Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Devs Worried Microsoft Will Dump .NET

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the long-term-strategy-is-beholden-to-the-dollar dept.

Microsoft 440

joelholdsworth passes along a story summing up concerns from developers that "Microsoft seems to be set on adopting HTML5 and JavaScript as its main application development tools for Windows 8," and asking, "is this the end of .NET?" The article continues: "To bet the farm on HTML5 and JavaScript being the next big thing is a good bet, but it's not a bet that Microsoft can easily take and make good. Even if the world does turn to JavaScript and platform-independent apps, this still means that Microsoft loses. The problem is that Microsoft needs a technology that gives it an edge, and HTML5/JavaScript is everybody's edge. Microsoft developers feel left in the dark and very angry at the way they are being treated. You only have to browse the Microsoft forums to discover how strong the feeling is: forum post 1, forum post 2 and an open letter." Reader Sla$hPot points out a similar story at OS News.

cancel ×

440 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Dupe (4, Informative)

cgeys (2240696) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427736)

This is dupe from last week [slashdot.org] . Just for Joel to get some visitors to his ad ridden .info site...

Re:Dupe (0)

afabbro (33948) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427758)

This is dupe from last week [slashdot.org] . Just for Joel to get some visitors to his ad ridden .info site...

The number of ad revenue kickback relationships on Slashdot is surprising. Or not.

Re:Dupe (1)

paziek (1329929) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427780)

Not exactly. Previous summary centered around Silverlight, only to mention .NET as a side effect. Now its full blown .NET FUD.

Yeah, cos you know... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36427750)

.NET is only good for rendering client-side markup and script.

Seriously, can Slashdot get *any* worse than this?

Re:Yeah, cos you know... (3, Insightful)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427840)

HTML5 isn't a .NET killer anymore than LCD TVs are a Hollywood killer. HTML5 excels at the GUI. .NET is mainly used for server-side processing. Long live .NET. Long live HTML5.

XNA (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427920)

.NET is mainly used for server-side processing.

And for Xbox Live Indie Games.

Re:Yeah, cos you know... (5, Informative)

bondsbw (888959) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428276)

.NET is mainly used for server-side processing.

Wait, what? I make client applications... Windows apps. I don't make websites. I don't make client applications that require constant connection with a server. So your statement completely forgets about me and thousands of developers who need to make real applications that work in the real world, not some dream land in the cloud.

I'm beginning to wonder if Microsoft hasn't forgotten about us too.

Oh... and this: HTML5 may excel with GUI, but it's not better than WPF. WPF is definitely better in terms of combining the power, flexibility, and ease-of-development of UIs. (Before the flaming begins... I never said WPF is better for everyone, it's just better for me and my Windows clients.)

Re:Yeah, cos you know... (1)

MikeDirnt69 (1105185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428376)

He said mainly, not every.

Re:Yeah, cos you know... (2)

moro_666 (414422) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427970)

can Slashdot get *any* worse than this?

yes

ps. i'm not trolling, this is bad, but it can be a lot worse.

Short Answer (1)

cozzbp (1845636) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427762)

No. At least not for a long while.

Re:Short Answer (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36427966)

Indeed, Microsoft won't dump it, they'll just mention HTML5 is the new buzzword in every marketing statement they make. Eventually it will sink in and all the HR people will stop placing ads for 14 years of .Net and start looking for 6 years of HTML5 experience.

Welcome to that lovely early twilight where nobody really cares about the one framework you specialized on instead of being a generalist, but you still aren't rare enough to command COBOL salaries.

Re:Short Answer (2)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428216)

Eventually it will sink in and all the HR people will stop placing ads for 14 years of .Net and start looking for 6 years of HTML5 experience

In addition to 5 years of Web 3.0. HR people and dang recruiters are quite the obtuse bunch most of the time.

Oh, dear, god.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36427820)

I surely can't be the only one praying that they do drop .NET?

Re:Oh, dear, god.. (4, Insightful)

afabbro (33948) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428120)

I surely can't be the only one praying that they do drop .NET?

Yes, you are. .NET is one of Microsoft's better ideas.

Or perhaps you're a VB6 man...?

On dot-net (not debt) (2)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428322)

I surely can't be the only one praying that they do drop .NET?

Yes, you are. .NET is one of Microsoft's better ideas.

Could I ask for your perspective on why this is the case?

Why worry. (3, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427826)

When has Microsoft ever just killed off a technology that they pushed? Next thing you know will be telling me that VB6 and FoxPro are in danger of going away.

Re:Why worry. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36427896)

A company can't just kill off a technology.

If people are still using it, they can always fork a new version from the source that the license required the company to provide, right?

Re:Why worry. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36428208)

I think TFS got "worried" mixed up with "hope". :)

Anyway. Who cares about .NET. Itâ(TM)s like a Java... without the "runs everywhere" selling point of Java. Which is silly. Silly, silly, silly. ^^

Then again, if one has seen the light [haskell.org] , I doubt anyone could even stand going back to Java too.

