By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,852 Members | 955 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,852 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Question on Using Partial Types with ASP.NET via J.I.T.

P: n/a
I got three (3) files

(1) Untitled.aspx
(2) Untitled.aspx.1.cs
(3) Untitled.aspx.2.cs

These three files must be used together to make file #1, Untitled.aspx, page
work via
J.I.T. when the User first hits Internet Explorer 6.0 on your browser.
MY QUESTION to the Microsoft ASP.NET and C# teams.

I know how file #2,Untitled.aspx.1.cs, is connected and can be found by file
#1, the Untitled.aspx page.
How does file #3, Untitled.aspx.2.cs, get found by the file #1 when I the
first time with Internet Explorer?

IN OTHER WORDS, I am NOT using pre-compile for VS.NET to make these file
compile together.
I would be just using J.I.T. compiling like you do now with src= attribute
in a ASP.NET page.

Jul 21 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
43 Replies


P: n/a
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> schrieb
I got three (3) files

(1) Untitled.aspx
(2) Untitled.aspx.1.cs
(3) Untitled.aspx.2.cs
[...]

This is a VB.NET group. Please post to the *most* appropriate group(s) only.

--
Armin

http://www.plig.net/nnq/nquote.html
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

Jul 21 '05 #2

P: n/a
Cor
Hi Nospam,

I am curious, what is the reason that you post this questions to a VB.net
language related newsgroup?

Cor

(1) Untitled.aspx
(2) Untitled.aspx.1.cs
(3) Untitled.aspx.2.cs

Jul 21 '05 #3

P: n/a
Are you working with ASP.NET 2.0? I would assume so, since you are talking
partial classes. If so, you are likely working with the PDC alpha, which is
not feature complete.

Just to run with it, one idea to try would be to place the second partial
class file into the SRC directory and take advantage of the code compiling
ability. Not sure how it would work on partial classes, however, so it is
simply an experiment.

If you are in ASP.NET 1.x, please add more detail, as I am lost.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

************************************************** ********************
Think Outside the Box!
************************************************** ********************
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:OB**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
I got three (3) files

(1) Untitled.aspx
(2) Untitled.aspx.1.cs
(3) Untitled.aspx.2.cs

These three files must be used together to make file #1, Untitled.aspx, page work via
J.I.T. when the User first hits Internet Explorer 6.0 on your browser.
MY QUESTION to the Microsoft ASP.NET and C# teams.

I know how file #2,Untitled.aspx.1.cs, is connected and can be found by file #1, the Untitled.aspx page.
How does file #3, Untitled.aspx.2.cs, get found by the file #1 when I the
first time with Internet Explorer?

IN OTHER WORDS, I am NOT using pre-compile for VS.NET to make these file
compile together.
I would be just using J.I.T. compiling like you do now with src= attribute
in a ASP.NET page.

Jul 21 '05 #4

P: n/a
nospam,
Have you considered asking in the Whidbey newsgroups?
http://communities.microsoft.com/new...idbey&slcid=us

Did the ASP.NET 2.0 article I refer you too the other day help?

http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/wh...ompilation.asp

Or one of the articles on the following page?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/whidbey/
MY QUESTION to the Microsoft ASP.NET and C# teams. Why are you bothering the VB.NET users then?

Hope this helps
Jay

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:OB**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... I got three (3) files

(1) Untitled.aspx
(2) Untitled.aspx.1.cs
(3) Untitled.aspx.2.cs

These three files must be used together to make file #1, Untitled.aspx, page work via
J.I.T. when the User first hits Internet Explorer 6.0 on your browser.
MY QUESTION to the Microsoft ASP.NET and C# teams.

I know how file #2,Untitled.aspx.1.cs, is connected and can be found by file #1, the Untitled.aspx page.
How does file #3, Untitled.aspx.2.cs, get found by the file #1 when I the
first time with Internet Explorer?

IN OTHER WORDS, I am NOT using pre-compile for VS.NET to make these file
compile together.
I would be just using J.I.T. compiling like you do now with src= attribute
in a ASP.NET page.

Jul 21 '05 #5

P: n/a
VB is going to have Partial Types right?

(1) Untitled.aspx
(2) Untitled.aspx.1.vb
(3) Untitled.aspx.2.vb

happy?


"Cor" <no*@non.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Hi Nospam,

I am curious, what is the reason that you post this questions to a VB.net
language related newsgroup?

Cor

(1) Untitled.aspx
(2) Untitled.aspx.1.cs
(3) Untitled.aspx.2.cs


Jul 21 '05 #6

P: n/a
Yes, I looked at every link you posted...still doesn't answer the question.
Let me ask you, do you understand what my question is exactly referring to?

Some people here are just shooting into the wind with their answers.
"Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Ja********@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:Oc**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
nospam,
Have you considered asking in the Whidbey newsgroups?
http://communities.microsoft.com/new...idbey&slcid=us
Did the ASP.NET 2.0 article I refer you too the other day help?

http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/wh...ompilation.asp
Or one of the articles on the following page?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/whidbey/
MY QUESTION to the Microsoft ASP.NET and C# teams.

Why are you bothering the VB.NET users then?

Hope this helps
Jay

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:OB**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
I got three (3) files

(1) Untitled.aspx
(2) Untitled.aspx.1.cs
(3) Untitled.aspx.2.cs

These three files must be used together to make file #1, Untitled.aspx,

page
work via
J.I.T. when the User first hits Internet Explorer 6.0 on your browser.
MY QUESTION to the Microsoft ASP.NET and C# teams.

I know how file #2,Untitled.aspx.1.cs, is connected and can be found by

file
#1, the Untitled.aspx page.
How does file #3, Untitled.aspx.2.cs, get found by the file #1 when I the first time with Internet Explorer?

IN OTHER WORDS, I am NOT using pre-compile for VS.NET to make these file
compile together.
I would be just using J.I.T. compiling like you do now with src= attribute in a ASP.NET page.


Jul 21 '05 #7

P: n/a
VB.NET is going to have Partial Types right?

(1) Untitled.aspx
(2) Untitled.aspx.1.vb
(3) Untitled.aspx.2.vb

happy?

"Armin Zingler" <az*******@freenet.de> wrote in message
news:eQ**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> schrieb
I got three (3) files

(1) Untitled.aspx
(2) Untitled.aspx.1.cs
(3) Untitled.aspx.2.cs
[...]

This is a VB.NET group. Please post to the *most* appropriate group(s)

only.
--
Armin

http://www.plig.net/nnq/nquote.html
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

Jul 21 '05 #8

P: n/a
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> schrieb
VB.NET is going to have Partial Types right?

(1) Untitled.aspx
(2) Untitled.aspx.1.vb
(3) Untitled.aspx.2.vb

happy?


Why do you post to the C# group, if it is, as you think, a VB.NET issue?
Maybe it is independent from the language as it affects both languages?
Maybe it's a framework or/and asp problem?

You can't blame the modem manufacturer for a broken phone line.
--
Armin

http://www.plig.net/nnq/nquote.html
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

Jul 21 '05 #9

P: n/a
I know the PDC alpha is not feature complete.

I just want to know how Microsoft is "attempting" to implement this partial
type feature with ASP.NET pages using JIT compiling.

Do you understand the original question? YES or NO

The more successful, as well as larger, 1.1 .NET web sites don't use
CodeBehind= attribute, they use src= attribute as it allows them to have
fully separated pages that can be easily FTP's to the server and changes can
be made rapidly without affecting the entire web site. These commercial
sites also tend to use Text Editors, HomeSite, Dreamweaver, icsharp, Web
Matrix, etc other than VS.NET as their sites need to be USABLE by millions
of people, not to mention reliable.

As you already know in ASP.NET 2.0 Whidbey, there are several compiling
options. One of which is a separate dll for each .aspx page which wasn't in
the VS.NET 2003 versions.

Those who knew better realized the CodeBehind= attribute and the single dll
file was a very very BAD architectural pattern for web development and
maintenance, not to mention reliability.
But enough of that, JIT for a Partial Types on a .aspx page will allow
people to build MORE RICH .aspx pages by making it more manageable when some
of the code is split inbetween 2 or more code behind files.


"Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <No************@comcast.netNoSpamM> wrote in
message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Are you working with ASP.NET 2.0? I would assume so, since you are talking
partial classes. If so, you are likely working with the PDC alpha, which is not feature complete.

Just to run with it, one idea to try would be to place the second partial
class file into the SRC directory and take advantage of the code compiling
ability. Not sure how it would work on partial classes, however, so it is
simply an experiment.

If you are in ASP.NET 1.x, please add more detail, as I am lost.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

************************************************** ********************
Think Outside the Box!
************************************************** ********************
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:OB**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
I got three (3) files

(1) Untitled.aspx
(2) Untitled.aspx.1.cs
(3) Untitled.aspx.2.cs

These three files must be used together to make file #1, Untitled.aspx,

page
work via
J.I.T. when the User first hits Internet Explorer 6.0 on your browser.
MY QUESTION to the Microsoft ASP.NET and C# teams.

I know how file #2,Untitled.aspx.1.cs, is connected and can be found by

file
#1, the Untitled.aspx page.
How does file #3, Untitled.aspx.2.cs, get found by the file #1 when I the first time with Internet Explorer?

IN OTHER WORDS, I am NOT using pre-compile for VS.NET to make these file
compile together.
I would be just using J.I.T. compiling like you do now with src= attribute in a ASP.NET page.


Jul 21 '05 #10

P: n/a
Cor
This is your message:
MY QUESTION to the Microsoft ASP.NET and C# teams. I know how file #2,Untitled.aspx.1.cs, is connected and can be found by file#1, the Untitled.aspx page.
How does file #3, Untitled.aspx.2.cs, get found by the file #1 when I the
first time with Internet Explorer? IN OTHER WORDS, I am NOT using pre-compile for VS.NET to make these file
compile together.
I would be just using J.I.T. compiling like you do now with src= attribute
in a ASP.NET page.


You know know how file #2,Untitled.aspx.1.cs, is connected and can be found
by file
#1, the Untitled.aspx page, how does file #3, Untitled.aspx.2.cs, get found
by the file #1 when the first time with Internet Explorer?

You are not using pre-compile for VS.NET to make these file compile
together.
You would use J.I.T. compiling like you do now with src= attribute in a
ASP.NET page.

You would do that, so what is your problem if you knows everything?

Happy

Cor
Jul 21 '05 #11

P: n/a
I don't know how to read the Microsoft C# and ASP.NET teams' mind...that's
why I decided to ASK them.......
"Cor" <no*@non.com> wrote in message
news:u0*************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
This is your message:
MY QUESTION to the Microsoft ASP.NET and C# teams.
I know how file #2,Untitled.aspx.1.cs, is connected and can be found by

file
#1, the Untitled.aspx page.
How does file #3, Untitled.aspx.2.cs, get found by the file #1 when I the
first time with Internet Explorer?

IN OTHER WORDS, I am NOT using pre-compile for VS.NET to make these file
compile together.
I would be just using J.I.T. compiling like you do now with src= attributein a ASP.NET page.


You know know how file #2,Untitled.aspx.1.cs, is connected and can be

found by file
#1, the Untitled.aspx page, how does file #3, Untitled.aspx.2.cs, get found by the file #1 when the first time with Internet Explorer?

You are not using pre-compile for VS.NET to make these file compile
together.
You would use J.I.T. compiling like you do now with src= attribute in a
ASP.NET page.

You would do that, so what is your problem if you knows everything?

Happy

Cor

Jul 21 '05 #12

P: n/a
Because someone in the C# might know or the VB.NET team might know...THAT'S
WHY!!!

For of all, IT'S not a real problem as it has even been implemented in the
first place.
"Armin Zingler" <az*******@freenet.de> wrote in message
news:uE**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> schrieb
VB.NET is going to have Partial Types right?

(1) Untitled.aspx
(2) Untitled.aspx.1.vb
(3) Untitled.aspx.2.vb

happy?


Why do you post to the C# group, if it is, as you think, a VB.NET issue?
Maybe it is independent from the language as it affects both languages?
Maybe it's a framework or/and asp problem?

You can't blame the modem manufacturer for a broken phone line.
--
Armin

http://www.plig.net/nnq/nquote.html
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

Jul 21 '05 #13

P: n/a
Nospam,
I explained the way I understood ASP.NET 1.1 to work the other day. Which I
get the impression does not coincide with the way you understand it to work.
:-(
IN OTHER WORDS, I am NOT using pre-compile for VS.NET to make these file compile together. Some people here are just shooting into the wind with their answers. I hope you realize the assembly I was referring to IS NOT the assembly
created by VS.NET!!!

It is the assembly created by ASP.NET after it converts your ASPX page to C#
or VB.NET, the first time anyone visits the page. This assembly is then JIT
as the executable code is needed.

I hope you realize that .NET is not able to execute source code (ASPX, C# or
VB.NET), that the source code needs to be converted (compiled) into an
assembly. That ASP.NET will take your ASPX page convert it into a C# or
VB.NET source file, which it then compiles with other C# or VB.NET source
files to create an assembly. That ASP.NET will then call methods in this
assembly (which causes the assembly to be JIT) which causes your HTML to
appear in the browser. I don't have the specific reference handy, I
understand that each aspx page generates its own assembly.

VS.NET simply allows you to compile all its Code Behind pages into a
different assembly ahead of time.

