Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

C# striking a chord with programmers
CNET News.com | May 3, 2002, 3:35 PM PT | Wylie Wong

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


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Technical
KEYWORDS: c; microsoft; techindex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 241-254 next last
To: ThinkLikeWaterAndReeds
Here again, Bill has taken someone's clunky old application and improved it.

Not entirely true, but since you want to use that as an argument:

Who built the first internal combustion engine? Did only the inventor improve on it until now?

How about the first turbine engine?

I still say "Gates-haters" suffer from penis envy.

61 posted on 05/05/2002 12:16:52 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PatrioticAmerican
Sure you can, if you use brain-dead servers.

You stated that Unix had more overhead. It doesn't, either from a hardware standpoint, or an admin standpoint.

62 posted on 05/05/2002 12:16:56 PM PDT by ikka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: PatrioticAmerican
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.

Good lord, you really don't see your own bias?

I like .NET, but urge caution on all new tech.

And that's not pro-.NET enough for you. I have the audacity to suggest there are things to be fixed!

You don't see your bias?

Okay, then, I guess I understand a little more than I did when I initiated this conversation. Thank you.

I don't have a "close relationship" with anyone but CSC. I make decisions purely based on technology.

Ya'll all have a "close relationship" with MS, and shout/insult/flame down any criticism of MS as "liberal", etc.

And you don't see your own bias.

I guess I also understand CNN a little better, too.

63 posted on 05/05/2002 12:20:49 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: PatrioticAmerican
"If that's what you are using VB6 for, your code sucks. None of those three items have been a best practice. I have a 25 KLOC program that converted completely, and runs without changes. The VB.NET upgrade wizard for VB6 worked perfectly. Of course, that won't be the case with all programs, but for many mainstream, conservative programs, it will be."

Dear child, the use of various legal language statements doesn't make one's code "suck" (I can even point to lots of code that fails to use those statements that aren't worth spitting on), nor is it the fault of programmers who use the 60% of VB 6 that is no longer compatible with VB.Net.

One major reason to use the Goto command is in establishing VB 6 error detection and correction routines. For VB.Net the entire error handling system has been forcefully changed, with the old VB 6 method no longer supported BY DESIGN.

I don't like your Blame the Victim mentality. It goes to the heart of why people such as yourself should remain unemployed and bitter.

If the shoe was on the other foot, and Sun came out with a Java compiler or interpreter that didn't support 60% of legacy code from previous versions of Java, you and people with your child-like mindset would be cheering in the streets at how Sun wasn't smart-enough to make a backwards compatible compiler.

Likewise, no one would cheer a new C++ compiler that couldn't compile 60% of existing C++ code, yet that's what you are trying to do when you pretend that it isn't Microsoft's fault that VB.Net will only compile 40% of existing VB 6 code.

Why, if your code wasn't compiled, then it must be your fault, your silly mind blurts out. Your code must suck.

Sigh. Corporate America doesn't need such technical Yes-Men. We've already got too many of those in management.

Oh, and by the way, your claim at the top of this post is balderdash. If you needed to "convert" your 25,000 LOC VB 6 program in order to get the VB.Net environment to accept it, then by definition your code has had changes made to it (in stark contrast to your amatuerish cries that your code didn't need "changes").

In any Mission Critical environment running any formal testing methodology, those changes alone (in the conversion) would mandate full-scale system-level re-testing.

64 posted on 05/05/2002 12:38:19 PM PDT by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: PatrioticAmerican
I think Microsoft has a market cap of nearly $270 billion...you're confusing Gates estimated wealth. <g>
65 posted on 05/05/2002 1:24:42 PM PDT by eraser X
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
"This cavalier attitude"

You mistook knowing that fixes will always be part of development with knowing there are problems to begin with. As a developer, you cannot possibly state that you code is perfect, only that you produce code without known problems. I do. Microsoft does, most of the time, and Sun does, most of the time. the business end is time to market. Of course, sloppy delivery will mean no support in the community.

66 posted on 05/05/2002 1:59:21 PM PDT by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: ikka
"You stated that Unix had more overhead. It doesn't, either from a hardware standpoint, or an admin standpoint."

