Time To Get Off The Microsoft Treadmill?

[luke]

http://www.angrycoder.com/article.as...=2003&m=7&d=17
I was actually dragged onto the Microsoft technology treadmill in 1992
when they bought out Fox in Perrysburg, Ohio. Yep, I'm one of those
XBase guys who was suddenly jerked out of the '80s (dBase, Clipper,
FoxBase/FoxPro) into the Client/Server gold rush. Kidnapped from the
nether worlds of Unix and Novell I kicked and screamed and finally
learned to like my captors.

....................
Then the announcements from Redmond started coming about the time I
got my first gig in .NET: "Forget what you knew in COM." and "COM is
dead" and other such statements. So all that hype about the n-tier
approach to design was also dead? I thought this approach was
agnostic; You could as easily apply the principles to Java and it
still made sense! Apparently not...at least according to the experts
at Microsoft.

Since that time, I've had a few more .NET opportunities. And in spite
of Microsoft I've kept things along the n-tier theory. And now, before
the paint has dried on the first release of .NET, a brand new .NET is
released and some noise about how they're hacking up a really good DB
product (SQL Server) so it can do .NET ala Oracle/Java. Well now. I
had to learn Oracle along my travels (at least PL/SQL and stored
procedures), as well as SQL Server stored procedures. So now are all
my abilities in Transact-SQL in peril too? Why do I want to write
stored procedures in C# anyway?

All this change-the-tools stuff is getting under my skin. While I
don't want the stability of COBOL (learn a tool at the beginning of
your career and still be using it on the day of your retirement
party), neither do I want to spend my life chasing the dream. I don't
know how most coders do it, but when I decide to invest in a
technology, I make a serious investment: I spend all of my extra time
and money buying endless streams of $50 books, reading $5 magazines,
researching stuff online and yes, even taking classes. I've given some
very good years to Microsoft's vision and made a decent living in the
process. Is it time for a change?

[horne]

luke scribbled:

<deletia>

Kidnapped from the
nether worlds of Unix and Novell I kicked and screamed and finally
learned to like my captors.

That would be the Stockholm Syndrome kicking in.

<deletia>

--
Free Software Foundation (FSF) Associate Member 499
Linux Counter LRU 277671
LindowsOS v3.0 (Linux kernel 2.4.19) Compaq Presario 3555 Pentium III

[asj]

the problem with this frequent churning of technologies is that a
developer will NEVER be able to accumulate enough seniority in any one
of them...i like the fact that the stuff i learned about java 8 years
ago are still valid to this day.

luke wrote:

http://www.angrycoder.com/article.as...=2003&m=7&d=17

I was actually dragged onto the Microsoft technology treadmill in 1992
when they bought out Fox in Perrysburg, Ohio. Yep, I'm one of those
XBase guys who was suddenly jerked out of the '80s (dBase, Clipper,
FoxBase/FoxPro) into the Client/Server gold rush. Kidnapped from the
nether worlds of Unix and Novell I kicked and screamed and finally
learned to like my captors.

...................

Then the announcements from Redmond started coming about the time I
got my first gig in .NET: "Forget what you knew in COM." and "COM is
dead" and other such statements. So all that hype about the n-tier
approach to design was also dead? I thought this approach was
agnostic; You could as easily apply the principles to Java and it
still made sense! Apparently not...at least according to the experts
at Microsoft.

Since that time, I've had a few more .NET opportunities. And in spite
of Microsoft I've kept things along the n-tier theory. And now, before
the paint has dried on the first release of .NET, a brand new .NET is
released and some noise about how they're hacking up a really good DB
product (SQL Server) so it can do .NET ala Oracle/Java. Well now. I
had to learn Oracle along my travels (at least PL/SQL and stored
procedures), as well as SQL Server stored procedures. So now are all
my abilities in Transact-SQL in peril too? Why do I want to write
stored procedures in C# anyway?

All this change-the-tools stuff is getting under my skin. While I
don't want the stability of COBOL (learn a tool at the beginning of
your career and still be using it on the day of your retirement
party), neither do I want to spend my life chasing the dream. I don't
know how most coders do it, but when I decide to invest in a
technology, I make a serious investment: I spend all of my extra time
and money buying endless streams of $50 books, reading $5 magazines,
researching stuff online and yes, even taking classes. I've given some
very good years to Microsoft's vision and made a decent living in the
process. Is it time for a change?

[Scott M.]

