they are asking for
and having them validate your design and implementation. The best thing a
developer can do to increase productivity, technology independent, is a good
design that is validated against use cases. I'm of the opinion that with
OOA/OOD you need to perform a 'standard' OOD then implement that design. It
will make the engineer more productive!!

What does this have to do with the technology discussion we have here? Many
of the issues that have been discussed can be overcome with design goals. In
other words, the design will determine which technology and how it is to be
developed.

Additionally, I have been developing, specifically, with MS technologies
since late 80s. At that time I came from the mainframe era and with the
coming of events, properties and object orientation I knew that a revolution
in development was on the horizon and still is with the advent of Object
oriented technologies. The speed with which development can occur has
increased many fold. In 2000 I designed and led the development of a 3M
project, for over 20K pensioners and their families paying out over 345M for
over two yrs. I did this with 5 developers and 4 SMEs; I would sure like to
see you do this with Java platform.

Despite what some has said on this post, .Net platform creation was not
developed based on Java, remember Java is a language not a platform. The JVM
and Java application servers are the platform. If you want to argue the
benefits of one language vs another I don't think you do that in the context
of the platform. if you will look at the
distributed architecture for both platforms you will discover how different
these two platforms are.

As was said, somewhere above, unless you get rid of W3, html, etc. aren't
going away and that is a good thing, no one company controls the standards.

Learning curve; .Net supports multiple languages not because of portability,
as was mentioned, but for reduced training costs to move into object oriented
programming. Do you think it is more expensive to teach a cobol developer to
code C# or have the cobol developer us the .Net version of cobol? This makes
a better case for this platform rather than a platform that locks a developer
into one language, now that is control; anyway portability in Java is a
misnomer. Every platform u go to has a different JVM and different
application server, all of these require complier changes to run on that
platform and some designs changes

Since I was using VB6 in an object oriented way my trip to dotnet wasn't a
huge learning curve, I already understood object orientation and how to use
it. Example, use callback in VB6 and use delegates with events in .Net to
have callback capability, Remoting replaced DCOM, is that a bad thing, no it
is not, it did improve on the way DCOM worked, primarily allowing remote
communication thru a firewall.

As of this writing I can't think of very many things that I can't do with
.Net whether or not it is C# (or come other language), asp.net, etc. .Net
gives me access to windows APIs which means I can do anything the windows
server will allow me to do.
I'm sorry but imho, this thread is much to do about nothing; with the
exception that it allows the religous among us to prostalize about our
beliefs of which languages are better. Engineers should worry how do I apply
the technology rather than the state of the development world. It is like
abortion, everyone has their opinion so we never come to completion or
agreement.

Regarding productivity in VS: I use two add-ins to add additional
functionality to VS that is useful and adds to VS' already awesome IDE. The
first is from JetBrains and is called ReSharper and their profiler, sorry but
I don't remember that name. the other product has to do with my architectual
duties (design) and it is visual-paradigm's SDE, software development
environment. It allows me to do a complete OOA/OOD and have it generate
code, even code with implementation in it. You can reverse engineer to keep
your model uptodate and you can regenerate and not impact your
implementation. This capability gives a developer the capability to keep
technical specs uptodate with code.

Regarding the '90' languages on a resume. I'm one of those who has multiple
languages on his resume and it is not that I have used many languages but
demostrates to the interviewer that I can go into many environments and pick
up and understand what is going easier than those who haven 't experienced
such varied environments. It is not a matter of numbers, maybe I have been
interviewing more than most of you, after all I'm a consultant, but this info
is very valuable in getting interviews.

"Christopher Hansen" wrote:
The problem is multi-faceted. Disparate technology platforms, the hunger for
companies to have loyal followers( read: internal champions and customers),
the changing nature of technology in general.

The problem with the concept of RAD is that, frankly, it's never happened.
By that I mean, RAD dictates that your engineers, developers, architects,
implementation and support people are already a well-oiled machine. If this
is the case, then you don't necessarily need to standardize on any single
vendor platform - it could be anything. But practically speaking, Microsoft
seems to have a major foothold in the server / web development marketplace
by virture of the fact that IIS 6.0 comes bundled for free with WS03.

Another obesrvation in terms of the technological learning / use curve is
that RARELY does a program manager / client / project have a clear and
concise framework around what THEY want to achieve. How many times have I
heard "I'd like a Button that I can click...(that will essentially run my
super-complex business/role). That's certainly contributes to
cross-pollenating across 15 different technology iterations. IT professionals
use whatever is in the toolbox to get the job done. More often than not, by
design, the products (even freebies) are inter-related and dependent. This is
done to drive business. If you think tht this is all just R&D - think again.
We (sic.) are being led in a very specific direction, one bite at a time.
Companies are the ones that are forced to absorb the "hit"; the actual people
who suffer are the IT professionals who see the pervasive interpretation of
the business community at large of their roles as hemmoraging expenses and
disfunctional agents of change. This is precisely why some 50% of the
business community was still using WIndows NT 4.0 as of 2 years ago.

