Posted on 05/04/2002 11:54:48 AM PDT by Bush2000
Microsoft's new C# programming language is gaining in popularity, with usage nearly doubling in the last six months, a new study shows. C# is Microsoft's new Java-like language and a crucial piece in the software company's .Net Web services strategy, in which software is made available over the Net to be accessed by multiple devices, such as PCs, cell phones and handhelds.
Twelve percent of all North American software developers have begun using C#, up from 7 percent six months ago, according to a new survey by market research firm Evans Data. The firm also predicts that the number of programmers using C# will double to 24 percent in the next year.
The majority of developers using C# are only dabbling with the new language, however. Most current C# programmers are using the new language for less than 20 percent of their development work, choosing other languages for the brunt of their work, the survey of about 800 developers showed.
C# is not displacing any languages, because most C# users are trying out the technology instead of committing to it wholeheartedly, an Evans Data representative said.
Evans reports that C# is popular among users of Microsoft's Visual Basic programming language and among those developers using Extensible Markup Language (XML). The C# language is less popular with Java developers, Evans reports.
Microsoft is using C# in its battle for software developers. The company's .Net Web services plan is up against rival technologies sold by Sun Microsystems, inventor of the Java language, and other Java backers, such as Oracle, IBM and BEA Systems
And that is where you will find .NET makes it money. The administration/installation of a .NET app is soooooo simple. No more DLL crap, or missing supporting files or libraries.
Is that the best you can do?
Let's have an ethical salesman test:
What do you tell clients about:
Surely if you're an ethical salesman, you inform your prospective clients of the truth, yes? So I'm honestly curious -- how would you respond to an informed client raising these issues?
These are serious, honest concerns that a business must be on top of. You can destroy a business by using a buggy release of a new, untested technology. I'd like to know how you answer such concerns?
The main reason I ask is that I've got past experience with other MS salesmen who promised that NT 4.0, IIS, Win2k, WinXP and now .NET are ready for prime time. Then when the problems popped up and projects had to be killed or migrated to Java, and it became apparent the salesman lied and didn't tell us about known problems, the salesman just vanished and left our company twisting in the wind. I could tell you a loooong story about this last fella who sold part of our accounting dept on trying IIS/Win2k/SQLServer 7. That one small platform gave us more trouble than all our big iron together . . .
So alieve my fears that you are just such a salesman. MS salesman are famous for lofty, untrue promises around here. How would you answer these questions?
As a systems engineer with 23 years of experience, I'm happy to answer your questions.
· Already known problems with .NET?
What problems? Name them.
· Using a 1.0 release of *anything* for mission critical work (which is considered professional incompetence in the IT industry)?
.NET has been in production systems for two years now, although it was released to the masses this past January. People complain when Microsoft doesn’t field test their products well or long enough, so for .NET they did. .Net 1.0 is a true 1.0 production version, not a BETA.
· Using a brand-new technology from MS (which clearly in the past has been a bad thing)?
That would be your personal opinion drawn from your hatred of Microsoft, not a technical evaluation of the .NET product. Visual Basic 1.0 was a great entry product. Visual C++, the same. Windows XP, another 1.0 product win. Windows NT 3.5, another first release win. Yes, many products, not just from Microsoft, suck when first released. Even Visual Studio 7 needs a service pack to fix many problems, but it still works very well, and well enough for production software. The .NET framework just had an SP.
· The problems of using IIS as your web server (which, again, is considered professional incompetence in the IT industry)?
IIS runs millions of web servers, so, again, that statement would be your personal hatred of Microsoft, and not a technical evaluation of IIS. The serious overhead of UNIX systems warrants a look at IIS. TCO is a primary reason I win sales using Microsoft products. I also enjoy the UNIX crowd giving their high-priced song-n-dance about how Microsoft cannot perform. I show the performance and the companies using IIS, and I win hands down. I love it.
· The fact that the vast majority of real servers are Unix or Linux, which won't run .NET for years?
Again, that statement is your personal opinion of Microsoft products, not a realistic evaluation. IIS and Windows 2000 server drive a large portion of the web and client/server applications. You must be ignoring the case studies proving Microsoft products and technologies work.
If Microsoft products and technologies do not work so well, how is it that Microsoft, a $55 billion company, with 40,000+ global employees, works so well using them?
I believe MS has a few problems that need addressing, but nothing that warrants dismissing their products or technologies.
For the record, I now work for Ciber as a Microsoft practice manager. We know you work for CSC, and Bush2000 and InnocentBystander work or have worked for Microsoft, just to set the table of who's who.
XP was so wonderful that you have to download over 17MB of product fixes. NT started at v3.1, not 3.5. And the service packs to take it to a STABLE release also known as 3.51 are not small.
Yes, you have your head up their @$$.
More LIES. IIS has had many more, and more serious, security issues than Apache or AOLserver or Zeus or Netscape's web servers.
Let's set up a 486/100 system with 32MB RAM, and install a database-backed web site on top of it. I can do it with Linux and it will work perfectly. I can't even install XP or Win2k on such a system.
Exactly.
I'm the only one here not paid to develop in any specific language. The choice of technology is completely up to me, based upon real-world evaluation.
You sell .NET solutions, and just (in my opinion) failed the honest salesman test.
Just for the record, do I have it correct that you're claiming there are no critical issues known in the current .NET release?
As you said, it's probably every bit as 'ready for prime time' as XP was at release.
And ya'll vanished the day the 'UPnP' exploit was announced. Bush2k even stayed away for an entire week, then when he came back tried to pretend no exploit had happened.
Once again salesmen selling MS solutions are insisting that there is no downside to a product they're selling. When known problems exist.
You're even insisting that IIS is a quality web server.
My experience proves these assertions to be a blantant falsehoods.
Exactly -- that will be your resonse to the client when the "new fantastic .NET solutions" needs fixes. When their product won't ship on time, because there are fixes that haven't been released. And then when the fixes break other things, as MS's fixes are known to do . . .
This cavalier attitude is *exactly* the kind of salesman that I think should be shunned industry-wide.
If you sell them a broken solution that needs fixing, like .NET, then it is *your* fault, *your* responsibility. Any money, time, effort they lose is because *you* misrepresented your product.
Are you telling them up front to expect product fixes? No. You're telling them it's ready for production.
Dude, that's fraud.
Sure you can, if you use brain-dead servers. Little children shouldn't play in adult industries.
That would be a wrong statement. I work in the commercial and government side of things and can use whatever the task takes. I may have a preference because the usual tasks can make us of MS products, but I also work with Informix, Oracle, and Solaris, daily.
The good news to my clients is that I also can provide, without ignorance or bias, a solid solution using MS products that is seriously cost effective and viable. I would say that I have worked with five times, in dollars, as much non-MS products as I have MS. I can also say that the MS side has outproduced the non-MS side, by far.
Prefernce is good. Bias is bad. I have my preferences.
Who is "nobody", and is that all the people you know?
Programmers I know are turning to C# from java as quick as they can. Been there?
Is your intention to flame any criticism of MS into silence?
Tell me, in your book, does my criticism of MS amount to 'MS bashing'?
You do realize I started this discussion by saying I liked .NET, but thought a cautious attitude to all new tech was prudent for working developers.
Is that just not pro-.NET enough for you? Do I have to be a cheerleader, no downside all upside?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.