You want to know in Whidbey when the assembly is created by ASP.NET, how
does it know where to find the third file. I'm curious if its even
supported, or is that what you are attempting to find out, is it even
supported? One of the articles I referred you to mentions a /Code folder (in
addition to the /Bin folder used by VS.NET) that you can place source files
to utility classes in, however I got the impression from the article this is
NOT for your 'third' file, I may however be wrong and /Code is where your
"third" file belongs...

Unfortunately all I know about ASP.NET Whidbey is the articles I pointed you
to, the above is based on ASP.NET 1.1.

Hope this helps
Jay

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... Yes, I looked at every link you posted...still doesn't answer the question.

Let me ask you, do you understand what my question is exactly referring to?
Some people here are just shooting into the wind with their answers.
"Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Ja********@email.msn.com> wrote in message news:Oc**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
nospam,
Have you considered asking in the Whidbey newsgroups?

http://communities.microsoft.com/new...idbey&slcid=us

Did the ASP.NET 2.0 article I refer you too the other day help?

http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/wh...ompilation.asp

Or one of the articles on the following page?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/whidbey/
MY QUESTION to the Microsoft ASP.NET and C# teams.

Why are you bothering the VB.NET users then?

Hope this helps
Jay

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:OB**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
I got three (3) files

(1) Untitled.aspx
(2) Untitled.aspx.1.cs
(3) Untitled.aspx.2.cs

These three files must be used together to make file #1, Untitled.aspx,
page
work via
J.I.T. when the User first hits Internet Explorer 6.0 on your browser.
MY QUESTION to the Microsoft ASP.NET and C# teams.

I know how file #2,Untitled.aspx.1.cs, is connected and can be found
by file
#1, the Untitled.aspx page.
How does file #3, Untitled.aspx.2.cs, get found by the file #1 when I

the first time with Internet Explorer?

IN OTHER WORDS, I am NOT using pre-compile for VS.NET to make these
file compile together.
I would be just using J.I.T. compiling like you do now with src=

attribute in a ASP.NET page.



Jul 21 '05 #14

P: n/a
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> schrieb
Because someone in the C# might know or the VB.NET team might
know...THAT'S WHY!!!


Then you didn't understand the purpose of the group hierarchy - or you
should post to all groups you can find because in each group might be anyone
that can help you.

That's why I wrote, you should post to the *most* appropriate group.

--
Armin

http://www.plig.net/nnq/nquote.html
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

Jul 21 '05 #15

P: n/a
You're really getting into inheritance and not partial classes...

partial classes were intended to be used for some of the auto code
generators like the DataSet generator and the Web Service Reference code gen
so that you could make some changes in a more stable file while the code gen
could write its changes into a much less stable file.

when you say reusing code you should be inheriting from a more common base
class, then you achieve other important advantages like polymorphism and so
forth.

--
Eric Newton
C#/ASP Application Developer
er**@cc.ensoft-software.com [remove the first "CC."]

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:OB**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
I know the PDC alpha is not feature complete.

I just want to know how Microsoft is "attempting" to implement this partial type feature with ASP.NET pages using JIT compiling.

Do you understand the original question? YES or NO

The more successful, as well as larger, 1.1 .NET web sites don't use
CodeBehind= attribute, they use src= attribute as it allows them to have
fully separated pages that can be easily FTP's to the server and changes can be made rapidly without affecting the entire web site. These commercial
sites also tend to use Text Editors, HomeSite, Dreamweaver, icsharp, Web
Matrix, etc other than VS.NET as their sites need to be USABLE by millions
of people, not to mention reliable.

As you already know in ASP.NET 2.0 Whidbey, there are several compiling
options. One of which is a separate dll for each .aspx page which wasn't in the VS.NET 2003 versions.

Those who knew better realized the CodeBehind= attribute and the single dll file was a very very BAD architectural pattern for web development and
maintenance, not to mention reliability.
But enough of that, JIT for a Partial Types on a .aspx page will allow
people to build MORE RICH .aspx pages by making it more manageable when some of the code is split inbetween 2 or more code behind files.


"Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <No************@comcast.netNoSpamM> wrote in
message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Are you working with ASP.NET 2.0? I would assume so, since you are talking
partial classes. If so, you are likely working with the PDC alpha, which

is
not feature complete.

Just to run with it, one idea to try would be to place the second partial class file into the SRC directory and take advantage of the code compiling ability. Not sure how it would work on partial classes, however, so it is simply an experiment.

If you are in ASP.NET 1.x, please add more detail, as I am lost.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

************************************************** ********************
Think Outside the Box!
************************************************** ********************
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:OB**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
I got three (3) files

(1) Untitled.aspx
(2) Untitled.aspx.1.cs
(3) Untitled.aspx.2.cs

These three files must be used together to make file #1, Untitled.aspx,
page
work via
J.I.T. when the User first hits Internet Explorer 6.0 on your browser.
MY QUESTION to the Microsoft ASP.NET and C# teams.

I know how file #2,Untitled.aspx.1.cs, is connected and can be found
by file
#1, the Untitled.aspx page.
How does file #3, Untitled.aspx.2.cs, get found by the file #1 when I

the first time with Internet Explorer?

IN OTHER WORDS, I am NOT using pre-compile for VS.NET to make these
file compile together.
I would be just using J.I.T. compiling like you do now with src=

attribute in a ASP.NET page.



Jul 21 '05 #16

P: n/a
Cor
Hi Nospam,
The more successful, as well as larger, 1.1 .NET web sites don't use
CodeBehind= attribute, they use src= attribute as it allows them to have
fully separated pages that can be easily FTP's to the server and changes

can

Some take a horse, others a car, I am glad I am living in a democratic
country where I can decide most common things for myself.

Cor
Jul 21 '05 #17

P: n/a
Try not to speak for Microsoft unless you really have information on partial
classes.

And especially try not to talk to polymorphism as anything worth doing in a
*real* production environment when reliability and true maintainability is
needed.

And I wouldn't get so hung up on code reuse either as there is so much the
industry has to learn on real life programming in real life world.

I personally think a lot of programmers have their heads in books, example
codes, and magazine articles instead of REAL production code in a REAL
production environment. White boards and UML is a lot different than a
fully working and dependable web application where someone actually has to
maintain it instead of telling some other programmer to do it.

"Eric Newton" <er**@cc.ensoft-software.com> wrote in message
news:OE**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
You're really getting into inheritance and not partial classes...

partial classes were intended to be used for some of the auto code
generators like the DataSet generator and the Web Service Reference code gen so that you could make some changes in a more stable file while the code gen could write its changes into a much less stable file.

when you say reusing code you should be inheriting from a more common base
class, then you achieve other important advantages like polymorphism and so forth.

--
Eric Newton
C#/ASP Application Developer
er**@cc.ensoft-software.com [remove the first "CC."]

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:OB**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
I know the PDC alpha is not feature complete.

I just want to know how Microsoft is "attempting" to implement this

partial
type feature with ASP.NET pages using JIT compiling.

Do you understand the original question? YES or NO

The more successful, as well as larger, 1.1 .NET web sites don't use
CodeBehind= attribute, they use src= attribute as it allows them to have
fully separated pages that can be easily FTP's to the server and changes

can
be made rapidly without affecting the entire web site. These commercial
sites also tend to use Text Editors, HomeSite, Dreamweaver, icsharp, Web
Matrix, etc other than VS.NET as their sites need to be USABLE by millions
of people, not to mention reliable.

As you already know in ASP.NET 2.0 Whidbey, there are several compiling
options. One of which is a separate dll for each .aspx page which wasn't

in
the VS.NET 2003 versions.

Those who knew better realized the CodeBehind= attribute and the single

dll
file was a very very BAD architectural pattern for web development and
maintenance, not to mention reliability.
But enough of that, JIT for a Partial Types on a .aspx page will allow
people to build MORE RICH .aspx pages by making it more manageable when

some
of the code is split inbetween 2 or more code behind files.


"Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <No************@comcast.netNoSpamM> wrote in message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Are you working with ASP.NET 2.0? I would assume so, since you are talking partial classes. If so, you are likely working with the PDC alpha, which is
not feature complete.

Just to run with it, one idea to try would be to place the second partial class file into the SRC directory and take advantage of the code compiling ability. Not sure how it would work on partial classes, however, so it is simply an experiment.

If you are in ASP.NET 1.x, please add more detail, as I am lost.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

************************************************** ********************
Think Outside the Box!
************************************************** ********************
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:OB**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I got three (3) files
>
> (1) Untitled.aspx
> (2) Untitled.aspx.1.cs
> (3) Untitled.aspx.2.cs
>
> These three files must be used together to make file #1, Untitled.aspx, page
> work via
> J.I.T. when the User first hits Internet Explorer 6.0 on your
browser. >
>
> MY QUESTION to the Microsoft ASP.NET and C# teams.
>
> I know how file #2,Untitled.aspx.1.cs, is connected and can be found by file
> #1, the Untitled.aspx page.
> How does file #3, Untitled.aspx.2.cs, get found by the file #1 when
I the
> first time with Internet Explorer?
>
> IN OTHER WORDS, I am NOT using pre-compile for VS.NET to make these

file > compile together.
> I would be just using J.I.T. compiling like you do now with src=

attribute
> in a ASP.NET page.
>
>
>



Jul 21 '05 #18

P: n/a

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:OB**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
The more successful, as well as larger, 1.1 .NET web sites don't use
CodeBehind= attribute, they use src= attribute as it allows them to have
fully separated pages that can be easily FTP's to the server and changes can be made rapidly without affecting the entire web site. These commercial
sites also tend to use Text Editors, HomeSite, Dreamweaver, icsharp, Web
Matrix, etc other than VS.NET as their sites need to be USABLE by millions
of people, not to mention reliable.


Does Microsoft.com qualify as a successful, larger commercial web site? I
develop for Microsoft.com and use ASP.NET 1.1 extensively. We use CodeBehind
quite a lot (and also Src--it depends on the needs of the specific project).
I use VS.NET exclusively, for both the Codebehind and the Src cases. Not
text editors, HomeSite, Dreamweaver, etc. The site is usable (and used) by
millions of people, and is reliable.

Being an MS employee I admit I have a bias, but for what it's worth I use
VS.NET every day for super large scale web projects and I find it easy and
fun. I enjoy my job very much, and VS.NET makes me very productive.

Changes to large-scale web sites are not undertaken lightly. When we need to
change a codebehind dll we do so in a very managed way, with extensive
testing and controlled deployment. But we do it on a regular basis.
Codebehind is not at all a hinderence.

I tend to use Src instead of Codebehind when the page classes are less
reusable and more isolated to a specific smaller part of the site. Some
parts of our site aren't even in "application" directories where we can use
\bin folders and global.asax, so for these isolated areas we use Src.

I'm afraid I can't answer your original question about partial types as I
have not yet had the occasion to work with ASP.NET 2.0.
Jul 21 '05 #19

P: n/a
COMMENTS INLINE BELOW.....
"Bret Mulvey [MS]" <br***@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:ek**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:OB**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
The more successful, as well as larger, 1.1 .NET web sites don't use
CodeBehind= attribute, they use src= attribute as it allows them to have
fully separated pages that can be easily FTP's to the server and changes can
be made rapidly without affecting the entire web site. These commercial
sites also tend to use Text Editors, HomeSite, Dreamweaver, icsharp, Web
Matrix, etc other than VS.NET as their sites need to be USABLE by millions of people, not to mention reliable.


Does Microsoft.com qualify as a successful, larger commercial web site? I
develop for Microsoft.com and use ASP.NET 1.1 extensively. We use

CodeBehind quite a lot (and also Src--it depends on the needs of the specific project). I use VS.NET exclusively, for both the Codebehind and the Src cases. Not
text editors, HomeSite, Dreamweaver, etc. The site is usable (and used) by
millions of people, and is reliable.

Who did the look and feel of the Microsoft site? I find it hard to believe
you did it all in VS.NET
You know, and I know, what tool makes more usable sites and that's
Dreamweaver hands down.
You can't even do tables with VS.NET, the most fundamental thing in Web
Pages.
I would say GotDotNet and Hotmail are designed first in something other than
VS.NET
Plus, how many transactions are really going through the Microsoft.com site?
It took you, microsoft.com, more than TWO (2) years to convert parts of your
web site to .aspx pages

But since you use src= quite a lot, at least how I see it, you can see that
CodeBehind is only being used because it's a microsoft thing as when push
comes to shove, you had to use src=.

Plain and simple, VS.NET are simply not productive on web sites. Windows
stuff YES, but Web stuff, no way in the world. The ASP.NET stuff I see on
the macromedia newgroups blows aways the VS.NET stuff hands down. In fact,
even though they have very little people using Dreamweaver for .NET stuff
they seem to have MORE web sites and they are thousands to times better.

CASE IN POINT, if VS.NET was so good, why is every single newsgroup and even
INETA still use the IBuySpy portal or DotNetNuke? They sites essentially
have no creative programming and these site are essentially identical to
each other. All one has to do is look at the DesktopDefault.aspx page and
you know exactly what that site is capable of. Furthermore, because there
are nothing new, one cannot even tell if they have really been tested in a
business environment when things change and reliability is paramount.

Nevertheless, after more than 2.5 years we are now seeing more and more
sites....but one has got to ask how they are really done....But come 2.5
years later...Mr. BILL is right, DOT NET is SLOWWWWWW GOING.