I think the simple reply is that "things change", either keep up or get left
behind. This is not just true in computing, but in life. As long as
hardware becomes more powerfull and less expensive, people will figure out
new ways to leverage those things.
"luke" <ll*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:58**************************@posting.google.c om...

http://www.angrycoder.com/article.as...=2003&m=7&d=17
I was actually dragged onto the Microsoft technology treadmill in 1992
when they bought out Fox in Perrysburg, Ohio. Yep, I'm one of those
XBase guys who was suddenly jerked out of the '80s (dBase, Clipper,
FoxBase/FoxPro) into the Client/Server gold rush. Kidnapped from the
nether worlds of Unix and Novell I kicked and screamed and finally
learned to like my captors.

...................
Then the announcements from Redmond started coming about the time I
got my first gig in .NET: "Forget what you knew in COM." and "COM is
dead" and other such statements. So all that hype about the n-tier
approach to design was also dead? I thought this approach was
agnostic; You could as easily apply the principles to Java and it
still made sense! Apparently not...at least according to the experts
at Microsoft.

Since that time, I've had a few more .NET opportunities. And in spite
of Microsoft I've kept things along the n-tier theory. And now, before
the paint has dried on the first release of .NET, a brand new .NET is
released and some noise about how they're hacking up a really good DB
product (SQL Server) so it can do .NET ala Oracle/Java. Well now. I
had to learn Oracle along my travels (at least PL/SQL and stored
procedures), as well as SQL Server stored procedures. So now are all
my abilities in Transact-SQL in peril too? Why do I want to write
stored procedures in C# anyway?

All this change-the-tools stuff is getting under my skin. While I
don't want the stability of COBOL (learn a tool at the beginning of
your career and still be using it on the day of your retirement
party), neither do I want to spend my life chasing the dream. I don't
know how most coders do it, but when I decide to invest in a
technology, I make a serious investment: I spend all of my extra time
and money buying endless streams of $50 books, reading $5 magazines,
researching stuff online and yes, even taking classes. I've given some
very good years to Microsoft's vision and made a decent living in the
process. Is it time for a change?

[asj]

Scott M. wrote:

I think the simple reply is that "things change", either keep up or get left
behind. This is not just true in computing, but in life. As long as
hardware becomes more powerfull and less expensive, people will figure out
new ways to leverage those things.

things should not be changing every few years just because the company
wants to squeeze as much blood money out of its own developers as
possible.

as an example, i've been writing java since the beginning, and instead
of having to relearn the wheel every few years (not to mention being
relegated again to a "newbie" along with all the newcomers), i've been
able to build on its basic foundations as time passes and gain a much
deeper understanding of its intricacies - something that will not be
really possible if the tools and "grammar" changes quickly every few
years.

there's so many new APIs and technologies to learn as java expands
outwards into small devices, realtime, smartcards, etc. thus, i now am
able to focus solely on the architecture of the software buildings i am
creating (on the serverside), and not have to worry about the building
blocks since those have not changed.

[JD]

It has been my experience that when a new technology comes out, that senior
developers are NOT reduced to newbies again. My latest contract, where I
work with some young kids a year or so out of college who have worked solely
with Java, proves it.

Its more about experience, good computer science fundamentals and theory,
good design process, good architecture and solid design of the systems that
I build(on the server side), and then being able to apply them to
new/existing systems regardless of the technology, that I'm interested in,
NOT specific intricacies of a technology.

Sure intricacies of a technology will start to arise during development but
if they infect your design or architecture, then I would argue why use that
technology. I have built systems using C,Perl,C++,Java, and .NET in that
order. The success of these projects where not on knowing the intricacies
but good solid architecure and design principles. I was just reading a
recently published book involving patterns and good design for J2EE,
majority of the patterns and suggestions could be found in a C++/COM system
I developed in the mid- late 90s. Those patterns were taught to me from an
architect who had been building systems since 1980.

So it doesn't matter whether you are using Java Enterprise Beans or .NET
Serviced Components, fundamentals of design are there and they will keep
popping up. Its a better bet to invest your future in that than a single
technology and the intricacies involved.

"asj" <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:3F***********@xx.com...

Scott M. wrote:

I think the simple reply is that "things change", either keep up or get left behind. This is not just true in computing, but in life. As long as
hardware becomes more powerfull and less expensive, people will figure out new ways to leverage those things.

things should not be changing every few years just because the company
wants to squeeze as much blood money out of its own developers as
possible.

as an example, i've been writing java since the beginning, and instead
of having to relearn the wheel every few years (not to mention being
relegated again to a "newbie" along with all the newcomers), i've been
able to build on its basic foundations as time passes and gain a much
deeper understanding of its intricacies - something that will not be
really possible if the tools and "grammar" changes quickly every few
years.

there's so many new APIs and technologies to learn as java expands
outwards into small devices, realtime, smartcards, etc. thus, i now am
able to focus solely on the architecture of the software buildings i am
creating (on the serverside), and not have to worry about the building
blocks since those have not changed.

[asj]

Tom Welsh wrote:

The point of this rant? Perhaps if you think of software as a
single technology, and take that as your subject of study, you
might be less disturbed by the rate of innovation. People shouldn't
be "C++ programmers", "Visual Basic developers", etc. - they should
aim to be competent professional programmers, who use whichever
tool is most appropriate. They should even be able to learn new
languages and all that goes with them, from time to time.

good point, and one put forward by people all the time. however, we all
have finite lifespans, and even shorter career spans, so choosing the
correct "tool" (or set of tools) to base your career upon is NOT as
simple as a carpenter choosing whether to use a hammer or a wrench...we
ALL have to put a LOT of effort into becoming better at a particular
platform or programming language. so finding out that something you
spent TONS of money and SWEATED years upon suddenly becoming legacy
surely is a bit harder to take than a carpenter pulling another tool
from his bag.

[AlexS]

If to rant then to rant...

If tools are bad whatever you choose will not help.
Especially if they cost TONS and make you SWEAT...

Which is the "best" one? At least suitable for doing the job without
sweating excessively...Is it Java, C++ or C#. Or VB? Or?

"asj" <as*@xzxx.com> wrote in message news:3F***********@xzxx.com...

Tom Welsh wrote:

The point of this rant? Perhaps if you think of software as a
single technology, and take that as your subject of study, you
might be less disturbed by the rate of innovation. People shouldn't
be "C++ programmers", "Visual Basic developers", etc. - they should
aim to be competent professional programmers, who use whichever
tool is most appropriate. They should even be able to learn new
languages and all that goes with them, from time to time.

good point, and one put forward by people all the time. however, we all
have finite lifespans, and even shorter career spans, so choosing the
correct "tool" (or set of tools) to base your career upon is NOT as
simple as a carpenter choosing whether to use a hammer or a wrench...we
ALL have to put a LOT of effort into becoming better at a particular
platform or programming language. so finding out that something you
spent TONS of money and SWEATED years upon suddenly becoming legacy
surely is a bit harder to take than a carpenter pulling another tool
from his bag.

[john bailo]

Sun, 03 Aug 2003 00:13:28 -0700, AlexS wrote:

If to rant then to rant...

If tools are bad whatever you choose will not help.
Especially if they cost TONS and make you SWEAT...

Which is the "best" one? At least suitable for doing the job without
sweating excessively...Is it Java, C++ or C#. Or VB? Or?

i'm going with java cause i just got assigned a cool project based on
java. it seems like a reasonable course of action given the job market
and the support and the fact that it's lastest for 6 years or so now.

vb is a fools paradise.

i did a lot of c# this past year, but now it looks like m$0.00ft is
abandoning the whole dotnet thing. so, where would that leave me?

c++: well, which one do you mean. vc++ is job security for ms
programmers. full of arcane stuff designed to make you crazy. g++
plus qT is much more fun...but it's hard.

i just downloaded the jdk with net beans (comes
with an ide ). it looks like fun stuff.

[asj]

john bailo wrote:

i just downloaded the jdk with net beans (comes
with an ide ). it looks like fun stuff.

you'd better have a fast machine, cause netbeans is a hog (although it
has gotten better in version 1.5).
then again, we couldn't run v .net in our current desktops cause it was
slowing them to a crawl, so i guess all IDEs are getting terribly
large....good thing is i can still do programming using a text editor
and the jdk - LOL.

[Tim Tyler]

john bailo <ja*****@earthlink.net> wrote:

: i did a lot of c# this past year, but now it looks like m$0.00ft is
: abandoning the whole dotnet thing. so, where would that leave me?

I don't know where you get that idea.

You think they have something else waiting in the wings?
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1.org

[Tor Iver Wilhelmsen]

Tim Tyler <ti*@tt1.org> writes:

You think they have something else waiting in the wings?

Like they did when they told everyone to write for OS/2 while they
were writing Windows apps?

Yeah, why not?

[john bailo]

Sun, 03 Aug 2003 08:15:50 +0000, Tim Tyler wrote:

john bailo <ja*****@earthlink.net> wrote:

i did a lot of c# this past year, but now it looks like m$0.00ft is
abandoning the whole dotnet thing. so, where would that leave me?

from microsoft. they've already announced they're dropping
the '.net' from product names.
You think they have something else waiting in the wings?

they have a p2p thinggy coming out.

that would be far more future oriented. i don't think
web methods are taking off, the cool stuff in remoting is
all p2p - not web server based.

