Replies

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!