It took you guys 3 years to figure out that when you create a project you
don't add 10 new files/folders that the user has no idea what they do. You
don't add .resx files and all those folders of who know what...... I told
you this THREE (3) years ago...you finally are getting it.

You are still even working on ZERO touch deployment after 6
years...constantly trying to FIX what never worked.
You also GOT RID of those FRONT PAGE EXTENSIONS in Whidbey...YEAHHHH!!!!!
ONLY SIX (6) years to figure that one out.....
Look at all the changes is Whidbey!!!! VS.NET is looking more and more like
Dreamweaver.....property nesting tag bar at the bottom, clean projects,
easier FTP......DUHHHHHHH!!!!!!, Design and Code view highlight
syncronization, leave the html code just like it is.......

Oh and there are promises of BETTER table support in Whidbey of which I have
yet to see.

THREE (3) years to figure this out after I told you again and again.....

Hand down the people on the dreamweaver forums have twice the number of web
pages than all of the people on microsoft newsgroups and they LOOK 1000
times better as well....plus they ACTUALLY have web sites in the first
place.......


Being an MS employee I admit I have a bias, but for what it's worth I use
VS.NET every day for super large scale web projects and I find it easy and
fun. I enjoy my job very much, and VS.NET makes me very productive.

Changes to large-scale web sites are not undertaken lightly. When we need to change a codebehind dll we do so in a very managed way, with extensive
testing and controlled deployment. But we do it on a regular basis.
Codebehind is not at all a hinderence.

I tend to use Src instead of Codebehind when the page classes are less
reusable and more isolated to a specific smaller part of the site. Some
parts of our site aren't even in "application" directories where we can use \bin folders and global.asax, so for these isolated areas we use Src.

I'm afraid I can't answer your original question about partial types as I
have not yet had the occasion to work with ASP.NET 2.0.

Jul 21 '05 #20

P: n/a

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:e1*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Who did the look and feel of the Microsoft site? I find it hard to believe you did it all in VS.NET
You know, and I know, what tool makes more usable sites and that's
Dreamweaver hands down.
You can't even do tables with VS.NET, the most fundamental thing in Web
Pages.
I would say GotDotNet and Hotmail are designed first in something other than VS.NET

I see where you're coming from now. VS.NET is a developer productivity tool,
not a design tool. If you expect to use it for graphical design--not it's
primary purpose--then you could be disappointed. It's a tool for
developers, not designers. If you look at the feature overview at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/pr...ofeatures.aspx
you'll see that it's all about developer productivity.

Plus, how many transactions are really going through the Microsoft.com site?

You can get a sense of this from comScore Media Metrix
(http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?id=360). Over 2/3rds of all
Internet users visited a Microsoft site in September 2003. If you separate
www.microsoft.com out from other Microsoft web properties, it's the #4 site.
The most popular area of www.microsoft.com is probably
www.microsoft.com/downloads, which is a database-driven site using ASP.NET,
web services, and SQL Server, developed using VS.NET. Millions of
transactions per day.
It took you, microsoft.com, more than TWO (2) years to convert parts of your web site to .aspx pages

And some parts will never be converted. If it works, why spend money to
change it? We're doing .asp to .aspx conversions as needed, when we do major
version updates of different applications.
But since you use src= quite a lot, at least how I see it, you can see that CodeBehind is only being used because it's a microsoft thing as when push
comes to shove, you had to use src=.
You're incorrect when you say that "we had to use Src" when push came to
shove. We did not have to use Src for anything. For some projects Codebehind
makes most sense and for other projects Src makes most sense. This is
nothing more than the right tool for the right job. If you need no-touch
deployment, you have the Src option. I find myself using Src less and less
often because Codebehind gives me more flexibility in general, and
definitely enables more code re-use scenarios. Nearly all of the ASP.NET
development happening on my team uses Codebehind.

Plain and simple, VS.NET are simply not productive on web sites. Windows
stuff YES, but Web stuff, no way in the world. The ASP.NET stuff I see on
the macromedia newgroups blows aways the VS.NET stuff hands down. In fact, even though they have very little people using Dreamweaver for .NET stuff
they seem to have MORE web sites and they are thousands to times better.

VS.NET makes me extremely productive for web site development. I don't think
I'm going to change your mind on this one, but I'm willing to share the
facts of how we use VS.NET on one of the worlds busiest and largest web
sites, and unwilling to let your statement stand. Let's see the numbers.

I've seen some of your other posts where you assert that real, large,
commercial sites don't use OOP, and if they do, the code is unmanageable.
That's simply not factual. Take a look at
http://www.microsoft.com/backstage/archives.htm to get more information on
how we use .NET on Microsoft.com. We're much more productive now with VS.NET
than we were three years ago. If you'd like more information on how we use
the OOP metaphor and multi-tier architecture on Microsoft.com, feel free to
ask.
CASE IN POINT, if VS.NET was so good, why is every single newsgroup and even INETA still use the IBuySpy portal or DotNetNuke? They sites essentially
have no creative programming and these site are essentially identical to
each other. All one has to do is look at the DesktopDefault.aspx page and
you know exactly what that site is capable of. Furthermore, because there
are nothing new, one cannot even tell if they have really been tested in a
business environment when things change and reliability is paramount.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. These are reference
implementations for purposes of teaching ASP.NET. As reference
implementations they don't change often, by definition.
Nevertheless, after more than 2.5 years we are now seeing more and more
sites....but one has got to ask how they are really done....But come 2.5
years later...Mr. BILL is right, DOT NET is SLOWWWWWW GOING.

I'm here to answer how they are really done, if you want to ask. It sounds
like you have had some bad experiences with object-oriented development in
the past.

I don't have information on .NET growth rates. Google on "inurl:.aspx" now,
and then again in a month, divide the latter by the former, raise to the
12th power, subtract 1, and you'll have an estimate of the annual ASP.NET
growth rate. It's 15.1 million now. Ping me in a month and I'll do this for
you.
It took you guys 3 years to figure out that when you create a project you
don't add 10 new files/folders that the user has no idea what they do. You don't add .resx files and all those folders of who know what...... I told
you this THREE (3) years ago...you finally are getting it.

Although I don't work on the VS.NET product, I'm glad you like the direction
we're moving. If you have questions about what specific files do in a new
project I'll be happy to answer.
You are still even working on ZERO touch deployment after 6
years...constantly trying to FIX what never worked.
You also GOT RID of those FRONT PAGE EXTENSIONS in Whidbey...YEAHHHH!!!!!
ONLY SIX (6) years to figure that one out.....

Amen.

Look at all the changes is Whidbey!!!! VS.NET is looking more and more like Dreamweaver.....property nesting tag bar at the bottom, clean projects,
easier FTP......DUHHHHHHH!!!!!!, Design and Code view highlight
syncronization, leave the html code just like it is.......

Oh and there are promises of BETTER table support in Whidbey of which I have yet to see.

THREE (3) years to figure this out after I told you again and again.....
I am again gratified that you like the direction we're moving.

Hand down the people on the dreamweaver forums have twice the number of web pages than all of the people on microsoft newsgroups and they LOOK 1000
times better as well....plus they ACTUALLY have web sites in the first
place.......


I have no comment on this, as this seems purely a matter of opinion and
conjecture.


Jul 21 '05 #21

P: n/a
"Bret Mulvey [MS]" <br***@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:e5**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

I see where you're coming from now. VS.NET is a developer productivity tool,
not a design tool. If you expect to use it for graphical design--not it's
primary purpose--then you could be disappointed. It's a tool for
developers, not designers. If you look at the feature overview at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/pr...ofeatures.aspx
you'll see that it's all about developer productivity.


Bret,
Thanks for pointing this out clearly. I think a lot of "developers" don't understand
that they are not "graphical designers". In fact, most applications developers know
very little about proper UI design, and should not convince themselves that this is
something pickup up easily. In fact most coders, who would use VS.NET do not
think like UI designers, and never will.
Separating out code/functionality design from UI/usability design is very important.
VS.NET just has the most core raw UI elements for laying out very rudimentary
..NET functionality.
Developers are notorious for overdesign, following Microsoft's traditional lead,
with application bloat (which imo continues to be fairly prevalent at MS and its apps. ;-)

However, the "security by default" trend at Microsoft will hopefully put a
harness on that trend, realizing that numerous little-used features can be security vulnerabilities,
and should be eliminated.

- Mitch Gallant
Security MVP
Jul 21 '05 #22

P: n/a
ONE or TWO COMMENTS BELOW INLINE......
"Michel Gallant" <ne*****@NOSPAMistar.ca> wrote in message
news:tg*********************@news20.bellglobal.com ...
"Bret Mulvey [MS]" <br***@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:e5**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

I see where you're coming from now. VS.NET is a developer productivity tool, not a design tool. If you expect to use it for graphical design--not it's primary purpose--then you could be disappointed. It's a tool for
developers, not designers. If you look at the feature overview at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/pr...ofeatures.aspx
you'll see that it's all about developer productivity.

Bret,
Thanks for pointing this out clearly. I think a lot of "developers" don't

understand that they are not "graphical designers". In fact, most applications developers know very little about proper UI design, and should not convince themselves that this is something pickup up easily. In fact most coders, who would use VS.NET do not think like UI designers, and never will.
Separating out code/functionality design from UI/usability design is very important. VS.NET just has the most core raw UI elements for laying out very rudimentary .NET functionality.
Developers are notorious for overdesign, following Microsoft's traditional lead, with application bloat (which imo continues to be fairly prevalent at MS and its apps. ;-)
YES, this OVERDESIGN and Application Bloat is SO TRUE....
THANK YOU FOR POINTING THIS OUT!!!!

Oh, while I am here, I want to point out the fallacy of the Intergrated
security model of SQL Server And Windows.

Is there something call the "Principle of the Least" where you only give
enough permissions to do what you need to do?

Yet, Microsoft is telling everyone to use Integrated Security as opposed to
SQL Server's own security just to connect to the database....

That's clearly violating the Principle of the Least by giving the System
Admin or anyone on the Windows Admin team the possible chance to access the
SQL Server, the crown jewels! ...all for the sake of convenience!!!!

The last person you ever want to give access to your SQL Server is a Sys
Admin!!!! Most attacks and computer crimes come from the inside...and GUESS
WHO those insiders might be? disgruntled SysAdmin.....

By opening up SQL Server to the Windows Security all those on the Windows
side are now potential suspects IF a computer crime would be committed.....

Second of all if there is a Web Server, the SQL server should be in the same
room with an independent $50 dollar network switch directly connected to the
Web server thereby eliminating any network intercepts in the first place.


However, the "security by default" trend at Microsoft will hopefully put a
harness on that trend, realizing that numerous little-used features can be security vulnerabilities, and should be eliminated.

- Mitch Gallant
Security MVP

Jul 21 '05 #23

P: n/a
COMMENTS INLINE BELOW.....
"Bret Mulvey [MS]" <br***@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:e5**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:e1*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Who did the look and feel of the Microsoft site? I find it hard to believe
you did it all in VS.NET
You know, and I know, what tool makes more usable sites and that's
Dreamweaver hands down.
You can't even do tables with VS.NET, the most fundamental thing in Web
Pages.
I would say GotDotNet and Hotmail are designed first in something other

than
VS.NET


I see where you're coming from now. VS.NET is a developer productivity

tool, not a design tool. If you expect to use it for graphical design--not it's
primary purpose--then you could be disappointed. It's a tool for
developers, not designers. If you look at the feature overview at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/pr...ofeatures.aspx
you'll see that it's all about developer productivity.
Ok, so now you admit VS.NET sucks really bad as a designer tool. Let me ask
you something.
How can any company be productive if they have no idea how the users are
going to interact with the program the developer wrote? How can the
developer test, performance tune, TRULLY debug, if they haven't the
slightest idea of how their program will be used?

VS.NET needs to have in mind the single word, "PRODUCTIVITY" , not
"developer productivity" or "designer productivity" as what good is a
program written by a developer that has to be totally rewritten to how the
user is going to use it.

THE NUMBER #1 problem and reason for project failures is COMMUNICATION
between the developer and the client. Developers say, "It wasn't in the
spec! It wasn't in the spec!" Client's say, "but don't you know?? don't you
know??"

Now, what's the solution here? Learn more OOP, UML, n-Tier to be more
flexible? How about refactoring and some design patterns for even better
design? Let's buy every single Apress and Wrox book you can find and read
those. yes!!!......that will solve everything......

NO, THE PROBLEM is that DEVELOPERS are TOO CLUELESS to KNOW what to develop
in the first place!!!! AND they NEVER ASK in detail what need to be made and
WHY they are making it!!!!!!!!

It's amazing, these DEVELOPERS and MVP and RD's and Program Managers go to
non-OOP programmers and VB6 programmers and anything below their skill level
and say, "IT'S just TOOL and YOU NEED TO LEARN it like anything else".

***
YET, these very SAME DEVELOPERS are NOT EVEN willing to lift a FINGER to
L.E.A.R.N. a little bit about the "BUSINESS", UI, DESIGN and what the
customer wants in the first place.
***

Again, in the words of MISTER BILL, ".NET is SLOW GOING"....I wonder
WHY!!!!!
Ah yes, the GREAT DIVIDE...I guess abstraction will make everything
better!!!! HA HA HA HA....I can already see the results of abstraction in
the n-Tier..more failed IT projects than successess.

It's amazing!!! these System and Application Architects are SOooo
ABSTRACTED, it's no wonder why they have NO idea what the customer wants and
why their app is soooo slow........but wait, the app is never delivered on
time anyway.....so we have no idea if it's slow to begin with as they are
are still in the "design phase of OOP"

************************************************** *
OH, and by the WAY, COMDEX floor space is now 150,000 sqft.. down from
875,000 sqft. in the 1990s. And ATTENDANCE is 50,000...half of what it had
last year......
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1381579,00.asp
************************************************** *
Wow, a single HomeDepot or Super Walmart could have more customers...
Any, REPEAT ANY, MVP, programmer, developer, author, IT person who says that
what they are doing is making customers happy is simply in denial of their
failures.
Cheers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Plus, how many transactions are really going through the Microsoft.com

site?

You can get a sense of this from comScore Media Metrix
(http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?id=360). Over 2/3rds of all
Internet users visited a Microsoft site in September 2003. If you separate
www.microsoft.com out from other Microsoft web properties, it's the #4

site. The most popular area of www.microsoft.com is probably
www.microsoft.com/downloads, which is a database-driven site using ASP.NET, web services, and SQL Server, developed using VS.NET. Millions of
transactions per day.
It took you, microsoft.com, more than TWO (2) years to convert parts of your
web site to .aspx pages


And some parts will never be converted. If it works, why spend money to
change it? We're doing .asp to .aspx conversions as needed, when we do

major version updates of different applications.
But since you use src= quite a lot, at least how I see it, you can see that
CodeBehind is only being used because it's a microsoft thing as when push comes to shove, you had to use src=.


You're incorrect when you say that "we had to use Src" when push came to
shove. We did not have to use Src for anything. For some projects

Codebehind makes most sense and for other projects Src makes most sense. This is
nothing more than the right tool for the right job. If you need no-touch
deployment, you have the Src option. I find myself using Src less and less
often because Codebehind gives me more flexibility in general, and
definitely enables more code re-use scenarios. Nearly all of the ASP.NET
development happening on my team uses Codebehind.

Plain and simple, VS.NET are simply not productive on web sites. Windows stuff YES, but Web stuff, no way in the world. The ASP.NET stuff I see on the macromedia newgroups blows aways the VS.NET stuff hands down. In fact,
even though they have very little people using Dreamweaver for .NET stuff they seem to have MORE web sites and they are thousands to times better.


VS.NET makes me extremely productive for web site development. I don't

think I'm going to change your mind on this one, but I'm willing to share the
facts of how we use VS.NET on one of the worlds busiest and largest web
sites, and unwilling to let your statement stand. Let's see the numbers.

I've seen some of your other posts where you assert that real, large,
commercial sites don't use OOP, and if they do, the code is unmanageable.
That's simply not factual. Take a look at
http://www.microsoft.com/backstage/archives.htm to get more information on
how we use .NET on Microsoft.com. We're much more productive now with VS.NET than we were three years ago. If you'd like more information on how we use
the OOP metaphor and multi-tier architecture on Microsoft.com, feel free to ask.
CASE IN POINT, if VS.NET was so good, why is every single newsgroup and even
INETA still use the IBuySpy portal or DotNetNuke? They sites essentially have no creative programming and these site are essentially identical to
each other. All one has to do is look at the DesktopDefault.aspx page and you know exactly what that site is capable of. Furthermore, because there are nothing new, one cannot even tell if they have really been tested in a business environment when things change and reliability is paramount.


I'm not sure what you're getting at here. These are reference
implementations for purposes of teaching ASP.NET. As reference
implementations they don't change often, by definition.
Nevertheless, after more than 2.5 years we are now seeing more and more
sites....but one has got to ask how they are really done....But come 2.5
years later...Mr. BILL is right, DOT NET is SLOWWWWWW GOING.


I'm here to answer how they are really done, if you want to ask. It sounds
like you have had some bad experiences with object-oriented development in
the past.

I don't have information on .NET growth rates. Google on "inurl:.aspx"

now, and then again in a month, divide the latter by the former, raise to the
12th power, subtract 1, and you'll have an estimate of the annual ASP.NET
growth rate. It's 15.1 million now. Ping me in a month and I'll do this for you.
It took you guys 3 years to figure out that when you create a project you don't add 10 new files/folders that the user has no idea what they do. You
don't add .resx files and all those folders of who know what...... I told you this THREE (3) years ago...you finally are getting it.


Although I don't work on the VS.NET product, I'm glad you like the

direction we're moving. If you have questions about what specific files do in a new
project I'll be happy to answer.
You are still even working on ZERO touch deployment after 6
years...constantly trying to FIX what never worked.
You also GOT RID of those FRONT PAGE EXTENSIONS in Whidbey...YEAHHHH!!!!! ONLY SIX (6) years to figure that one out.....


Amen.

Look at all the changes is Whidbey!!!! VS.NET is looking more and more

like
Dreamweaver.....property nesting tag bar at the bottom, clean projects,
easier FTP......DUHHHHHHH!!!!!!, Design and Code view highlight
syncronization, leave the html code just like it is.......

Oh and there are promises of BETTER table support in Whidbey of which I

have
yet to see.

THREE (3) years to figure this out after I told you again and again.....


I am again gratified that you like the direction we're moving.

Hand down the people on the dreamweaver forums have twice the number of

web
pages than all of the people on microsoft newsgroups and they LOOK 1000
times better as well....plus they ACTUALLY have web sites in the first
place.......


I have no comment on this, as this seems purely a matter of opinion and
conjecture.

Jul 21 '05 #24

P: n/a
I was minding my own business when nospam blurted out:
The last person you ever want to give access to your SQL Server is a Sys
Admin!!!!
Um... the SysAdmin is generally responsible for the health and maintenence
of the server on which SQL server rides on. In fact, the sys admin is often
responsible for many of the same types of tasks that the DBA is responsible
for. Speaking for myself, as a sys admin, I would refuse to manage a server
that I did not have access to. That would be like asking a developer to
develop a database application without access to the database.
Most attacks and computer crimes come from the inside...and GUESS
WHO those insiders might be? disgruntled SysAdmin.....
And a disgruntled DBA with admin access to the db couldn't do the same
thing? Not a good argument.
By opening up SQL Server to the Windows Security all those on the Windows
side are now potential suspects IF a computer crime would be committed.....

Not true. Even if you set your SQL server to use integrated security, the
only windows users who have access to the server by default are local and/or
domain administrators. Regular users ONLY have access once an admin has
granted them access. In addition, the same security restrictions that can
be placed on sql users, can be placed on windows users. When granting a
windows user access to a database, a sql server login is actually created to
represent the windows user.
Second of all if there is a Web Server, the SQL server should be in the same room with an independent $50 dollar network switch directly connected to the Web server thereby eliminating any network intercepts in the first place.


Not always true. Consider the fact that not all businesses have only 1 web
and 1 sql server to manage. Some of them have 10s, or even hundreds.

--
Insert corny line here
Jul 21 '05 #25

P: n/a
Maybe you should mind your own business.

SysAdmin generally don't know anything about SQL Server programming, nor or
they PAID to do so.
Not true. Even if you set your SQL server to use integrated security, the
only windows users who have access to the server by default are local and/or domain administrators. Regular users ONLY have access once an admin has
granted them access. In addition, the same security restrictions that can
be placed on sql users, can be placed on windows users. When granting a
windows user access to a database, a sql server login is actually created to represent the windows user.
And do we need the LOCAL admin or DOMAIN admin to have access to the SQL
Server...they don't know any sql programming anyway, nor are they familiar
with the tables or the store procedures and much less the application that
uses the database anyway.

Um... the SysAdmin is generally responsible for the health and maintenence
of the server on which SQL server rides on. In fact, the sys admin is often responsible for many of the same types of tasks that the DBA is responsible for.
THEN you are NOT only a SYSADMIN. IF you perform DBA tasks, you are also a
DBA. If you walk like a DBA, talk like a DBA and quack like a DBA, then you
are a DBA.
Not always true. Consider the fact that not all businesses have only 1 web and 1 sql server to manage. Some of them have 10s, or even hundreds.

Well, you know they should be all in the SAME room and with a separate
network switch from the intranet then.....

And a disgruntled DBA with admin access to the db couldn't do the same
thing? Not a good argument.

YES it is a GOOD argument as you then have a PRETTY good IDEA of who had
access then.
Did you forget, "the principle of least privilege"? that's what they taught
you in the NT security world right?

What do they teach in in security school? Each attack is a NEW, "un-thought
of" attack.

Regular user or Admin User...DOES it REALLY MATTER as this new attack will
exploit this domain relationship and get a regular user to elevate their
user rights to admin rights, accidentally or mischievously ...
This has been a successful mode of attack before.....and it can be done many
many ways......

You allow them to possibly exploit an undocumented or unknown bug in the
system..."software will always have bugs, right???"


"-=Chris=-" <us*@newsgroup.instead> wrote in message
news:vr************@corp.supernews.com... I was minding my own business when nospam blurted out:
The last person you ever want to give access to your SQL Server is a Sys
Admin!!!!
Um... the SysAdmin is generally responsible for the health and maintenence
of the server on which SQL server rides on. In fact, the sys admin is

often responsible for many of the same types of tasks that the DBA is responsible for. Speaking for myself, as a sys admin, I would refuse to manage a server that I did not have access to. That would be like asking a developer to
develop a database application without access to the database.
Most attacks and computer crimes come from the inside...and GUESS
WHO those insiders might be? disgruntled SysAdmin.....
And a disgruntled DBA with admin access to the db couldn't do the same
thing? Not a good argument.
By opening up SQL Server to the Windows Security all those on the Windows side are now potential suspects IF a computer crime would be

committed.....

Not true. Even if you set your SQL server to use integrated security, the
only windows users who have access to the server by default are local

and/or domain administrators. Regular users ONLY have access once an admin has
granted them access. In addition, the same security restrictions that can
be placed on sql users, can be placed on windows users. When granting a
windows user access to a database, a sql server login is actually created to represent the windows user.
Second of all if there is a Web Server, the SQL server should be in the same
room with an independent $50 dollar network switch directly connected to

the
Web server thereby eliminating any network intercepts in the first

place.
Not always true. Consider the fact that not all businesses have only 1 web and 1 sql server to manage. Some of them have 10s, or even hundreds.

--
Insert corny line here

Jul 21 '05 #26

P: n/a
Here is another example of Microsoft security.....and why Integrated
security should cause you to FEEL INSECURE...

Mail server flaw opens Exchange to spam
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5107904.html

Again and again......if it's not one thing, it's another........

Yeah, right, let's listen to Microsoft on security.......

Anyone basically can, on any given day, look up and see another flaw in
security or OOP or n-Tier....you name it, it's I.T. that doesn't know what
they are doing.....

stupid brainwashed programmers who listen to these authors, "so-called"
architects, gurus, Mr.-I-have-3+articles written-on-DevX-or-wrox, or some
..NET magazine......again and again...sitting around on a white board mapping
out UML has proven to be so failure ridden I don't know how you guys get
away with it!!!

.....Oh, wait.....you guys smoozy up with those VC's like Hummer Windblad and
their failed petstore who could not figure out that people don't want to pay
for shipping on a 50lb bag of dog food....duhhh......they could have at
least asked their mom about that!!!!

ah yes one 10page resume MBA leading another 10page resume MCSD.......

The only thing these MBA, MCSD, MVP's and gurus are good at are their
PowerPoint slides and typing their 3 and 4 letter acronyms....

Typing 3-4 letter acronyms onto a computer is not the same as typing out the
entire production code to a web app.

Example code and apps are not PRODUCTION apps....ask the
DotNetJunkies......I bet you deep down, they feel a lot different then what
they are saying.......and OOP and n-Tier are not what they are cut out to
be.......Look at the DotNetNuke re-write....shawn thinks that's the only
way...yet in his blogs he's complaining about how hard and how much time he
spent just trying to separate the data tier cleanly...and for WHAT???? to
hook up to some Access database.....all that trouble for people who want to
their database for free, yet the developer who spent all the time
programming thinks he is going to get paid for all that effort...ha ha
ha.....sooner or latter, this developer is going to learn that people who
are going to pay him something is going to pay for SQL Server....you think
people who want to use an Access database care about performance, security,
and the long term....guess again, if they don't care enough to even spend
for a $1000 copy of single client license sql server...don't you ever expect
them to pay you for n-Tier, OOP solution......

oh, but wait a second...let's let the access db get corrupted and then they
will come a running to you and then you can charge them more!!!!!, or will
they blame you........either way.....something gets a lot of downtime,
unhappy customers, and all because someone didn't stand their ground.....



"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:u2**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Maybe you should mind your own business.

SysAdmin generally don't know anything about SQL Server programming, nor or they PAID to do so.
Not true. Even if you set your SQL server to use integrated security, the
only windows users who have access to the server by default are local and/or
domain administrators. Regular users ONLY have access once an admin has
granted them access. In addition, the same security restrictions that can be placed on sql users, can be placed on windows users. When granting a
windows user access to a database, a sql server login is actually created to
represent the windows user.
And do we need the LOCAL admin or DOMAIN admin to have access to the SQL
Server...they don't know any sql programming anyway, nor are they familiar
with the tables or the store procedures and much less the application that
uses the database anyway.

