C# striking a chord with programmers

So, you like Sun's proprietary Java? You seem to be complaining about the proprietary nature of the language. I guess you could just be another anti-MS bigot?

pyx: "Damned Microsoft! Don't they know how to build their own language, instead of bastardizing Java?!"
Microsoft: "But we did. We call it 'C#'"
pyx: "Damned Microsoft! Always trying to hog the market!"

"Of course, if technical merit were always part of the decision making process, MicroSoft wouldn't exist "

Funny thing. It is exactly the technical merits of .NET and C# that are getting them to be considered. You may not consider them, as an anti-MS bigot, but many others are, and doing well. Catch me in four to six months, and I'll update you on the progress of the projects I am personally leading. I bet they will be on time, on budget, and performing handsomely.

"you don't even know if it will work"

Actually, I do know that they work. Now, will they have a nasty hidden bug? Who knows? Then again, who knows about Java, either. Of course, any new product is at higher risk new than three years down the road, but also remember that products get updates and those updates may also introduce nasty bugs. Hence, Java may have one right now, introduced just in the last minor revision. Also, whom ever created the JVM a person uses may also introduce a hidden nasty. So, while .NET is the newest, it is not so new as to be too high a risk, while Java may also have a nasty being a bit seasoned.

Now, will they have a nasty hidden bug? Who knows? Then again, who knows about Java, either.

The difference is -- when I pitch a Java solution, I know it will work because I've built them before, and put them into production, and worked thru the issues. I know the issues, and I know how to deal with them. I've got a working example. I can point to functionality, screen shots, years of up-time. I know how long it will take, how much it will cost.

You do *not* have any of this with .NET. What you do have is a certainty that there will be unforseen problems. And you aren't even informing your customers of that.

Java went thru that stage almost a decade ago, and at that time it was not ready for business-critical use.

Just like .NET isn't ready now.

Again, are you telling your clients the truth -- that there is a much greater chance (in fact, a certainty) of .NET's having critical problems no one has yet solved, compared to Java?

Or are you selling them that a .NET solution is just as 'ready' as a Java one?

Because suggesting untested .NET is as functional and ready as mature and Java is just plain fraud.

I have two systems in production. One a 10,000 user system. flawless. Performance is very high using 5 dual-processor web servers and dual quad SQL Server machines clustered to a RAID 10. So, I can say .NET works. As I said, I have been involved with .NET for a while now, and I am pleased with it. It certainly is a new system to the public, and it certainly could use a Service Pack for Visual Studio, but it is still a great system.

Many features were actually held back, and you will see them shortly. I think Microsoft has been doing a great job as of late concentrating on security. They have been concentrating on reliability, and with XP it shows. The .NET servers are also doing very well. They are in BETA, but, so far, I can say that I REALLY like them. For the admins out there, I'd say they will, too.

.NET is new to many people, and for that I can see your point that they cannot honestly say that .NET works, as they personally have no experience with it. As with many new products, case studies, white papers, and prototypes play a pivotal role in decision making. I think if I were a newbie to .NET, as a customer, I'd want extensive testing beyond normal. All in all, I think .NET will work out just fine, while it will still have that hesitancy for adoption that any new product or technology usually has. Frankly, no company impresses me enough for me to blindly embrace their new products.

BTW, it isn't .NET's performance that I worry about, not that performance was your primary consideration. It has been the hardware. I use Dell servers in most cases, and the Intel bus SERIOUSLY needs to be at LEAST 400mhz raw, for a 1,200Mhz transfer rate! This 100/133Mhz crap has got to go! Intel, AMD, are you guys listening???

P.S. My customers are given the skinny on .NET, its history, and where it stands. No Bull. They simply insist on the usual "prove it" response. We do. They see it. They are buying.

Again, we both agree that we need to revisit this in a year. Hell, make that 1 Feb 2003, about a year after .NET's public release. I'd be glad to compare notes on accomplishments. I expect much, and you do not. 1 Feb '03 will be fun!

So why is it that if VB.Net is so great at creating web aps that none of you have a single VB.Net applet or link on your FR homepages? Just curious...

You attribute quotes to me that I have never made. That is dishonest.

"The obvious solution to VB.NET's incompatibility with VB6 is to use VB6 for those things that VB6 does best."

At present, I'm afraid that's the ONLY solution, especially for firms with large investments in proprietary corporate VB 6 code libraries.

Don't get me wrong, VB.Net has some neat features and is a worthwhile product in its own way, but most corporations already have VB 6 investments, and VB 6 code is no longer supported in VB.Net.

Using VB.Net for NEW projects is one thing, but modifying existing VB 6 projects is no longer an option for those who want to upgrade to .net.

This creates a new problem for Microsoft. From now on corporate decision-makers (not the kids who write the software, but the grizzled veterans who have to sign off on paying for coding software) will have that small worry in the back of their minds that Microsoft may come out with the next release of VB.Net that isn't backwards compatible with today's version, just as Microsoft did with VB 6 to VB.Net. This "concern" could easily spread to other Microsoft development platforms, especially if new releases of MS Office/Excel/Word fail to support the VB 6 VBA scripts of today at some point in the future.

If that path is taken long enough and covers too many platforms, Microsoft will get a reputation as not being customer friendly, not understanding the value of code re-use (it's tough to re0use code when the new version of the language no longer supports it), and not understanding backwards compatibility.

Novice developers and Microsoft Yes-Men probably won't have a problem with those sorts of ramifications, but the decision-makers in corporate America will certainly take notice.

There is even historical precedent. In 1982 Apple computer was leading America in computer hardware and software marketshare, when suddenly they decided to pull all backwards compatibility support for the Apple II, II+, IIe, and IIc systems in favor of the "better" way of programming for first Lisa and then the Mac. Legions of developers lost their entire Apple II development libraries, as no new hardware was being built that supported any of it.

Apple never again led this nation in either hardware or software marketshare, although every techie will correctly point out that the Mac is a much better platform.

The lesson being that smashing your developers and corporate customers may hurt MORE than the improved platform makes up.

How long would Sun survive if its new version of Java no longer compiled existing Java code?!

"VB1 was not backward compatible with any QB/PDS/BASIC applications, period, since there was no concept corresponding to module level code, and no console I/O. Sometimes you have to take a revolutionary leap to get from A to B."

That's funny. VB 1 ran my ThunderWare apps just fine. (grins)

Yes, sometimes you do have to take revolutionary steps, but I'll give you an example of implementing Revolution while maintaining full backwards compatibility with existing software: C++. Every C++ compiler, including the first, is fully backwards compatible with the older C programming language, yet the revolutionary new methodology of C++ is still implemented inside.

You really can have a revolution and be backwards compatible if you have intelligent design.

As opposed to those using Sun's proprietary programming language?

It appears that two of you ASSUME that I am a proponent of Java. This would be a WRONG assumption. What the two of you fail to acknowledge is that about 976 out of every 1000 developers in North America are NOT using C#. The article was posted to tout the adoption of C# by developers. Its obvious, the article fails miserably in accomplishing that task.

Will C# ever be a mainstream development language ? I have no idea if it will or not. However, the apparent resistance, at this moment in time, to C#'s adoption as a development language, because only about 24 out of 1000 are using it, seems to indicate that developers are not embracing it with the same enthusiasm as they have with other languages in past, from what I recall. The numbers I use, come from the very article which was posted to tout how well C# was being embraced. I make no claims about what the future may bring -- I don't have a crystal ball.