A number of studies have concluded that UNIX requires 2-3 times the admin support costs, and you cannot possibly think that UNIX servers and the UNIX environmentis not far more costly. Of course, Linux has changed the scene, such that low end print and web servers are next to nothing in cost, but Linux isn't figured in the historical costs on UNIX.

67 posted on 05/05/2002 2:00:58 PM PDT by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"Dear child"

Your continuing narcissistic use of "child", and your continuing references that you are the older, wiser person among us really don't do much for your credibility, considering that you are neither.

Now for a lesson in reality. Visual Basic .NET is a NEW Visual Basic. Perhaps Microsoft could have called it another name, but, once again, let us educate you, dear "child". See, many things in life are given names for marketing purposes that are the same for prior, and accepted, products. Cars are a good example. Does the 1972 Nova really have interchangeable parts with the 1986 Nova? Nope. The latter is a Toyota product. Visual basic .NET shares many traits with Visual basic 6.0 more than it doesn't. Even ADO.NET is not compatible with ADO 2.7, but they share significant similarities.

There are far better reasons to continue the naming of a product more than there are to change it. There are business reasons that trump your personal, and ignorant, technical desires. grow up.

68 posted on 05/05/2002 2:07:40 PM PDT by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: eraser X
Microsoft has $55 bill in cash with an annual revenue of about $45 bill. That was my point. Market cap means nothing in real dollars.
69 posted on 05/05/2002 2:10:31 PM PDT by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: PatrioticAmerican
"There are far better reasons to continue the naming of a product more than there are to change it."

Sadly, your post was a complete non-sequitur. No one was arguing about the name.

What started my posts on this thread was that I responded to someone who claimed that VB.Net was backwards compatible.

You took issue with my response and claimed that it was my VB 6 code that sucked, rather than a compatibility issue. You went on to cite your own 25,000 LOC VB 6 program that "converted" easily to VB.Net.

But both you and the original poster are in error. VB.Net is NOT backwards compatible with VB 6. Conversions don't qualify as backwards compatibility, contrary to your uninformed cries to the contrary. The forms properties in VB 6 are not 100% supported by VB.Net. Various language commands in VB 6 are not supported in VB.Net.

Note that I did not say that VB.Net was bad, only that it was not backwards compatible with VB 6.

And that has nothing to do with a name change or your program successfully "converting," as any serious programmer will tell you.

Perhaps if you were able to pay more attention to what was said, you'd be taken more seriously yourself.

70 posted on 05/05/2002 2:18:07 PM PDT by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: PatrioticAmerican
Yahoo has MSFT's cash at $38.7 billion...but still IMO, your point is well made.
71 posted on 05/05/2002 2:23:17 PM PDT by eraser X
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000

Twelve percent of all North American software developers have begun using C#,...

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.


The article seems to mask the actual numbers but, they seem to be around 0.12 x 0.20 x 800 = 19.2 developers in this survey you tout, are using MicroSoft's proprietary language.

Or about 24 developers in 1000 are using MicroSoft's proprietary programming language.

This means, if the above calculations done in my head are correct, that 986 developers out of 1000 ARE NOT using MicroSoft's proprietary programming language.

Are you sure you want to brag about this ?


72 posted on 05/05/2002 2:28:32 PM PDT by pyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #73 Removed by Moderator

To: pyx
"MicroSoft's proprietary programming language"

You seem to like that phrase. Unfortunately, it is NOT Microsoft's proprietary language in its entirety. Microsoft submitted C# to ECMA and is now ECMA-334.

74 posted on 05/05/2002 4:03:07 PM PDT by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: pyx
Do you realize that developers have little to say about what language they use? A survey such as this is useless, and not because it isn't glowing with Microsoft praise. It is useless because it does not measure the use, or intended use, by the people who actually decide. On three projects just this past week that I am involved with, there are over 50 developers who will be using C# and .NET on major projects within the next two months. They are currently using UNIX/C++, ASP, and Visual Basic 6. I just know that they, and their cross section, were not included in that survey.