Um... the SysAdmin is generally responsible for the health and

maintenence of the server on which SQL server rides on. In fact, the sys admin is

often
responsible for many of the same types of tasks that the DBA is

responsible
for.


THEN you are NOT only a SYSADMIN. IF you perform DBA tasks, you are also

a DBA. If you walk like a DBA, talk like a DBA and quack like a DBA, then you are a DBA.
Not always true. Consider the fact that not all businesses have only 1 web
and 1 sql server to manage. Some of them have 10s, or even hundreds.


Well, you know they should be all in the SAME room and with a separate
network switch from the intranet then.....

And a disgruntled DBA with admin access to the db couldn't do the same
thing? Not a good argument.


YES it is a GOOD argument as you then have a PRETTY good IDEA of who had
access then.
Did you forget, "the principle of least privilege"? that's what they

taught you in the NT security world right?

What do they teach in in security school? Each attack is a NEW, "un-thought of" attack.

Regular user or Admin User...DOES it REALLY MATTER as this new attack will
exploit this domain relationship and get a regular user to elevate their
user rights to admin rights, accidentally or mischievously ...
This has been a successful mode of attack before.....and it can be done many many ways......

You allow them to possibly exploit an undocumented or unknown bug in the
system..."software will always have bugs, right???"


"-=Chris=-" <us*@newsgroup.instead> wrote in message
news:vr************@corp.supernews.com...
I was minding my own business when nospam blurted out:
The last person you ever want to give access to your SQL Server is a Sys Admin!!!!
Um... the SysAdmin is generally responsible for the health and maintenence of the server on which SQL server rides on. In fact, the sys admin is

often
responsible for many of the same types of tasks that the DBA is

responsible
for. Speaking for myself, as a sys admin, I would refuse to manage a

server
that I did not have access to. That would be like asking a developer to
develop a database application without access to the database.
Most attacks and computer crimes come from the inside...and GUESS
WHO those insiders might be? disgruntled SysAdmin.....


And a disgruntled DBA with admin access to the db couldn't do the same
thing? Not a good argument.
By opening up SQL Server to the Windows Security all those on the Windows side are now potential suspects IF a computer crime would be

committed.....

Not true. Even if you set your SQL server to use integrated security,

the only windows users who have access to the server by default are local

and/or
domain administrators. Regular users ONLY have access once an admin has
granted them access. In addition, the same security restrictions that can be placed on sql users, can be placed on windows users. When granting a
windows user access to a database, a sql server login is actually created to
represent the windows user.
Second of all if there is a Web Server, the SQL server should be in

the same
room with an independent $50 dollar network switch directly connected
to the
Web server thereby eliminating any network intercepts in the first

place.

Not always true. Consider the fact that not all businesses have only 1

web
and 1 sql server to manage. Some of them have 10s, or even hundreds.

--
Insert corny line here


Jul 21 '05 #27

P: n/a
This is an excellent reply. I agree. Your comments actually apply across the
board for all kinds of programming. I never could understand how anyone who
knows how to write code but has no clue to business processes and user
behavior can ever come up with a working, useful system.

I have seen brilliant people who could recite the entire programming manual
page for page and write reams of code without ever printing it out to check
it and yet come up with a piece of cr** that the users hate.


Ok, so now you admit VS.NET sucks really bad as a designer tool. Let me ask you something.
How can any company be productive if they have no idea how the users are
going to interact with the program the developer wrote? How can the
developer test, performance tune, TRULLY debug, if they haven't the
slightest idea of how their program will be used?

VS.NET needs to have in mind the single word, "PRODUCTIVITY" , not
"developer productivity" or "designer productivity" as what good is a
program written by a developer that has to be totally rewritten to how the
user is going to use it.

THE NUMBER #1 problem and reason for project failures is COMMUNICATION
between the developer and the client. Developers say, "It wasn't in the
spec! It wasn't in the spec!" Client's say, "but don't you know?? don't you know??"

Now, what's the solution here? Learn more OOP, UML, n-Tier to be more
flexible? How about refactoring and some design patterns for even better
design? Let's buy every single Apress and Wrox book you can find and read
those. yes!!!......that will solve everything......

NO, THE PROBLEM is that DEVELOPERS are TOO CLUELESS to KNOW what to develop in the first place!!!! AND they NEVER ASK in detail what need to be made and WHY they are making it!!!!!!!!

It's amazing, these DEVELOPERS and MVP and RD's and Program Managers go to
non-OOP programmers and VB6 programmers and anything below their skill level and say, "IT'S just TOOL and YOU NEED TO LEARN it like anything else".

***
YET, these very SAME DEVELOPERS are NOT EVEN willing to lift a FINGER to
L.E.A.R.N. a little bit about the "BUSINESS", UI, DESIGN and what the
customer wants in the first place.
***

Again, in the words of MISTER BILL, ".NET is SLOW GOING"....I wonder
WHY!!!!!
Ah yes, the GREAT DIVIDE...I guess abstraction will make everything
better!!!! HA HA HA HA....I can already see the results of abstraction in
the n-Tier..more failed IT projects than successess.

It's amazing!!! these System and Application Architects are SOooo
ABSTRACTED, it's no wonder why they have NO idea what the customer wants and why their app is soooo slow........but wait, the app is never delivered on
time anyway.....so we have no idea if it's slow to begin with as they are
are still in the "design phase of OOP"

************************************************** *
OH, and by the WAY, COMDEX floor space is now 150,000 sqft.. down from
875,000 sqft. in the 1990s. And ATTENDANCE is 50,000...half of what it had last year......
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1381579,00.asp
************************************************** *
Wow, a single HomeDepot or Super Walmart could have more customers...
Any, REPEAT ANY, MVP, programmer, developer, author, IT person who says that what they are doing is making customers happy is simply in denial of their
failures.
Cheers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jul 21 '05 #28

P: n/a
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:04:24 -0600, "-=Chris=-"
<us*@newsgroup.instead> wrote:
I was minding my own business when nospam blurted out:
The last person you ever want to give access to your SQL Server is a Sys
Admin!!!!


Um... the SysAdmin is generally responsible for the health and maintenence
of the server on which SQL server rides on. In fact, the sys admin is often
responsible for many of the same types of tasks that the DBA is responsible
for. Speaking for myself, as a sys admin, I would refuse to manage a server
that I did not have access to. That would be like asking a developer to
develop a database application without access to the database.


<snip>
I wouldn't get my knickers in a bunch over anything that "nospam" had
to say on just about anything.

Oz
Jul 21 '05 #29

P: n/a
So, you must be nospam's mom, I guess?

Bob Lehmann

"NRGeti" <ng***@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:PW******************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net. ..
This is an excellent reply. I agree. Your comments actually apply across the board for all kinds of programming. I never could understand how anyone who knows how to write code but has no clue to business processes and user
behavior can ever come up with a working, useful system.

I have seen brilliant people who could recite the entire programming manual page for page and write reams of code without ever printing it out to check it and yet come up with a piece of cr** that the users hate.


Ok, so now you admit VS.NET sucks really bad as a designer tool. Let me

ask
you something.
How can any company be productive if they have no idea how the users are
going to interact with the program the developer wrote? How can the
developer test, performance tune, TRULLY debug, if they haven't the
slightest idea of how their program will be used?

VS.NET needs to have in mind the single word, "PRODUCTIVITY" , not
"developer productivity" or "designer productivity" as what good is a
program written by a developer that has to be totally rewritten to how the user is going to use it.

THE NUMBER #1 problem and reason for project failures is COMMUNICATION
between the developer and the client. Developers say, "It wasn't in the
spec! It wasn't in the spec!" Client's say, "but don't you know?? don't

you
know??"

Now, what's the solution here? Learn more OOP, UML, n-Tier to be more
flexible? How about refactoring and some design patterns for even better design? Let's buy every single Apress and Wrox book you can find and read those. yes!!!......that will solve everything......

NO, THE PROBLEM is that DEVELOPERS are TOO CLUELESS to KNOW what to

develop
in the first place!!!! AND they NEVER ASK in detail what need to be made

and
WHY they are making it!!!!!!!!

It's amazing, these DEVELOPERS and MVP and RD's and Program Managers go to non-OOP programmers and VB6 programmers and anything below their skill

level
and say, "IT'S just TOOL and YOU NEED TO LEARN it like anything else".

***
YET, these very SAME DEVELOPERS are NOT EVEN willing to lift a FINGER to
L.E.A.R.N. a little bit about the "BUSINESS", UI, DESIGN and what the
customer wants in the first place.
***

Again, in the words of MISTER BILL, ".NET is SLOW GOING"....I wonder
WHY!!!!!
Ah yes, the GREAT DIVIDE...I guess abstraction will make everything
better!!!! HA HA HA HA....I can already see the results of abstraction in the n-Tier..more failed IT projects than successess.

It's amazing!!! these System and Application Architects are SOooo
ABSTRACTED, it's no wonder why they have NO idea what the customer wants

and
why their app is soooo slow........but wait, the app is never delivered on time anyway.....so we have no idea if it's slow to begin with as they are are still in the "design phase of OOP"

************************************************** *
OH, and by the WAY, COMDEX floor space is now 150,000 sqft.. down from
875,000 sqft. in the 1990s. And ATTENDANCE is 50,000...half of what it

had
last year......
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1381579,00.asp
************************************************** *
Wow, a single HomeDepot or Super Walmart could have more customers...
Any, REPEAT ANY, MVP, programmer, developer, author, IT person who says

that
what they are doing is making customers happy is simply in denial of their failures.
Cheers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Jul 21 '05 #30

P: n/a
Nah! I am his pop. Anyway it sense to me on this issue.

"Bob Lehmann" <none> wrote in message
news:OG**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
So, you must be nospam's mom, I guess?

Bob Lehmann

"NRGeti" <ng***@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:PW******************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net. ..
This is an excellent reply. I agree. Your comments actually apply across the
board for all kinds of programming. I never could understand how anyone

who
knows how to write code but has no clue to business processes and user
behavior can ever come up with a working, useful system.

I have seen brilliant people who could recite the entire programming

manual
page for page and write reams of code without ever printing it out to

check
it and yet come up with a piece of cr** that the users hate.


Ok, so now you admit VS.NET sucks really bad as a designer tool. Let me
ask
you something.
How can any company be productive if they have no idea how the users
are going to interact with the program the developer wrote? How can the
developer test, performance tune, TRULLY debug, if they haven't the
slightest idea of how their program will be used?

VS.NET needs to have in mind the single word, "PRODUCTIVITY" , not
"developer productivity" or "designer productivity" as what good is a
program written by a developer that has to be totally rewritten to how the user is going to use it.

THE NUMBER #1 problem and reason for project failures is COMMUNICATION
between the developer and the client. Developers say, "It wasn't in the spec! It wasn't in the spec!" Client's say, "but don't you know?? don't you
know??"

Now, what's the solution here? Learn more OOP, UML, n-Tier to be more
flexible? How about refactoring and some design patterns for even better design? Let's buy every single Apress and Wrox book you can find and read those. yes!!!......that will solve everything......

NO, THE PROBLEM is that DEVELOPERS are TOO CLUELESS to KNOW what to

develop
in the first place!!!! AND they NEVER ASK in detail what need to be
made
and
WHY they are making it!!!!!!!!

It's amazing, these DEVELOPERS and MVP and RD's and Program Managers
go to non-OOP programmers and VB6 programmers and anything below their skill level
and say, "IT'S just TOOL and YOU NEED TO LEARN it like anything else".

***
YET, these very SAME DEVELOPERS are NOT EVEN willing to lift a FINGER
to L.E.A.R.N. a little bit about the "BUSINESS", UI, DESIGN and what the
customer wants in the first place.
***

Again, in the words of MISTER BILL, ".NET is SLOW GOING"....I wonder
WHY!!!!!
Ah yes, the GREAT DIVIDE...I guess abstraction will make everything
better!!!! HA HA HA HA....I can already see the results of abstraction

in the n-Tier..more failed IT projects than successess.

It's amazing!!! these System and Application Architects are SOooo
ABSTRACTED, it's no wonder why they have NO idea what the customer
wants and
why their app is soooo slow........but wait, the app is never
delivered on time anyway.....so we have no idea if it's slow to begin with as they are are still in the "design phase of OOP"

************************************************** *
OH, and by the WAY, COMDEX floor space is now 150,000 sqft.. down from
875,000 sqft. in the 1990s. And ATTENDANCE is 50,000...half of what
it had
last year......
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1381579,00.asp
************************************************** *
Wow, a single HomeDepot or Super Walmart could have more customers...
Any, REPEAT ANY, MVP, programmer, developer, author, IT person who
says that
what they are doing is making customers happy is simply in denial of

their failures.
Cheers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Jul 21 '05 #31

P: n/a
You must be very proud of him!

Bob Lehmann

"NRGeti" <ng***@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1g*********************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et...
Nah! I am his pop. Anyway it sense to me on this issue.

"Bob Lehmann" <none> wrote in message
news:OG**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
So, you must be nospam's mom, I guess?

Bob Lehmann

"NRGeti" <ng***@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:PW******************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net. ..
This is an excellent reply. I agree. Your comments actually apply across
the
board for all kinds of programming. I never could understand how
anyone
who
knows how to write code but has no clue to business processes and user
behavior can ever come up with a working, useful system.

I have seen brilliant people who could recite the entire programming manual
page for page and write reams of code without ever printing it out to

check
it and yet come up with a piece of cr** that the users hate.
>
> Ok, so now you admit VS.NET sucks really bad as a designer tool.
Let me ask
> you something.
> How can any company be productive if they have no idea how the users are > going to interact with the program the developer wrote? How can the
> developer test, performance tune, TRULLY debug, if they haven't the
> slightest idea of how their program will be used?
>
> VS.NET needs to have in mind the single word, "PRODUCTIVITY" , not
> "developer productivity" or "designer productivity" as what good is
a > program written by a developer that has to be totally rewritten to how the
> user is going to use it.
>
> THE NUMBER #1 problem and reason for project failures is
COMMUNICATION > between the developer and the client. Developers say, "It wasn't in
the > spec! It wasn't in the spec!" Client's say, "but don't you know?? don't you
> know??"
>
> Now, what's the solution here? Learn more OOP, UML, n-Tier to be more > flexible? How about refactoring and some design patterns for even

better
> design? Let's buy every single Apress and Wrox book you can find and read
> those. yes!!!......that will solve everything......
>
> NO, THE PROBLEM is that DEVELOPERS are TOO CLUELESS to KNOW what to
develop
> in the first place!!!! AND they NEVER ASK in detail what need to be made and
> WHY they are making it!!!!!!!!
>
> It's amazing, these DEVELOPERS and MVP and RD's and Program Managers go
to
> non-OOP programmers and VB6 programmers and anything below their
skill level
> and say, "IT'S just TOOL and YOU NEED TO LEARN it like anything else". >
> ***
> YET, these very SAME DEVELOPERS are NOT EVEN willing to lift a FINGER to > L.E.A.R.N. a little bit about the "BUSINESS", UI, DESIGN and what
the > customer wants in the first place.
> ***
>
> Again, in the words of MISTER BILL, ".NET is SLOW GOING"....I wonder
> WHY!!!!!
>
>
> Ah yes, the GREAT DIVIDE...I guess abstraction will make everything
> better!!!! HA HA HA HA....I can already see the results of abstraction in
> the n-Tier..more failed IT projects than successess.
>
> It's amazing!!! these System and Application Architects are SOooo
> ABSTRACTED, it's no wonder why they have NO idea what the customer wants and
> why their app is soooo slow........but wait, the app is never delivered
on
> time anyway.....so we have no idea if it's slow to begin with as

they are
> are still in the "design phase of OOP"
>
> ************************************************** *
> OH, and by the WAY, COMDEX floor space is now 150,000 sqft.. down

from > 875,000 sqft. in the 1990s. And ATTENDANCE is 50,000...half of what

it had
> last year......
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1381579,00.asp
> ************************************************** *
>
>
> Wow, a single HomeDepot or Super Walmart could have more customers... >
>
> Any, REPEAT ANY, MVP, programmer, developer, author, IT person who says that
> what they are doing is making customers happy is simply in denial of

their
> failures.
>
>
> Cheers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Jul 21 '05 #32

P: n/a
Not at all. I haven't seen him since his birth. He got lost somehow.

"Bob Lehmann" <none> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
You must be very proud of him!

Bob Lehmann

"NRGeti" <ng***@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1g*********************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et...
Nah! I am his pop. Anyway it sense to me on this issue.

"Bob Lehmann" <none> wrote in message
news:OG**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
So, you must be nospam's mom, I guess?

Bob Lehmann

"NRGeti" <ng***@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:PW******************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net. ..
> This is an excellent reply. I agree. Your comments actually apply across the
> board for all kinds of programming. I never could understand how anyone who
> knows how to write code but has no clue to business processes and user > behavior can ever come up with a working, useful system.
>
> I have seen brilliant people who could recite the entire programming
manual
> page for page and write reams of code without ever printing it out to check
> it and yet come up with a piece of cr** that the users hate.
>
>
> >
> > Ok, so now you admit VS.NET sucks really bad as a designer tool. Let
me
> ask
> > you something.
> > How can any company be productive if they have no idea how the users
are
> > going to interact with the program the developer wrote? How can
the > > developer test, performance tune, TRULLY debug, if they haven't the > > slightest idea of how their program will be used?
> >
> > VS.NET needs to have in mind the single word, "PRODUCTIVITY" , not
> > "developer productivity" or "designer productivity" as what good is
a > > program written by a developer that has to be totally rewritten to how the
> > user is going to use it.
> >
> > THE NUMBER #1 problem and reason for project failures is COMMUNICATION > > between the developer and the client. Developers say, "It wasn't
in the
> > spec! It wasn't in the spec!" Client's say, "but don't you know??

don't
> you
> > know??"
> >
> > Now, what's the solution here? Learn more OOP, UML, n-Tier to be more > > flexible? How about refactoring and some design patterns for even
better
> > design? Let's buy every single Apress and Wrox book you can find and read
> > those. yes!!!......that will solve everything......
> >
> > NO, THE PROBLEM is that DEVELOPERS are TOO CLUELESS to KNOW what
to > develop
> > in the first place!!!! AND they NEVER ASK in detail what need to be made
> and
> > WHY they are making it!!!!!!!!
> >
> > It's amazing, these DEVELOPERS and MVP and RD's and Program
Managers go
to
> > non-OOP programmers and VB6 programmers and anything below their skill > level
> > and say, "IT'S just TOOL and YOU NEED TO LEARN it like anything else". > >
> > ***
> > YET, these very SAME DEVELOPERS are NOT EVEN willing to lift a FINGER
to
> > L.E.A.R.N. a little bit about the "BUSINESS", UI, DESIGN and what

the > > customer wants in the first place.
> > ***
> >
> > Again, in the words of MISTER BILL, ".NET is SLOW GOING"....I
wonder > > WHY!!!!!
> >
> >
> > Ah yes, the GREAT DIVIDE...I guess abstraction will make everything > > better!!!! HA HA HA HA....I can already see the results of

abstraction in
> > the n-Tier..more failed IT projects than successess.
> >
> > It's amazing!!! these System and Application Architects are SOooo
> > ABSTRACTED, it's no wonder why they have NO idea what the customer

wants
> and
> > why their app is soooo slow........but wait, the app is never

delivered
on
> > time anyway.....so we have no idea if it's slow to begin with as they are
> > are still in the "design phase of OOP"
> >
> > ************************************************** *
> > OH, and by the WAY, COMDEX floor space is now 150,000 sqft.. down from > > 875,000 sqft. in the 1990s. And ATTENDANCE is 50,000...half of what it
> had
> > last year......
> > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1381579,00.asp
> > ************************************************** *
> >
> >
> > Wow, a single HomeDepot or Super Walmart could have more customers... > >
> >
> > Any, REPEAT ANY, MVP, programmer, developer, author, IT person who

says
> that
> > what they are doing is making customers happy is simply in denial

of their
> > failures.
> >
> >
> > Cheers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>



Jul 21 '05 #33

P: n/a
You know you need to try a LOT harder to discredit me......
To bad your nose is still buried in your n-Tier and OOP books and articles
and "example" code....

I could easily bring up a few points in the past were everyone of you MVP's
and gurus thought I was a complete idiot screeming off the top of my lungs
how the current architecture or feature, or missing feature was stupid, yet
only to be validated years later......

If I were you, I would be very quiet, otherwise you would have to have a
good portion of humble pie.

"Bob Lehmann" <none> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
You must be very proud of him!

Bob Lehmann

"NRGeti" <ng***@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1g*********************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et...
Nah! I am his pop. Anyway it sense to me on this issue.

"Bob Lehmann" <none> wrote in message
news:OG**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
So, you must be nospam's mom, I guess?

Bob Lehmann

"NRGeti" <ng***@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:PW******************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net. ..
> This is an excellent reply. I agree. Your comments actually apply across the
> board for all kinds of programming. I never could understand how anyone who
> knows how to write code but has no clue to business processes and user > behavior can ever come up with a working, useful system.
>
> I have seen brilliant people who could recite the entire programming
manual
> page for page and write reams of code without ever printing it out to check
> it and yet come up with a piece of cr** that the users hate.
>
>
> >
> > Ok, so now you admit VS.NET sucks really bad as a designer tool. Let
me
> ask
> > you something.
> > How can any company be productive if they have no idea how the users
are
> > going to interact with the program the developer wrote? How can
the > > developer test, performance tune, TRULLY debug, if they haven't the > > slightest idea of how their program will be used?
> >
> > VS.NET needs to have in mind the single word, "PRODUCTIVITY" , not
> > "developer productivity" or "designer productivity" as what good is
a > > program written by a developer that has to be totally rewritten to how the
> > user is going to use it.
> >
> > THE NUMBER #1 problem and reason for project failures is COMMUNICATION > > between the developer and the client. Developers say, "It wasn't
in the
> > spec! It wasn't in the spec!" Client's say, "but don't you know??

don't
> you
> > know??"
> >
> > Now, what's the solution here? Learn more OOP, UML, n-Tier to be more > > flexible? How about refactoring and some design patterns for even
better
> > design? Let's buy every single Apress and Wrox book you can find and read
> > those. yes!!!......that will solve everything......
> >
> > NO, THE PROBLEM is that DEVELOPERS are TOO CLUELESS to KNOW what
to > develop
> > in the first place!!!! AND they NEVER ASK in detail what need to be made
> and
> > WHY they are making it!!!!!!!!
> >
> > It's amazing, these DEVELOPERS and MVP and RD's and Program
Managers go
to
> > non-OOP programmers and VB6 programmers and anything below their skill > level
> > and say, "IT'S just TOOL and YOU NEED TO LEARN it like anything else". > >
> > ***
> > YET, these very SAME DEVELOPERS are NOT EVEN willing to lift a FINGER
to
> > L.E.A.R.N. a little bit about the "BUSINESS", UI, DESIGN and what

the > > customer wants in the first place.
> > ***
> >
> > Again, in the words of MISTER BILL, ".NET is SLOW GOING"....I
wonder > > WHY!!!!!
> >
> >
> > Ah yes, the GREAT DIVIDE...I guess abstraction will make everything > > better!!!! HA HA HA HA....I can already see the results of

abstraction in
> > the n-Tier..more failed IT projects than successess.
> >
> > It's amazing!!! these System and Application Architects are SOooo
> > ABSTRACTED, it's no wonder why they have NO idea what the customer

wants
> and
> > why their app is soooo slow........but wait, the app is never

delivered
on
> > time anyway.....so we have no idea if it's slow to begin with as they are
> > are still in the "design phase of OOP"
> >
> > ************************************************** *
> > OH, and by the WAY, COMDEX floor space is now 150,000 sqft.. down from > > 875,000 sqft. in the 1990s. And ATTENDANCE is 50,000...half of what it
> had
> > last year......
> > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1381579,00.asp
> > ************************************************** *
> >
> >
> > Wow, a single HomeDepot or Super Walmart could have more customers... > >
> >
> > Any, REPEAT ANY, MVP, programmer, developer, author, IT person who

says
> that
> > what they are doing is making customers happy is simply in denial

of their
> > failures.
> >
> >
> > Cheers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>



Jul 21 '05 #34

P: n/a
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:38:18 -0600, "nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote:
You know you need to try a LOT harder to discredit me......

<snip>

Actually, no. You do an adequate job of that all by yourself.

Oz
Jul 21 '05 #35

P: n/a
Maybe it's the "screeming" that makes people think you are a complete idiot.

Bob

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:#3*************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
You know you need to try a LOT harder to discredit me......
To bad your nose is still buried in your n-Tier and OOP books and articles
and "example" code....

I could easily bring up a few points in the past were everyone of you MVP's and gurus thought I was a complete idiot screeming off the top of my lungs
how the current architecture or feature, or missing feature was stupid, yet only to be validated years later......

If I were you, I would be very quiet, otherwise you would have to have a
good portion of humble pie.

"Bob Lehmann" <none> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
You must be very proud of him!

Bob Lehmann

"NRGeti" <ng***@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1g*********************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et...
Nah! I am his pop. Anyway it sense to me on this issue.

"Bob Lehmann" <none> wrote in message
news:OG**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> So, you must be nospam's mom, I guess?
>
> Bob Lehmann
>
> "NRGeti" <ng***@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:PW******************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net. ..
> > This is an excellent reply. I agree. Your comments actually apply across
> the
> > board for all kinds of programming. I never could understand how

anyone
> who
> > knows how to write code but has no clue to business processes and user > > behavior can ever come up with a working, useful system.
> >
> > I have seen brilliant people who could recite the entire programming > manual
> > page for page and write reams of code without ever printing it out to > check
> > it and yet come up with a piece of cr** that the users hate.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Ok, so now you admit VS.NET sucks really bad as a designer tool.

Let
me
> > ask
> > > you something.
> > > How can any company be productive if they have no idea how the users are
> > > going to interact with the program the developer wrote? How can the > > > developer test, performance tune, TRULLY debug, if they haven't the > > > slightest idea of how their program will be used?
> > >
> > > VS.NET needs to have in mind the single word, "PRODUCTIVITY" , not > > > "developer productivity" or "designer productivity" as what good is
a
> > > program written by a developer that has to be totally rewritten to
how
> the
> > > user is going to use it.
> > >
> > > THE NUMBER #1 problem and reason for project failures is

COMMUNICATION
> > > between the developer and the client. Developers say, "It wasn't in the
> > > spec! It wasn't in the spec!" Client's say, "but don't you
know?? don't
> > you
> > > know??"
> > >
> > > Now, what's the solution here? Learn more OOP, UML, n-Tier to be

more
> > > flexible? How about refactoring and some design patterns for even > better
> > > design? Let's buy every single Apress and Wrox book you can find and
> read
> > > those. yes!!!......that will solve everything......
> > >
> > > NO, THE PROBLEM is that DEVELOPERS are TOO CLUELESS to KNOW what to > > develop
> > > in the first place!!!! AND they NEVER ASK in detail what need to be made
> > and
> > > WHY they are making it!!!!!!!!
> > >
> > > It's amazing, these DEVELOPERS and MVP and RD's and Program Managers go
> to
> > > non-OOP programmers and VB6 programmers and anything below their

skill
> > level
> > > and say, "IT'S just TOOL and YOU NEED TO LEARN it like anything

else".
> > >
> > > ***
> > > YET, these very SAME DEVELOPERS are NOT EVEN willing to lift a

FINGER
to
> > > L.E.A.R.N. a little bit about the "BUSINESS", UI, DESIGN and
what the
> > > customer wants in the first place.
> > > ***
> > >
> > > Again, in the words of MISTER BILL, ".NET is SLOW GOING"....I wonder > > > WHY!!!!!
> > >
> > >
> > > Ah yes, the GREAT DIVIDE...I guess abstraction will make everything > > > better!!!! HA HA HA HA....I can already see the results of

abstraction
> in
> > > the n-Tier..more failed IT projects than successess.
> > >
> > > It's amazing!!! these System and Application Architects are
SOooo > > > ABSTRACTED, it's no wonder why they have NO idea what the customer wants
> > and
> > > why their app is soooo slow........but wait, the app is never
delivered
> on
> > > time anyway.....so we have no idea if it's slow to begin with as

they
> are
> > > are still in the "design phase of OOP"
> > >
> > > ************************************************** *
> > > OH, and by the WAY, COMDEX floor space is now 150,000 sqft.. down from
> > > 875,000 sqft. in the 1990s. And ATTENDANCE is 50,000...half of

what it
> > had
> > > last year......
> > > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1381579,00.asp
> > > ************************************************** *
> > >
> > >
> > > Wow, a single HomeDepot or Super Walmart could have more

customers...
> > >
> > >
> > > Any, REPEAT ANY, MVP, programmer, developer, author, IT person
who says
> > that
> > > what they are doing is making customers happy is simply in

denial of > their
> > > failures.
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> >
>
>



Jul 21 '05 #36

P: n/a
The screaming is needed because I am trying to knock some sense into
programmers who act like 14-year olds when they are proven WRONG.

Dear .NET Gurus, Authors, MVP's, MCSD, Programmers, Developers, Architects,
etc.,

You are some of the most arrogant people in the world and deserve to be
treated as an upset 14-year old as that's essentially what you have been
acting like. You have no CLUE how a real business works NOR even know what
the customer wants while cramming your noses in more OOP, n-Tier books and
articles that have more failed implementations than successes. But you
don't even know that because you still think you are right just like that
14-year old who hasn't grown up and learned to admit his mistakes.

WHY YES, SCREAMING (FULL CAPS) is necessary to get through all the NOISE of
EXCUSES you guys are spouting and spinning off everyday when something goes
wrong that you try to blame others on. FULL CAPS are NECESSARY as
Programmers stop reading when they are proven wrong and spout off their
rhetoric.
Now who is the 14-year old idiot you are trying to dis-credit?

"Bob Lehmann" <none> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Maybe it's the "screeming" that makes people think you are a complete idiot.
Bob

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:#3*************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
You know you need to try a LOT harder to discredit me......
To bad your nose is still buried in your n-Tier and OOP books and articles
and "example" code....

I could easily bring up a few points in the past were everyone of you MVP's
and gurus thought I was a complete idiot screeming off the top of my lungs how the current architecture or feature, or missing feature was stupid,

yet
only to be validated years later......

If I were you, I would be very quiet, otherwise you would have to have a
good portion of humble pie.

"Bob Lehmann" <none> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
You must be very proud of him!

Bob Lehmann

"NRGeti" <ng***@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1g*********************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et...
> Nah! I am his pop. Anyway it sense to me on this issue.
>
> "Bob Lehmann" <none> wrote in message
> news:OG**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > So, you must be nospam's mom, I guess?
> >
> > Bob Lehmann
> >
> > "NRGeti" <ng***@optonline.net> wrote in message
> > news:PW******************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net. ..
> > > This is an excellent reply. I agree. Your comments actually apply across
> > the
> > > board for all kinds of programming. I never could understand how
anyone
> > who
> > > knows how to write code but has no clue to business processes and
user
> > > behavior can ever come up with a working, useful system.
> > >
> > > I have seen brilliant people who could recite the entire programming > > manual
> > > page for page and write reams of code without ever printing it
out to
> > check
> > > it and yet come up with a piece of cr** that the users hate.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Ok, so now you admit VS.NET sucks really bad as a designer
tool. Let
> me
> > > ask
> > > > you something.
> > > > How can any company be productive if they have no idea how the

users
> are
> > > > going to interact with the program the developer wrote? How can the
> > > > developer test, performance tune, TRULLY debug, if they
haven't the
> > > > slightest idea of how their program will be used?
> > > >
> > > > VS.NET needs to have in mind the single word, "PRODUCTIVITY" , not > > > > "developer productivity" or "designer productivity" as what
good is
a
> > > > program written by a developer that has to be totally
rewritten to how
> > the
> > > > user is going to use it.
> > > >
> > > > THE NUMBER #1 problem and reason for project failures is
COMMUNICATION
> > > > between the developer and the client. Developers say, "It
wasn't in
> the
> > > > spec! It wasn't in the spec!" Client's say, "but don't you know?? > don't
> > > you
> > > > know??"
> > > >
> > > > Now, what's the solution here? Learn more OOP, UML, n-Tier to
be more
> > > > flexible? How about refactoring and some design patterns for

even > > better
> > > > design? Let's buy every single Apress and Wrox book you can find and
> > read
> > > > those. yes!!!......that will solve everything......
> > > >
> > > > NO, THE PROBLEM is that DEVELOPERS are TOO CLUELESS to KNOW what to
> > > develop
> > > > in the first place!!!! AND they NEVER ASK in detail what need
to
be
> made
> > > and
> > > > WHY they are making it!!!!!!!!
> > > >
> > > > It's amazing, these DEVELOPERS and MVP and RD's and Program

Managers
> go
> > to
> > > > non-OOP programmers and VB6 programmers and anything below
their skill
> > > level
> > > > and say, "IT'S just TOOL and YOU NEED TO LEARN it like anything else".
> > > >
> > > > ***
> > > > YET, these very SAME DEVELOPERS are NOT EVEN willing to lift a
FINGER
> to
> > > > L.E.A.R.N. a little bit about the "BUSINESS", UI, DESIGN and

what the
> > > > customer wants in the first place.
> > > > ***
> > > >
> > > > Again, in the words of MISTER BILL, ".NET is SLOW GOING"....I

wonder
> > > > WHY!!!!!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ah yes, the GREAT DIVIDE...I guess abstraction will make

everything
> > > > better!!!! HA HA HA HA....I can already see the results of
abstraction
> > in
> > > > the n-Tier..more failed IT projects than successess.
> > > >
> > > > It's amazing!!! these System and Application Architects are SOooo > > > > ABSTRACTED, it's no wonder why they have NO idea what the customer > wants
> > > and
> > > > why their app is soooo slow........but wait, the app is never
> delivered
> > on
> > > > time anyway.....so we have no idea if it's slow to begin with as they
> > are
> > > > are still in the "design phase of OOP"
> > > >
> > > > ************************************************** *
> > > > OH, and by the WAY, COMDEX floor space is now 150,000 sqft.. down from
> > > > 875,000 sqft. in the 1990s. And ATTENDANCE is 50,000...half
of what
> it
> > > had
> > > > last year......
> > > > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1381579,00.asp
> > > > ************************************************** *
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Wow, a single HomeDepot or Super Walmart could have more
customers...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Any, REPEAT ANY, MVP, programmer, developer, author, IT person

who > says
> > > that
> > > > what they are doing is making customers happy is simply in

denial
of
> > their
> > > > failures.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>



Jul 21 '05 #37

P: n/a
Cor
Hi Nospam,

I dont know from which country you are, in my country people from 12 talk
like this.

Cor

You are some of the most arrogant people in the world and deserve to be
treated as an upset 14-year old as that's essentially what you have been
acting like. You have no CLUE how a real business works NOR even know what the customer wants while cramming your noses in more OOP, n-Tier books and
articles that have more failed implementations than successes. But you
don't even know that because you still think you are right just like that
14-year old who hasn't grown up and learned to admit his mistakes.

WHY YES, SCREAMING (FULL CAPS) is necessary to get through all the NOISE of EXCUSES you guys are spouting and spinning off everyday when something goes wrong that you try to blame others on. FULL CAPS are NECESSARY as
Programmers stop reading when they are proven wrong and spout off their
rhetoric.
Now who is the 14-year old idiot you are trying to dis-credit?

Jul 21 '05 #38

P: n/a
Wow dude, Try Decaff or a nap. And to think, I thought I was an ass.

Blanket statements are almost always a sign of a lack of knowledge or
wisdom.

And Welcome to the blocked list,
B-Bye
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
The screaming is needed because I am trying to knock some sense into
programmers who act like 14-year olds when they are proven WRONG.

Dear .NET Gurus, Authors, MVP's, MCSD, Programmers, Developers, Architects, etc.,

You are some of the most arrogant people in the world and deserve to be
treated as an upset 14-year old as that's essentially what you have been
acting like. You have no CLUE how a real business works NOR even know what the customer wants while cramming your noses in more OOP, n-Tier books and
articles that have more failed implementations than successes. But you
don't even know that because you still think you are right just like that
14-year old who hasn't grown up and learned to admit his mistakes.

WHY YES, SCREAMING (FULL CAPS) is necessary to get through all the NOISE of EXCUSES you guys are spouting and spinning off everyday when something goes wrong that you try to blame others on. FULL CAPS are NECESSARY as
Programmers stop reading when they are proven wrong and spout off their
rhetoric.
Now who is the 14-year old idiot you are trying to dis-credit?

"Bob Lehmann" <none> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Maybe it's the "screeming" that makes people think you are a complete idiot.

Bob

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:#3*************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
You know you need to try a LOT harder to discredit me......
To bad your nose is still buried in your n-Tier and OOP books and articles and "example" code....

I could easily bring up a few points in the past were everyone of you

MVP's
and gurus thought I was a complete idiot screeming off the top of my lungs how the current architecture or feature, or missing feature was stupid,
yet
only to be validated years later......

If I were you, I would be very quiet, otherwise you would have to have
a good portion of humble pie.

"Bob Lehmann" <none> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> You must be very proud of him!
>
> Bob Lehmann
>
> "NRGeti" <ng***@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:1g*********************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et...
> > Nah! I am his pop. Anyway it sense to me on this issue.
> >
> > "Bob Lehmann" <none> wrote in message
> > news:OG**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > So, you must be nospam's mom, I guess?
> > >
> > > Bob Lehmann
> > >
> > > "NRGeti" <ng***@optonline.net> wrote in message
> > > news:PW******************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net. ..
> > > > This is an excellent reply. I agree. Your comments actually apply > across
> > > the
> > > > board for all kinds of programming. I never could understand how > anyone
> > > who
> > > > knows how to write code but has no clue to business processes and user
> > > > behavior can ever come up with a working, useful system.
> > > >
> > > > I have seen brilliant people who could recite the entire

programming
> > > manual
> > > > page for page and write reams of code without ever printing it out to
> > > check
> > > > it and yet come up with a piece of cr** that the users hate.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok, so now you admit VS.NET sucks really bad as a designer tool. > Let
> > me
> > > > ask
> > > > > you something.
> > > > > How can any company be productive if they have no idea how the users
> > are
> > > > > going to interact with the program the developer wrote? How can the
> > > > > developer test, performance tune, TRULLY debug, if they haven't the
> > > > > slightest idea of how their program will be used?
> > > > >
> > > > > VS.NET needs to have in mind the single word, "PRODUCTIVITY" , not
> > > > > "developer productivity" or "designer productivity" as what good is
> a
> > > > > program written by a developer that has to be totally rewritten
to
> how
> > > the
> > > > > user is going to use it.
> > > > >
> > > > > THE NUMBER #1 problem and reason for project failures is
> COMMUNICATION
> > > > > between the developer and the client. Developers say, "It wasn't in
> > the
> > > > > spec! It wasn't in the spec!" Client's say, "but don't you

know??
> > don't
> > > > you
> > > > > know??"
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, what's the solution here? Learn more OOP, UML, n-Tier
to be > more
> > > > > flexible? How about refactoring and some design patterns
for even
> > > better
> > > > > design? Let's buy every single Apress and Wrox book you can find
> and
> > > read
> > > > > those. yes!!!......that will solve everything......
> > > > >
> > > > > NO, THE PROBLEM is that DEVELOPERS are TOO CLUELESS to KNOW what to
> > > > develop
> > > > > in the first place!!!! AND they NEVER ASK in detail what
need to be
> > made
> > > > and
> > > > > WHY they are making it!!!!!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > It's amazing, these DEVELOPERS and MVP and RD's and Program
Managers
> > go
> > > to
> > > > > non-OOP programmers and VB6 programmers and anything below their > skill
> > > > level
> > > > > and say, "IT'S just TOOL and YOU NEED TO LEARN it like anything > else".
> > > > >
> > > > > ***
> > > > > YET, these very SAME DEVELOPERS are NOT EVEN willing to lift
a > FINGER
> > to
> > > > > L.E.A.R.N. a little bit about the "BUSINESS", UI, DESIGN and what
> the
> > > > > customer wants in the first place.
> > > > > ***
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, in the words of MISTER BILL, ".NET is SLOW GOING"....I wonder
> > > > > WHY!!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah yes, the GREAT DIVIDE...I guess abstraction will make
everything
> > > > > better!!!! HA HA HA HA....I can already see the results of
> abstraction
> > > in
> > > > > the n-Tier..more failed IT projects than successess.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's amazing!!! these System and Application Architects are

SOooo
> > > > > ABSTRACTED, it's no wonder why they have NO idea what the

customer
> > wants
> > > > and
> > > > > why their app is soooo slow........but wait, the app is never > > delivered
> > > on
> > > > > time anyway.....so we have no idea if it's slow to begin

with as > they
> > > are
> > > > > are still in the "design phase of OOP"
> > > > >
> > > > > ************************************************** *
> > > > > OH, and by the WAY, COMDEX floor space is now 150,000 sqft..

down
> from
> > > > > 875,000 sqft. in the 1990s. And ATTENDANCE is 50,000...half of what
> > it
> > > > had
> > > > > last year......
> > > > > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1381579,00.asp
> > > > > ************************************************** *
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Wow, a single HomeDepot or Super Walmart could have more
> customers...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Any, REPEAT ANY, MVP, programmer, developer, author, IT

person who
> > says
> > > > that
> > > > > what they are doing is making customers happy is simply in

denial
of
> > > their
> > > > > failures.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>



Jul 21 '05 #39

P: n/a
You are one messed up little dude - even for a 14-year-old.

