I was wondering if anyone in here things .NET will ever go anywhere special.
Posted on 2003-03-07 21:17:04 by _Shawn
I think that will depend on how you'd define succeed :)

I mean did java 'succeed' or 'go anywhere'? Some will say t did, some will say it didn't.
Posted on 2003-03-07 21:22:46 by Hiroshimator
I was flipping through the ony 3 IL programming books I can find on the shelf at a local bookstore and I realized there's not point in learning to program IL because there's nothing we can do to influence how the IL will eventually be interpreted or JIT'd when its executed. Even if we use Managed C++, in the end, it compiles to bytecode.

There's C#, S# (SmallTalk), J# (Java), A# (Ada), and Even F# (Fortran). I thought to myself that Fortran is probly useless on .NET because it's real power is that it is heavily optimized for numerical number cruching and putting it through a generic IL conversion, by the time it gets executed, will not be nearly as optimized as it's native Fotran counterpart even if compiled with Manged C++ because Managed C++ compiles to IL.

I was reading the S# papers how he wrote it and got the performance to be better than native smalltalk. Must be impressive. Perhaps it is possible after all.

It seems the true power of .NET really only lies in the extensive amount of prebuilt functionality avaliable through the namespaces MS provides.

I'm a senior programmer at my company writing an ASP.NET application that needs to scale to about 10,000 users (it's an insurance software application we write, service, and host) which equates to about 50,000 requests per 8 hours. Our team has encountered so many architectural flaws with .NET that I often wonder how well it'll scale once in production next month (we have a 2 million $$$ datacenter with some powerful clusters and one of our search screens actually consumes 100% of one of the database servers for 1 user and we're changing our approach on that screen. I've encountered so many glitches in the .NET framework I can't count anymore.

I must admit, it takes someone who knows what their doing. Can't really learn as you go on this but everyone of us wonders openly, will it succeed?


Thanks,
Shawn
Posted on 2003-03-07 21:27:01 by _Shawn
The important question IMO is: "what does .NET bring that I don't have already?"

The big thing could be that a .NET application runs on different platforms but knowing MS.......


MS fails to convince people that it's actually worthwile to go use the new environment I think.
Posted on 2003-03-07 21:49:35 by Hiroshimator
I think the biggest issue is that companies have already invested so heavily into the VB6/ASP/COM paradigm that they're not ready to give it up and move onto another platform that only supports COM retrospectively. Trying to tie the two together on our project is a nightmare. We gave up and rewrote all of our ASP stuff into ASP.NET and our VB6 stuff into .NET for use with the .NET portion, retaining the COM for the ASP portion. Things run much more smoothly without Interop.

Companies don't want to give up what they've already spent 6 years+ developing. What works works.


If it isn't broken, then it's not broken... pretty much.


Thanks,
Shawn
Posted on 2003-03-07 21:53:45 by _Shawn
I think there are certain applications that are a great fit for the .NET internet service model. I think there are more many more that do not.

If I'm running a business, no business critical data will ever reside on another company's server. But hey, that's just me.
Posted on 2003-03-07 22:56:45 by Berninhell
Hi guys, I am back :)

Coming back to the point of our topic. I personally think .NET will succeed. MS is betting their company on it and they know very well that if .NET goes then the empire goes with it too.

What it seems to me is that with the growing popularity of Linux, Ms knew they had the danger of all people switching to it and leaving windows, so they had to design something which will lure people back to windows and the result well- .NET .

Also with a huge number of digital devices coming in, they had to ensure that windows runs on them too and not any other OS.

It seems the true power of .NET really only lies in the extensive amount of prebuilt functionality avaliable through the namespaces MS provides.


And yes Shawn, you are correct. Most of the functionality of .NET comes from prebuilt libraries.

Most companies concentrate on getting the work done faster than anything else and if most of it is already done in libraries, then what could be better. And that's why they would always stick to windows.

If you notice carefully, you will see that .NET is a sort of runtime tightly binded with libraries. All .NET languages like C# , VB, etc or any new ones if you try to make some new one for .NET, require a certain set of library functions to be there. Something which was clearly missing from compiled languages like C++ where the STL wasnt really a part of the language itself.

Also, it seems they have managed to use OOP reallly well this time.
But personally it seems to me they have copied most of the functionality form JAVA and made it the best way to code for windows.
Things like Windows Forms could be made for C++ also, where they could compile to native code but ms purposly didnt do it and left C++ users with the sucky MFC classes.

But the best thing i find about .NET, and what makes it seem so rad, is that it doesnt use hungarian notation. I dont like hungarian notation at all, and without it atleast i know that a Brush is a 'Brush' and not a 'Cbrush'.


Our team has encountered so many architectural flaws with .NET that I often wonder how well it'll scale once in production next month

You are damm, right in that. I have been trying to use it too for some time,( i have been using C# though) and i too have encountered a hell lot of problems with it and finally went back to C++.

Finally, i think ms are playing it yet again like a game of chess, where every move complements all their other peices, and it seems pretty likely to me that yet again the other king will be 'check-mated' by them.

P.S.- I know this is sily but i have been trying to figure it out for some time now and i blame .NET more than myself for this and i put a thread on this on the forum too but got now reply but-

HOW do you make one form the child of another?
If i take two forms and if in one form On_Load function i put 'form2.parent=this' then at runtime it gives me an error saying' a top level control cannot be a child of another top-level control'.
I am not too sure thats the exact err msg but it is something like that.
Can someone please tell me how to do the above?
Posted on 2003-03-07 23:09:17 by clippy
For that you have to use interop and use the SetParent/GetParent API's on the hwn. In fact, I don't think that the WinForm exposes the hWnd. If not, then they don't want it to be done. I'll look into it, I know it can be done because I've seen it.


Thanks,
Shawn
Posted on 2003-03-07 23:29:19 by _Shawn
Personally, I think .NET has it's best strength with Server Side Web Technologies, ASP.NET, WebServices. Beyond that, I wouldn't really use it much for desktop kind of stuff.


Thanks,
Shawn
Posted on 2003-03-07 23:30:33 by _Shawn
As MS grows MS finds problems with the way the company is growing and develops solutions to those internal problems. Then they market those solutions to the rest of the world as solutions to their problems. Problem is that not everybody has the same problems MS does, but MS works really hard to make some of their problems our problems - its all good for them. :)

.NET will succeed in solving some of MS's problems.
Posted on 2003-03-08 01:40:13 by bitRAKE
There's C#, S# (SmallTalk), J# (Java), A# (Ada), and Even F# (Fortran).
Muahahahah :grin:
Sorry Shawn, no pun intended to you.. but I gotta laugh bigtime at Microsoft. Ada is a language with strict real-time requirements, the fact that they offer an Ada compiler for .NET, if confirmed, would be truly paradoxical, let away ridicolous. :P

I voted "No" with the heart, although you never know.. other diseases spreaded in the past, thus I should have more prudently voted "Too early to tell".

Also, it's a total nonsense.. the whole purpose of .NET would be to run multiplatform. While I could understand this wish, it should come from the minor platform, not from the one that already holds most++ of the market. Microsoft could well dictate on the x86 and provide source level compatibility on other platforms (as it already does) and still keep all of the market.. the price to pay for .NET "advantages" is horribly big, not worth neither a little bit.

Perhaps Bill Gates got afraid of the speed of modern computers and just wants to slow them down.. because, you know, "Nobody will ever need more than 4 MIPS".
Posted on 2003-03-08 03:00:47 by Maverick
As best as I grasp it, .NET is the latest Microsoft attempt to control the internet by trying for a wide ranging multiplatform environment.

I imagine it will succeed in so far as the area that Microsoft already control and that if the x86 Windows market and servers that are set up to use this technology.

Fortunately the web is catered for by other platforms that range from Linux based x86 architecture machines to mini computers and mainframes and .NET will not be popular in this area because the technology is not needed.

The mechanics are if you have a site that is taking millions of hits an hour, you will not be running it on Windows, it will be done on hardware that has the grunt to handle that much processing and this is mainframe territory.

Regards,

hutch@movsd.com
Posted on 2003-03-08 03:37:15 by hutch--

but I gotta laugh bigtime at Microsoft. Ada is a language with strict real-time requirements, the fact that they offer an Ada compiler for .NET, if confirmed, would be truly paradoxical, let away ridicolous.


10-12 years ago, programming in Ada was a requirement for any (US) government (specifically Department of Defense if I remember correctly) work. I'm not sure if that requirement still exists or not.
Posted on 2003-03-08 08:17:49 by Berninhell

Ada is a relatively nice language with strict real-time requirements.. it's totally out of .NET territory.
Can anybody confirm the existance of the A# compiler?
Posted on 2003-03-08 08:26:34 by Maverick
Whenever I hear ADA(tm) I remember a joke from a friend of mine from Los Angeles.

Q. What does an C programmer say to an ADA(tm) programmer ?

A. I will have onions with my french fries please.

Regards,

hutch@movsd.com
Posted on 2003-03-08 09:36:03 by hutch--

Can anybody confirm the existance of the A# compiler?
How about a google?

http://www.adapower.net/a_sharp/

Yes, it is real.
Posted on 2003-03-08 11:22:38 by bitRAKE
Is .NET assembly? If not, where's the "Yes, to my /dev/null .... :grin:"-option?
Posted on 2003-03-08 14:55:53 by scientica
I did not know Ada had strict requirements for real-time although I can understand the need. I have a co-worker who was a programmer for the Air Force and says he did it in PowerBuilder although many of the projects were Ada (he says he never wrote a line of Ada beyond some of his training).

Nonetheless, knowing that Ada is supposed to be Real-Time, I doubt that the makers of A# intend to be pitching the military on this one. They appear to just be providing syntax for the .NET compiler so old timers can have a go. Hey, were it not for Fujitsu COBOL I would not even have attempted to "See" what COBOL looks.

Personally, I stick with C++, C#, VB/NET, and perhaps Perl#.


Thanks,
Shawn
Posted on 2003-03-08 18:48:02 by _Shawn

Anally speaking ;D the real-time requirements are in Annex D, but if you ask any serious Ada programmer, he will tell you that he strongly identifies Ada also with such requirements.
Ada was designed not only for military applications, but also for robotics or e.g. medical ones. Imagine an artificial heart stopping for 10 seconds because Windows has to manage its swap file. :grin:

I reckon, though, that A# is meant as a toy. Just like .NET is. :)
Posted on 2003-03-09 03:16:18 by Maverick
On thing I've noticed about programming all the different langauges in .NET is that they all "feel" the same, not matter what syntax... because they all rely heavily on the framework runtime namespaces to do what they do as a core... so you can jump from syntax to syntax but you're always calling the same methods and classes, it doesn't really feel like you're using other langauges, it feels like you're using a runtime that you can't be without. It doesn't feel "natural" to the langauge/syntax of use at the time, except if it's C#/VB. Even then, I fail to see any differences because of the common classes/namespaces.


Thanks,
Shawn
Posted on 2003-03-09 11:56:56 by _Shawn