Software comapnies (and hence developers) need to slow down and put out
something that has some serious meat to it - and stick with it. I mean a
finished product. Good examples of this busines model can be found with Adobe
and Macromedia - both of whom are th only companies I see as having pushed
finsihed products suites. You'll notice, as a result, that they don't have a
new version every 18 months. What they have currently rocks, needs little
tweakage, and it essentially a customizable, scalable platform (ColdFusion /
J2EE anyone??). This are highly under-rated technologies, imo.

If the development community as a whole demands that their be business value
in requiring our time to absorb/use/champion the use of new technologies,
then it will require software manufacturers to make better products - and
hence, stop wasting our time (as in the original poster's commentary). If
we're all going the "geek" path of the newest, latest, greatest "toys" on the
block (e,g, software, tools, etc.) then there's no substantial reason for
software manufacturers to hold to the aforementioned model. I put the owness
back on us as developers and champions of our individual talents and tools.
"RCS" wrote:
I don't know if you're serious - but I'll respond anyhow.

This is like anything else you'd do with programming - you have to take some
time, to set up some templates/standards/etc - so that you can later "crank
out" applications with ease. We needed to do the same thing with a sort of a
tab/subtab layout - that we've used for the past 6+ years in ASP. We
initially spent about 4 months making a tabbed-type layout that was
extensible and integrated with our single-signon.. so that after that, it
was a matter of making up a logo, changing the CSS classes, layout your
tabs - and start development.

So - these technologies aren't so much the enemy - as they are your friend -
to help you do your job. And it only behooves you to know these. It doesn't
matter if it were big technology called "Bob" with 8 sub-categories - or if
it's called 8 different names. The things you mentioned below are the
elements of what it takes to write applications.

As for XML overhead - I think you have have needed to come through the "flat
file" era of computing to see the advantage. For years (and sadly, still
today) - companies pass text files (like comma-seperated or tab-seperated
text files) back and forth. Think about this. How do you get that data into
your database? Well - most would start by writing a parser - to turn those
"hopefully it's the right format" file, into meaningful database fields.
Most people write what I call a "write-once/use-once" parser. You write a
parser specific to that file. You could obviously also spend time making a
more flexible parser, but it needs to be robust. The core problem with a
hand-written parser is that it not only needs to handle all the things you
can think of... it also needs to handle the things you can't think of.
Like - what if you get an end-of-file right in the middle of a record.. what
if there is text in the presumed date/time field.. etc, etc, etc, etc. So
for people who lived through that headache - XML is just staggering. Yes -
there is a little bit of size overhead (not that it matters in these days of
nearly unlimited RAM and disk space) - but there is one parser. The XML
parser. Which, right off the bat - if it's not valid XML, it won't even
load!! Then, you can apply a schema - and XML will check to make sure you
have "exactly one" of these elements and one or more of these elements. So
it's become an infinitely more efficient way to process foreign files - and
files from different computing environments.

HTML forms ARE bad. Especially in an ASP.NET environment. The main reason,
is that it becomes very difficult to keep "user state". That is, "who is
this user and exaclty what are they doing". Which, on a single ASP page for
example, is 100% controllable. If you have frames, it would take a
significant chunk of work - to tell the navigation frame if the current
frame is doing anything that should make the navigation change. Because -
the navigation has absolutely-no-idea what is going on in the other frames.
So it's a false sense of integration - it looks like the frames make up a
whole website - but really, it's a couple of completely unrelated pages -
that if you wanted to make them related - would take a significant effort.
And if you are in a situation where you want to "post" to another page in
ASP.NET - I wouldn't spend my time trying to make it work, I would spend my
time thinking *why* I am trying to do that, and see if there is a more
natural way to accomplish what I am trying to do.

Lastly, you say it's a pipedream to use ASP.NET and the .NET Framework to
write applications. First, the .NET Framework is what houses the logic for
ASP.NET, XML, VB.NET, ADO.NET (are they still calling it that?) and
FormAuthentication. But dare I say, you almost don't need to know HTML,
because the design editors are so good now - and you can even drag-and-drop
your database connection/command/etc and technically not do any coding. So
if you are looking for the "good-old-days of point-n-click development" like
MS-Access/VB3/VB6, they've made room for you in VS.NET. But if you want to
embrace these new technologies and use them to leverage your development and
become a more efficient developer, they've done that too.

I've been in hip-deep in .NET since it came out and I have two consistent
thoughts: 1) .NET is the biggest leap in software development and developer
productivity that I've ever seen (see comment below) and 2) This is a great
time to be a developer.

You could argue the first one, that "Java has been around for years and
never got the recognition!". Well, .NET is about the technology (and yes, C#
is pretty much Java) - but it's also about how it's
bundled/sold/trained/etc.. Because the Java people are so caught up in being
open and not locking down developers - they became so open that they can't
accomplish anything. So yes, Microsofts solution is a boxed/shrink-wrapped
solution and they do force the developer to use one tool, etc... but it's
for his own good, because forcing everyone to limit the tools they use,
enables them to make forward progress.

You can either run on one system, and become an advanced, proprietary
system... or you can be an open system, and spend all your time NOT using
any one thing that limits you. In the end, open-systems and forward-progress
are mutually exclusive.
>> I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning
>> curve,
>> but so far I've had to learn:
>>
>> HTML
>> XML
>> JavaScript
>> ASP.NET using VB.NET
>> ..NET Framework
>> ADO.NET
>> SSL
>> FormAuthentication
>> (and probably a few more things)
>>
>> Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is
>> ridiculous!! The simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the
>> enable state of a control on another ASPX page in a frame for example).
>> And
>> XML, OMG that has got to be the most ineffecient way to write out data
>> I've
>> ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So far the research I've seen
>> are
>> "frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This is just crazy, if
>> the
>> development community has to continue on in this bizarre environment of
>> languages and technology, then web application development is never going
>> to
>> mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.
>>
>> This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get
>> developers up to speed on all the technology can doom a project from the
>> start. The pipe dream of using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework
>> ONLY
>> for web development is just that -- a pipe dream, for only the simplest
>> of
>> applications could anyone get away with just those three
>> technology/tools.
>>
>> I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around,
>> but
>> the bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your
>> bound to MS server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of
>> "portability" (at the cost of performance) how often are you folks moving
>> servers around and changing platforms?? If platforms are changing that
>> frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like building something
>> for
>> 5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the majority have to
>> take
>> the penalty. There has got to be a better way?
>>
>> Rob.
>>
>>
>>

Nov 19 '05 #41

P: n/a
Some related thoughts:
1) It is simply not cost effective for any company to "start from
scratch" and rebuild everything with the latest and greatest
language/platform.
2) All technologies have their own strengths and weaknesses. To limit
yourself to one language/platform or another does not make good
business sense. Choose the technology based on your requirements.
3) With that said, interoperability has/will become an issue for all
businesses. Having an interoperability plan is key!
4) Web Services is the latest approach to interoperability, but it is
proving (like all technology) to have strengths and weaknesses.
5) What do you do when Web Services proves to be much too slow for your
requirements? What if your development team has no experience working
with WS and you have tight deadlines to meet? This is where other
interoperability approaches are needed, preferably ones that are easy
to implement and optimize performance. The following whitepaper
discusses your options for interoperability...
http://j-integra.intrinsyc.com/pdfs/...er_interop.pdf

Shane Sauer
J-Integra Interoperability Solutions
http://j-integra.intrinsyc.com/
When Web Services are not enough

Nov 19 '05 #42

P: n/a
Thanks for continuing the discussing, but I think you have gone down a rabbit
hole. Let me explain.

your 1) This is not something new, in my 25 yrs of IT work this challenge
is part of every decission to build or purchase and requires the same
attention as any analysis on projects direction. Consequently, I'm not
exactly sure how this applies to our discussion.

your 2) I don't disagree with your opinion however, it would be the
exception rather than the rule. Changing technologies or bringing in
competing technologies can have a very negative on the delivery of business
systems. In other words many large enterprises have or will make their
technology decisions not so much on technology but on the costs of
re-training and support costs for additional technologies. These costs are
not in-significant.

your 3) Sorry but I'm not sure the point you are trying to make here. This
has been apart of of enterprise architecture for many years.

your 4) This isn't anything new an architect is always making decissions
with these points in mind. The type of technology used doesn't have an
impact, the design and the implementation has much more impact.

your 5) See 4 above.

"j-***************@intrinsyc.com" wrote:
Some related thoughts:
1) It is simply not cost effective for any company to "start from
scratch" and rebuild everything with the latest and greatest
language/platform.
2) All technologies have their own strengths and weaknesses. To limit
yourself to one language/platform or another does not make good
business sense. Choose the technology based on your requirements.
3) With that said, interoperability has/will become an issue for all
businesses. Having an interoperability plan is key!
4) Web Services is the latest approach to interoperability, but it is
proving (like all technology) to have strengths and weaknesses.
5) What do you do when Web Services proves to be much too slow for your
requirements? What if your development team has no experience working
with WS and you have tight deadlines to meet? This is where other
interoperability approaches are needed, preferably ones that are easy
to implement and optimize performance. The following whitepaper
discusses your options for interoperability...
http://j-integra.intrinsyc.com/pdfs/...er_interop.pdf

Shane Sauer
J-Integra Interoperability Solutions
http://j-integra.intrinsyc.com/
When Web Services are not enough

Nov 19 '05 #43

P: n/a
I've read through about twenty or so of these interesting comments so
far and coincidentally, the last I've seen so far, #42, item 4 has
particular significance to me:

Having served in various roles in several development projects, I
believe the the most challenging obstacle in my teams has been to
define the program's logic; without this, I'm certain tools do not
matter. I've seen programmers (developers) do things that would
challenge roundly what .NET provides to us as a matter of course.

I come from a classic ASP/VB background -- with some Java in college --
and I relish change, technology, and the magic of programming. .NET has
not disappointed me.

Nov 19 '05 #44

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.