Bob Lehmann

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:#k**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
The screaming is needed because I am trying to knock some sense into
programmers who act like 14-year olds when they are proven WRONG.

Dear .NET Gurus, Authors, MVP's, MCSD, Programmers, Developers, Architects, etc.,

You are some of the most arrogant people in the world and deserve to be
treated as an upset 14-year old as that's essentially what you have been
acting like. You have no CLUE how a real business works NOR even know what the customer wants while cramming your noses in more OOP, n-Tier books and
articles that have more failed implementations than successes. But you
don't even know that because you still think you are right just like that
14-year old who hasn't grown up and learned to admit his mistakes.

WHY YES, SCREAMING (FULL CAPS) is necessary to get through all the NOISE of EXCUSES you guys are spouting and spinning off everyday when something goes wrong that you try to blame others on. FULL CAPS are NECESSARY as
Programmers stop reading when they are proven wrong and spout off their
rhetoric.
Now who is the 14-year old idiot you are trying to dis-credit?

"Bob Lehmann" <none> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Maybe it's the "screeming" that makes people think you are a complete idiot.

Bob

"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:#3*************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
You know you need to try a LOT harder to discredit me......
To bad your nose is still buried in your n-Tier and OOP books and articles and "example" code....

I could easily bring up a few points in the past were everyone of you

MVP's
and gurus thought I was a complete idiot screeming off the top of my lungs how the current architecture or feature, or missing feature was stupid,
yet
only to be validated years later......

If I were you, I would be very quiet, otherwise you would have to have
a good portion of humble pie.

"Bob Lehmann" <none> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> You must be very proud of him!
>
> Bob Lehmann
>
> "NRGeti" <ng***@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:1g*********************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et...
> > Nah! I am his pop. Anyway it sense to me on this issue.
> >
> > "Bob Lehmann" <none> wrote in message
> > news:OG**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > So, you must be nospam's mom, I guess?
> > >
> > > Bob Lehmann
> > >
> > > "NRGeti" <ng***@optonline.net> wrote in message
> > > news:PW******************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net. ..
> > > > This is an excellent reply. I agree. Your comments actually apply > across
> > > the
> > > > board for all kinds of programming. I never could understand how > anyone
> > > who
> > > > knows how to write code but has no clue to business processes and user
> > > > behavior can ever come up with a working, useful system.
> > > >
> > > > I have seen brilliant people who could recite the entire

programming
> > > manual
> > > > page for page and write reams of code without ever printing it out to
> > > check
> > > > it and yet come up with a piece of cr** that the users hate.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok, so now you admit VS.NET sucks really bad as a designer tool. > Let
> > me
> > > > ask
> > > > > you something.
> > > > > How can any company be productive if they have no idea how the users
> > are
> > > > > going to interact with the program the developer wrote? How can the
> > > > > developer test, performance tune, TRULLY debug, if they haven't the
> > > > > slightest idea of how their program will be used?
> > > > >
> > > > > VS.NET needs to have in mind the single word, "PRODUCTIVITY" , not
> > > > > "developer productivity" or "designer productivity" as what good is
> a
> > > > > program written by a developer that has to be totally rewritten
to
> how
> > > the
> > > > > user is going to use it.
> > > > >
> > > > > THE NUMBER #1 problem and reason for project failures is
> COMMUNICATION
> > > > > between the developer and the client. Developers say, "It wasn't in
> > the
> > > > > spec! It wasn't in the spec!" Client's say, "but don't you

know??
> > don't
> > > > you
> > > > > know??"
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, what's the solution here? Learn more OOP, UML, n-Tier
to be > more
> > > > > flexible? How about refactoring and some design patterns
for even
> > > better
> > > > > design? Let's buy every single Apress and Wrox book you can find
> and
> > > read
> > > > > those. yes!!!......that will solve everything......
> > > > >
> > > > > NO, THE PROBLEM is that DEVELOPERS are TOO CLUELESS to KNOW what to
> > > > develop
> > > > > in the first place!!!! AND they NEVER ASK in detail what
need to be
> > made
> > > > and
> > > > > WHY they are making it!!!!!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > It's amazing, these DEVELOPERS and MVP and RD's and Program
Managers
> > go
> > > to
> > > > > non-OOP programmers and VB6 programmers and anything below their > skill
> > > > level
> > > > > and say, "IT'S just TOOL and YOU NEED TO LEARN it like anything > else".
> > > > >
> > > > > ***
> > > > > YET, these very SAME DEVELOPERS are NOT EVEN willing to lift
a > FINGER
> > to
> > > > > L.E.A.R.N. a little bit about the "BUSINESS", UI, DESIGN and what
> the
> > > > > customer wants in the first place.
> > > > > ***
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, in the words of MISTER BILL, ".NET is SLOW GOING"....I wonder
> > > > > WHY!!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah yes, the GREAT DIVIDE...I guess abstraction will make
everything
> > > > > better!!!! HA HA HA HA....I can already see the results of
> abstraction
> > > in
> > > > > the n-Tier..more failed IT projects than successess.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's amazing!!! these System and Application Architects are

SOooo
> > > > > ABSTRACTED, it's no wonder why they have NO idea what the

customer
> > wants
> > > > and
> > > > > why their app is soooo slow........but wait, the app is never > > delivered
> > > on
> > > > > time anyway.....so we have no idea if it's slow to begin

with as > they
> > > are
> > > > > are still in the "design phase of OOP"
> > > > >
> > > > > ************************************************** *
> > > > > OH, and by the WAY, COMDEX floor space is now 150,000 sqft..

down
> from
> > > > > 875,000 sqft. in the 1990s. And ATTENDANCE is 50,000...half of what
> > it
> > > > had
> > > > > last year......
> > > > > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1381579,00.asp
> > > > > ************************************************** *
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Wow, a single HomeDepot or Super Walmart could have more
> customers...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Any, REPEAT ANY, MVP, programmer, developer, author, IT

person who
> > says
> > > > that
> > > > > what they are doing is making customers happy is simply in

denial
of
> > > their
> > > > > failures.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>



Jul 21 '05 #40

P: n/a
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:59:12 -0600, "nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote:
The screaming is needed because I am trying to knock some sense into
programmers who act like 14-year olds when they are proven WRONG.

<snip>

Don't go away mad....

Just go away.

Oz
Jul 21 '05 #41

P: n/a
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1390957,00.asp

You know at least other technical people in other industries can say that
they produced quality products than their foreign competitors....

"software quality"...what's that mean????

Yep....the replies are just like that 14-year old who is proven WRONG...

Have a nice day......



"ozbear" <oz*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3fbbe1a0.133263796@news-server...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:59:12 -0600, "nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote:
The screaming is needed because I am trying to knock some sense into
programmers who act like 14-year olds when they are proven WRONG.

<snip>

Don't go away mad....

Just go away.

Oz

Jul 21 '05 #42

P: n/a
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:ei**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1390957,00.asp

You know at least other technical people in other industries can say that
they produced quality products than their foreign competitors....

"software quality"...what's that mean????

Yep....the replies are just like that 14-year old who is proven WRONG...
Welcome to my kill file ...
Have a nice day......


You too ...

/m
Jul 21 '05 #43

P: n/a
NRGeti, you are touching on some the Great Divide between Clients who only
typically have a vague idea of what they want, and developers that have to
know exactly what the Client wants.

I just ran into this problem myself in a dispute over features in a web
app... a client wanted news topics, so i built a simple news engine, based
on the money rate involved, they come back saying "Oh... but we wanted to be
able to categorize the news"... they didnt ask for that and why would I just
automatically put it in when I'm not getting paid very much in the first
place? Their retort was "but wouldn't you tell us?" How am I suppose to
read their minds? ie, "Its not in the SPECS"

The specs are a near-formal contract of what is expected between both
parties, how can we deal "at arms length" with each other if we don't even
fully know what each party wants out of the working relationship?
--
Eric Newton
C#/ASP Application Developer
http://ensoft-software.com/
er**@cc.ensoft-software.com [remove the first "CC."]

"NRGeti" <ng***@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1g*********************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.n et...
Nah! I am his pop. Anyway it sense to me on this issue.

"Bob Lehmann" <none> wrote in message
news:OG**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
So, you must be nospam's mom, I guess?

Bob Lehmann

"NRGeti" <ng***@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:PW******************@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net. ..
This is an excellent reply. I agree. Your comments actually apply across
the
board for all kinds of programming. I never could understand how
anyone
who
knows how to write code but has no clue to business processes and user
behavior can ever come up with a working, useful system.

I have seen brilliant people who could recite the entire programming manual
page for page and write reams of code without ever printing it out to

check
it and yet come up with a piece of cr** that the users hate.
>
> Ok, so now you admit VS.NET sucks really bad as a designer tool.
Let me ask
> you something.
> How can any company be productive if they have no idea how the users are > going to interact with the program the developer wrote? How can the
> developer test, performance tune, TRULLY debug, if they haven't the
> slightest idea of how their program will be used?
>
> VS.NET needs to have in mind the single word, "PRODUCTIVITY" , not
> "developer productivity" or "designer productivity" as what good is
a > program written by a developer that has to be totally rewritten to how the
> user is going to use it.
>
> THE NUMBER #1 problem and reason for project failures is
COMMUNICATION > between the developer and the client. Developers say, "It wasn't in
the > spec! It wasn't in the spec!" Client's say, "but don't you know?? don't you
> know??"
>
> Now, what's the solution here? Learn more OOP, UML, n-Tier to be more > flexible? How about refactoring and some design patterns for even

better
> design? Let's buy every single Apress and Wrox book you can find and read
> those. yes!!!......that will solve everything......
>
> NO, THE PROBLEM is that DEVELOPERS are TOO CLUELESS to KNOW what to
develop
> in the first place!!!! AND they NEVER ASK in detail what need to be made and
> WHY they are making it!!!!!!!!
>
> It's amazing, these DEVELOPERS and MVP and RD's and Program Managers go
to
> non-OOP programmers and VB6 programmers and anything below their
skill level
> and say, "IT'S just TOOL and YOU NEED TO LEARN it like anything else". >
> ***
> YET, these very SAME DEVELOPERS are NOT EVEN willing to lift a FINGER to > L.E.A.R.N. a little bit about the "BUSINESS", UI, DESIGN and what
the > customer wants in the first place.
> ***
>
> Again, in the words of MISTER BILL, ".NET is SLOW GOING"....I wonder
> WHY!!!!!
>
>
> Ah yes, the GREAT DIVIDE...I guess abstraction will make everything
> better!!!! HA HA HA HA....I can already see the results of abstraction in
> the n-Tier..more failed IT projects than successess.
>
> It's amazing!!! these System and Application Architects are SOooo
> ABSTRACTED, it's no wonder why they have NO idea what the customer wants and
> why their app is soooo slow........but wait, the app is never delivered
on
> time anyway.....so we have no idea if it's slow to begin with as

they are
> are still in the "design phase of OOP"
>
> ************************************************** *
> OH, and by the WAY, COMDEX floor space is now 150,000 sqft.. down

from > 875,000 sqft. in the 1990s. And ATTENDANCE is 50,000...half of what

it had
> last year......
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1381579,00.asp
> ************************************************** *
>
>
> Wow, a single HomeDepot or Super Walmart could have more customers... >
>
> Any, REPEAT ANY, MVP, programmer, developer, author, IT person who says that
> what they are doing is making customers happy is simply in denial of

their
> failures.
>
>
> Cheers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Jul 21 '05 #44

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.