As Harr stated in a thread last month, let's wait a year and see who is actually using .NET and what its growth has been. We know the use and growth of Java, C++, VB, and ASP because they have been around at least five years. To say that .NET and C# are dead would be clairvoyant, and I don't think any of us is that good. Hell, there were plenty of people putting down Java when I picked it up, and loved it, who said Java was a toy like Visual Basic. Yes, it was at first, but it was a server toy and nice change from client side computing and server side C++ services!

My predictions, what they are worth, are that it will be a typical industry split; 40% to .NET or Java and 60% to the other. They will find their niche markets and the other will have a hard time competing in that market. The companies, Microsoft and Sun, will not be friendly and the developers will be just as bad. The industry will tire of us and decide for itself. Our word will seem to be biased, making the selling of the project hard. Some companies and projects will pick their technology and do very well, while the rest will bicker and fail.

My choice; I will concentrate on .NET while my peer will concentrate on J2EE. We will work together to sell the right solution, and part of that will be the client's personal choice. We will present costs and capabilities, and chose the solution we will present based on actual facts and the needs of our clients. My prediction is that .NET will work best, at the best cost, at least 90% of the time for new projects and it will be a toss up for existing ones. Anyone who has any experience, and has listened to their clients, knows that they will not dump a $10 million Oracle installation for SQL Server, and likewise. .NET will make its best appearance on new projects where the customer wants a fast development time, cheaper costs, including resources, and desires an integrated solution; one product suite for it all. Of course, the J2EE fellow will argue the same thing. Such is technology.

75 posted on 05/05/2002 4:22:03 PM PDT by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: PatrioticAmerican
You mistook knowing that fixes will always be part of development with knowing there are problems to begin with.

No, I think it's very clear.

You just mentioned that some 50 people in your company will be moving forward with .NET work. And the bottom line is that .NET is new, and has not been 'shaken out', so there are certainly problems that you don't even know about yet.

So you're selling a solution that *certainly* has issues, without telling the client that you know there will be fixes needed. You're making promises you absolutely can not keep. But by the time the client finds out you can't keep the promises, you'll have already cashed the check and you'll say, "that's just what you should expect, there's always fixes needed in something new. No, Java wouldn't have anywhere as many problems, since it's been heavily tested going on a decade now, but you don't want Java, because now you've spent all this money, and we've locked you into a contract . . ."

I would have said the same thing to anyone planning to use Java for mission-critical work before about the 1.2 release. You see, that's the difference between my "preference" and your "bias". I would not try and sell a customer on using untested technology for critical work. I have no "relationship" with either Sun or MS, my only master is my client. I have no motive to lie to sell anything.

What you're doing, in my experience, is making promises you can't possibly keep to generate revenue.

Then *when* it blows up, as you said to this person, you'll just act like that's life, and likely offer to charge to fix the problems.

I believe this is professional fraud, promising your product can do things it can't. Which, I believe, is why MS has never made any serious inroads into the server side. And likely still won't.

Finding people to pay you to try out new, untested things that you don't even know if it will work is going to be very hard.

76 posted on 05/05/2002 5:15:27 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: PatrioticAmerican
I wrote "MicroSoft's proprietary programming language"

Then you wrote You seem to like that phrase.

I like it and used it because its accurate.
77 posted on 05/05/2002 5:51:04 PM PDT by pyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: PatrioticAmerican
Do you realize that developers have little to say about what language they use?

It depends on how junior you are. If you are higher up in the food chain, you get paid the big bucks to make the tough decisions like, 'what is my personal favorite language based on what some salesman once told me ?'.

Of course, if technical merit were always part of the decision making process, MicroSoft wouldn't exist and the we wouldn't get to be entertained by Bush2000 and his gloating and celebrating others losing their jobs in the IT market or Bush2000's bragging about a proprietary programming language that NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-SIX OUT OF ONE THOUSAND developers do not use.

:)
78 posted on 05/05/2002 6:00:38 PM PDT by pyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: pyx
That should be 976.
79 posted on 05/05/2002 6:04:24 PM PDT by pyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Yes, .NET is new, and being new it has a higher risk of failure. BUT, all software has that risk, regardless of age. All software MUST be tested in a professional manner. Besides, if no one uses it, how will it be tested?
80 posted on 05/05/2002 6:29:16 PM PDT by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 241-254 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson