Microsoft Dot Net Discussions

I completely understand the anti-Microsoft sentiment, but does no-one appreciate .NET (DotNet) as much as I do?

The development environment is incredible. The auto-complete features work like a charm. The outline features and lack of separate source and header files simplify things considerably.
I liked VbClassic a lot for doing GUI work, but CsharpLanguage (along with the intuitive development environment) is incredible for everything from GUI to system level stuff.
Need to interface to older code and .dlls? Marshalling works like a charm.
* ComInterOp is not always ItJustWorks
Need pointers? Probably not, you could use marshalling. But, okay, you really want pointers, go ahead and use them.
Need to create a web application? Using AspDotNet it's almost as easy as creating a regular GUI.
Need to create some client-side code on your ASP app? Just add in your scripting code.
Dealing with Databases? Amazingly simple, easy to use, XML'able database objects.
And really you could hardly ask for more in the way of object features! About the only thing you can't do is multiple inheritance; but you can inherit multiple interfaces, so I haven't found that to be a large problem.
At least in my experience (learning C# on-the-fly for a few months now), many helper classes I used to write in C++ (CeePlusPlus) to make my life easier are built-in or unnecessary in .NET.
Also from my experience so far: Everything works like you would think it should. Or, in some cases, after finding something that works other than you would expect, you learn why it was done that way and think "Duh. I wish I had thought of that".
CsUnit
Deployment of smart client WindowsForms applications can be easier as there is no need to use registry entries. [ added years later, Nov2004]

About the only problems I have had so far with .NET are that I find the interface for creating MicrosoftWebForms a bit clunky, and I think the WebControl (Custom vs User) support leaves a little something to be desired. But even MicrosoftWebForm support is pretty darn good as it is.

As with anything, you certainly have to choose the right tool for the job. But, from what I have seen, as long as your requirements allow use of .NET, you won't find anything which is more pleasant or easier to use, regardless of whether you like Microsoft's business practices.

-- DaveHoehn

I agree with you. OpenSourceEqualsSocialism. -- MichaelDevere

I don't think that's at all what DaveHoehn was saying (although only he can say, of course). With the exception of the VisualStudio parts, everything Dave mentions comes with Mono, one of those evil open source programs. :-)

Hmm, no I definitely don't agree with that. (And BTW, I have done a bit of drooling over the possibilities of Mono...) There is nothing in capitalism which precludes people from making whatever licensing arrangements they desire. And frankly, I look forward to the day that I will a) have the time to make some sort of open source contributions and b) will be able to find an open-source alternative to Microsoft which achieves or surpasses the ease of use of Microsoft's development products.

The free software movement seems to be more of an embodiment of the idea that sometimes it's right to do something which enriches everyone rather than just yourself. It's not like open-source will put programmers out of business. And it's very likely that the benefits of a large consumer-ready open-source platform will far outweigh the loss of power of the individual proprietary companies.

I think the big mistake in OpenSourceEqualsSocialism is in assuming that, in capitalism, each individual must prize money above all else. This is just not the case. Just because you are willing to contribute something for everyone's benefit, voluntarily, does not make you a socialist. (I still have property; and in fact I still have as property the code I have written; although you can modify your property which is a copy of my code.) And open-source software does not suffer from the problems of socialism as it is not a government; it is a base of code. (If somehow open-source software developed an army, and went around and forced everyone to give up their proprietary code for the "common good" then you might have a point.)

My belief is that free software will over time add an enormous amount of productivity and value to our economy, which otherwise would be wasted on "ReinventingTheWheel." OpenSourceEqualsBetterWorld? maybe? :) -- DaveHoehn

As the saying goes, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Microsoft must be blushing a lot these days. No sooner did Oracle and Sun Microsystems finish lambasting Microsoft's new .NET Framework than each company launched its own Internet application platform?each modeled on the Microsoft .NET Framework.

I'm not surprised that Oracle was the first major competitor to criticize .NET. However, Oracle almost immediately followed this initial burst of criticism with two announcements: portal.oracle.com, which Oracle modeled after the Microsoft .NET Framework, and Oracle9i Dynamic Services, which Oracle modeled after Microsoft's Web Services?a key component of the .NET Framework. If you know anything about Oracle, you won't be surprised by the implementation of Oracle's network application initiative. Oracle designed both new products to use thin clients and big servers?Oracle servers. Like Microsoft .NET, portal.oracle.com is an enterprise portal solution that uses a hosted service model. Oracle9i Dynamic Services delivers a Java- and XML-based framework for creating and managing discrete business services. Although you can find obvious similarities between Microsoft .NET and the latest Oracle announcements, one huge difference is that the Microsoft .NET Framework is platform-agnostic: It doesn't care about the underlying platform as long as the expected Web Services interface is present. In contrast, the Oracle approach requires Oracle application servers. One important aspect that Oracle's strategy and Microsoft .NET have in common is their reliance on XML. Oracle didn't take long to jump on the idea of selling software by subscription, either.

Sun wasn't far behind in announcing its Web services-based architecture, code-named Brazil. Shortly after the Microsoft .NET announcements, Sun roundly denounced Microsoft .NET, blasting C# in particular as an incomplete and inferior Java knock-off. Although I've questioned Microsoft's motives for developing C#, Microsoft has wisely released both the Microsoft .NET Framework Common Language Runtime (CLR) and the C# language to the European Computer Manufacturers Association (ECMA) standards body. With this move, Microsoft has enabled other vendors to incorporate .NET technology and ensure platform interoperability. In sharp contrast, Sun withdrew its Java language and Java Virtual Machine (JVM) from the ECMA standardization process more than a year ago, ensuring that Sun retains sole control over all Java development. Sun's upcoming Brazil project is designed to facilitate integration among applications and Web pages and allow delivery of Web-based applications through a Web browser. However, unlike Microsoft .NET, which is language-independent, Sun has based the Brazil framework solely on Java.

The rapid me-too adoption of Microsoft's development strategies clearly shows that wherever Microsoft goes, others are sure to follow. If nothing else, this wholesale imitation validates the concept behind the Microsoft .NET Framework and the Web Services-based application development model.

: anyone want to take credit for the above? -- DinoChiesa 8 May 2001

This from the Win2000 mag Update Newsletter:

"After he read the article about Corel and Microsoft, WinInfo? Daily UPDATE reader Eric Bunsen sent me one of the most insightful email messages I've received all year. Eric makes four interesting points about Microsoft, .NET, and Corel, which are worth repeating here:

1. Microsoft has submitted its new CsharpLanguage to the European Computer Manufacturers Association (ECMA) for consideration as a standard. (See DotNetEcmaProcess). Microsoft says that standardization will let other vendors create new versions of C# that run on a variety of platforms. In contrast, Sun has consistently steered Java away from standardization.

[Re:The comment about Sun and standards. This paraphrases what James Gosling said last October at SunTechDays?: "We wanted to standardize it, but Forces To The North turned the process into such a farce that nothing from that was survivable." - It looks like Sun wasn't the problem. Besides, if Java were controlled by a standards committee, I wonder what forces might try to wreck it using the committee. ]

: [re: Sun and standards - there is a separate, related discussion on CompaniesControllingLanguage. But to your point, obviously "wreck it" is relative. It's a multiple-choice exam, and the correct answer depends on which side of the Sun-v-Microsoft Java war you are on. "Microsoft wanted to (railroad java/integrate it with COM) which Sun did not like. Therefore Sun did not follow through on its promise to standardize Java, in order to (prevent Microsoft from wrecking it/maintain absolute control over Java technology)." ps: Gosling separately commented that Sun would have to be insane to standardize Java. See http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO46193,00.html. -- DinoChiesa, 8 May 2001]

2. Microsoft has also submitted the .NET Framework to the same standards body. The .NET Framework will let the .NET Common Language Runtime - ironically, created by ex-Borland developer Anders Hejlsberg, the man who created Turbo Pascal and Delphi - be ported to non-Microsoft platforms, extending .NET's reach beyond Windows.

3. Corel has been a vocal proponent of Java and Linux, two of Microsoft's biggest problems. If Corel were to adopt C#, which is a threat to Java, C# would become more credible - and potentially as widely available as Java. Corel could port C# to Linux, letting Microsoft continue its public facade of not supporting the open-source OS.

4. And Corel could port the .NET Framework to its Linux distribution, opening the entire set of .NET technologies to the vast majority of server OSs out there. If Microsoft wants .NET to become the standard, .NET needs to run on non-Microsoft platforms. And nobody has more experience porting Windows applications to Linux than Corel (with the possible exception of Mainsoft, a vendor I discussed in Windows 2000 Magazine UPDATE earlier this year).

Suddenly, the Corel bailout makes a lot of sense. Corel has essentially promised to ".NET-isize" its applications and has said that we can expect to see products such as WordPerfect.NET by late 2001. Can a Corel Linux.NET be far behind? Thanks again to Eric Bunsen for providing the jumpstart I needed to grasp the importance of this deal. Perhaps the phrase "strategic alliance" isn't so far-fetched after all."

-- ChrisKovacs?

Is this a bad thing except to those who have a financial or emotional investment in Java? -- JohnPassaniti

It is a very good thing as long as everything works out. I'll stick to Java until there are independently developed (according to the standard) implementations on at least two non-MS platforms (I'm not sure if that is bias or just good sense). -- TomAyerst

Does anyone know how Microsoft are planning to make money out of MicrosoftDotNet once its all submitted to a standards body and implemented on multiple platforms? Is it basically, "it'll run best on Windows so we'll sell more copies?"

I can't wait for the source code license and the formation of a MicrosoftCommunityProcess? to help develop this.

CategoryDiscussion CategoryDotNet