[john bailo]

Sun, 03 Aug 2003 10:39:05 +0200, Tor Iver Wilhelmsen wrote:

Tim Tyler <ti*@tt1.org> writes:

You think they have something else waiting in the wings?

Like they did when they told everyone to write for OS/2 while they
were writing Windows apps?

Yeah, why not?

you have to remember -- it's not in m$0.00ft interest to provide
any type of workable development platform.

they make their money from selling applications !! they are not
going to give people the tools to write they're own ( or god forbid
better ! ) applications than word, et al.

[Martin Drautzburg]

asj <as*@xzxx.com> writes:

Tom Welsh wrote:

The point of this rant? Perhaps if you think of software as a
single technology, and take that as your subject of study, you
might be less disturbed by the rate of innovation. People shouldn't
be "C++ programmers", "Visual Basic developers", etc. - they should
aim to be competent professional programmers, who use whichever
tool is most appropriate. They should even be able to learn new
languages and all that goes with them, from time to time.

In my EJB course I learned that in the EJB world even more roles are
introduced, like "deployer" and some more. I absulutely agree that
"they should aim to be competent professional programmers". I like the
idea of "computer literarcy". Since EJBs are the latest and greatest I
assume the world is currently moving in the opposite direction.

good point, and one put forward by people all the time. however, we all
have finite lifespans, and even shorter career spans

Just a note: I once read that a human life is long enough to fully
understand a Smalltalk system in every detail (that would incldude the
compiler, the windows system, etc).

[john bailo]

Sun, 03 Aug 2003 11:02:05 +0000, Frank Mulvenny wrote:

He's a right nutter.

and you're informative contribution is...what?

[Frank Mulvenny]

john bailo wrote:

Sun, 03 Aug 2003 11:02:05 +0000, Frank Mulvenny wrote:

He's a right nutter.

and you're informative contribution is...what?

See above. Sorry, but it's true.

[john bailo]

Sun, 03 Aug 2003 20:15:29 +0000, Frank Mulvenny wrote:

Sorry, but it's true.

agreed

[Frank Mulvenny]

heheh 8¬D
<polite applause>
Very good :-). Extra sweeties in the plastic cup tonight, John.

[john bailo]

Sun, 03 Aug 2003 21:13:47 +0000, Frank Mulvenny wrote:

heheh 8¬D
<polite applause>
Very good :-). Extra sweeties in the plastic cup tonight, John.

was that you i saw hitting Big Nurse so you could escape
out the window with Injun Joe?

[Frank Mulvenny]

john bailo wrote:

Sun, 03 Aug 2003 21:13:47 +0000, Frank Mulvenny wrote:

heheh 8¬D
<polite applause>
Very good :-). Extra sweeties in the plastic cup tonight, John.

was that you i saw hitting Big Nurse so you could escape
out the window with Injun Joe?

No, I was the guy drooling in the corner, muttering about wallpaper.

[asj]

Martin Drautzburg wrote:

Just a note: I once read that a human life is long enough to fully
understand a Smalltalk system in every detail (that would incldude the
compiler, the windows system, etc).

man, that must have been a really boring life - LOL.
"before i die, i'd like to know my wife in such detail, that when i look
at her for the last time, t'would be like staring in the mirror."

[JTK]

asj wrote:

the problem with this frequent churning of technologies is that a
developer will NEVER be able to accumulate enough seniority in any one
of them...i like the fact that the stuff i learned about java 8 years
ago are still valid to this day.

Indeed, what's not to like about a platform that's gone nowhere in EIGHT
YEARS.

[William Brogden]

"JTK" <dg********@ghjskdhashgd.com> wrote in message
news:i7*********************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

asj wrote:

the problem with this frequent churning of technologies is that a
developer will NEVER be able to accumulate enough seniority in any one
of them...i like the fact that the stuff i learned about java 8 years
ago are still valid to this day.

Indeed, what's not to like about a platform that's gone nowhere in EIGHT
YEARS.

"nowhere in EIGHT YEARS" just doesn't have the impact of your earlier
"JAVA IS DEAD" work, perhaps you should seek elsewhere for poetic
inspiration.

[Tim Tyler]

In comp.lang.java.advocacy JTK <dg********@ghjskdhashgd.com> wrote:

: Indeed, what's not to like about a platform that's gone nowhere in EIGHT
: YEARS.

Java seems to be doing pretty well. It's about where I hope it would be
from the start - in terms of popularity.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ ti*@tt1.org

[asj]

William Brogden wrote:

"nowhere in EIGHT YEARS" just doesn't have the impact of your earlier
"JAVA IS DEAD" work, perhaps you should seek elsewhere for poetic
inspiration.

don't you be insultin' the pet poodle of c.l.j.a., now, ye hear?

[Martin Drautzburg]

asj <as*@xzxx.com> writes:

Martin Drautzburg wrote:

Just a note: I once read that a human life is long enough to fully
understand a Smalltalk system in every detail (that would incldude the
compiler, the windows system, etc).

man, that must have been a really boring life - LOL.
"before i die, i'd like to know my wife in such detail, that when i look
at her for the last time, t'would be like staring in the mirror."

A human life is not long enough to achieve that.

[Grant Wagner]

john bailo wrote:

Sun, 03 Aug 2003 08:15:50 +0000, Tim Tyler wrote:

john bailo <ja*****@earthlink.net> wrote:

i did a lot of c# this past year, but now it looks like m$0.00ft is
abandoning the whole dotnet thing. so, where would that leave me?

from microsoft. they've already announced they're dropping
the '.net' from product names.

The .Net branding was creating confusion, so they are dropping the NAME
from the products. The .Net Framework is fully entrenched in Longhorn,
where OS system components are being written using the .Net Framework (and
managed code).

You think they have something else waiting in the wings?

they have a p2p thinggy coming out.

that would be far more future oriented. i don't think
web methods are taking off, the cool stuff in remoting is
all p2p - not web server based.

They don't have a p2p thinggy "coming out". I believe you're talking about
this <url: http://research.microsoft.com/camdis/ /> or maybe this <url:
http://research.microsoft.com/~antr/Pastry/ />. However, their R&D teams
are playing with lots of new stuff all the time <url:
http://research.microsoft.com/research/projects/ />. Some of it makes its
way into new products directly, such as ClearType <url:
http://research.microsoft.com/~jplatt/ClearType/ /> and indirectly, such
as Marmot <url: http://research.microsoft.com/apl/#projects />, and some
does not <url: http://research.microsoft.com/theory/ />.

Besides, what makes you think this "p2p thinggy" couldn't be built on the
..Net Framework? or run in places where client-server is not robust enough?
or not practical? P2P does not have to (and probably wouldn't) replace
client-server or .Net.

Take a look at the R&D site at Microsoft, not all of that stuff is
"waiting in the wings" ready to "replace .Net". Some will be built on
..Net, some will be incorporated into new products and some is just
theoretical.

If I picked some Sun R&D program at random, such as <url:
http://research.sun.com/projects/ace/ /> I could argue that Sun is
attempting to make all Java programmers obsolete, when that is clearly
nonsense.

You accuse Microsoft of jumping from techology to technology, but in the
cases you mention, it's /you/ that is jumping to conclusions and reading
something into marketing branding issues and ongoing R&D.

--
| Grant Wagner <gw*****@agricoreunited.com>

[Nicky]

The issue is that in some parts of the world, software development firms
still want to go the .NET way because they just can't find good help these
days - Java programmers charge way too much and development takes longer
than it does with PowerBuilder, Developer or VisualBasic, or so they say.

Maybe if they could get together Java and HTML, with the ability to
manipulate HTML objects in Java like we can with JavaScript, we could have
some show. Also, the security features are very restrictive - though giving
Java access to the disk may sound creepy but maybe a particular folder could
be used. Its not like the Microsoft IIS Server didn't allow total access -
its Unicode vulnerability allowed any user connected to the internet to
execute DOS commands to delete, copy, rename or do whatever to the files on
the server, but it still gained popularity.

There is a lot that I have yet to learn in Java but the learning curve does
seem a bit steep considering that I have to look through the documentation
several times before I can get the idea into my little 20kB head and then
creatively, or randomly, develop an application that fits the needs.
"William Brogden" <wb******@bga.com> wrote in message
news:3f********@giga.realtime.net...

"JTK" <dg********@ghjskdhashgd.com> wrote in message
news:i7*********************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

asj wrote:

the problem with this frequent churning of technologies is that a
developer will NEVER be able to accumulate enough seniority in any one
of them...i like the fact that the stuff i learned about java 8 years
ago are still valid to this day.

Indeed, what's not to like about a platform that's gone nowhere in EIGHT
YEARS.

"nowhere in EIGHT YEARS" just doesn't have the impact of your earlier
"JAVA IS DEAD" work, perhaps you should seek elsewhere for poetic
inspiration.