And C/C++ and its mutant fellowship of sister languages... oh come on, they're not even worth mentioning. You could as well program in the Handmade Assembler version of MS Clippyâ(TM)s Visual Basic for Children. ;)

(Yeah, I know the C hordes will probably mod me down to hell for attacking their entire belief system. Well, if you survived 18 cruel years with a mother whose belief systems got her thrown out of cults that are usually known to brainwash and captivate people... and I'm not talking about Apple here... you just stop fearing anything. I'd run smilingly into a blade saw. So bring it on!)

Re:Why worry. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36428232)

When has Microsoft ever just killed off a technology that they pushed? Next thing you know will be telling me that VB6 and FoxPro are in danger of going away.

Well, Microsoft never really pushed VB6, and IMO they bought FoxPro just so they COULD kill it.

But that still gives us:

Microsoft Bob.
Zune.
XENIX - yes, long before Microsoft started trying to kill Linux, they thought Unix was the answer. The one time they were right about long-term trends, and they shortly afterwards killed it.

Personally, I feel absolutely no sympathy to anyone who's hitched his wagon to a company that only provides a development environment because they use illegal monopoly tactics to ruin their competition.

Short Answer? (4, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427836)

No.

If you watch the presentation for what it really is, what they're saying is if you want the 'New Hotness' flashy canvas, yes your apps will have to be HTML/JS. No, they're not going to throw away everything out there, you'll be able to use 'old and busted'.

Re:Short Answer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36428082)

"New Hotness, Old & Busted..." -- Somebody watched MiB 2 recently.

Re:Short Answer? (1)

squ0zen (1906072) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428218)

...'New Hotness'...'old and busted'.

Somebody was watching Men In Black II over the weekend...

Re:Short Answer? (1)

Dadoo (899435) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428224)

No.

Yeah, my sentiments, exactly. Even if they were planning to get rid of it a couple of weeks ago, they certainly would have changed their minds, by now, after all the developer outrage.

No. (3, Interesting)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427852)

You can't write good direct x code even if they did manage to provide a JS wrapper. .net is here to stay.

Re:No. (1)

JMZero (449047) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427916)

You can't write good direct x code even if they did manage to provide a JS wrapper. .net is here to stay.

You know another place you can't write good DirectX code? .NET. Well, at least ever since they killed MDX.

You're right in that there's no reason to believe MS is dumping .NET in general - but people using it to do XNA Game Studio stuff is hardly the core thing MS is going to be worried about.

Re:No. (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427944)

I don't see any reason you couldn't convert Javascript over to a VM-style engine just like .Net and Java. To some extent it's already been done anyways.

I'm not saying it's a good idea, or that .Net is in fact at any risk (although it wouldn't be the first time MS promoted a development platform only to change their minds), but Javascript is just a bloody language, and if you're developing an application layer, by whatever means, you can give the language as much or as little low-level access or access to other APIs as you please. If you wanted, and had the resources Redmond has, you could turn Javascript into another C/C++.

Whether this is the right or sensible thing to do, I dunno. This was the dream of Java back in the day, to have everything from the OS right up to the applications all running under Java VMs. Maybe Microsoft has decided that since Javascript is the scripting language of the Web, making it the application language of Windows is a good idea.

Re:No. (1)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428044)

Why write Direct X when you can write OpenGL and have it work on Windows *and* everywhere else (the phonez)? Oh yeah, for the web you have WebGL. Also, you can use Java (not going away) for your OpenGL. So there are certainly (IMHO better) alternatives to Direct X and .NET if you look around.

Re:No. (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428220)

Because OpenGL support for Windows sucks! Sure, the drivers are fine, but if you actually want to use a modern version of the API, you need to do a lot of faffing about checking for extensions, and get a pointer to a fnction bofre actually using it. There's also no official OpenGL wrapper for .Net.

Re:No. (1)

Roogna (9643) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428246)

Then bitch about that to Microsoft. Demand your cross platform compatibility! :)

This would be suicide for Microsoft (1)

DemonGenius (2247652) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427856)

Too many companies develop enterprise software on the .NET Framework for them to just scrap it altogether. As people continue to use .NET, Microsoft will have to continue to support it and eventually develop new features to cater to developer needs. .NET is here to stay for a long time.

Re:This would be suicide for Microsoft (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427974)

A helluva lot of software was developed under FoxPro and VB5/6 in the day, and Microsoft had little trouble switching gears. In general, it means that the older development platform is steadily decelerated in favor of the new architecture. Still, Windows 7 still runs VB6 apps, so I'm assuming, if this story has any legs at all (and I'm not convinced it does), we could go the same route with .NET.

Re:This would be suicide for Microsoft (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428106)

I'd have to say that I think that .NET has a bit more life in it than VB6 had when they released .NET.

.NET is actually modern and makes sense, VB6 (and earlier versions) was plain painful to work with. I still end up having to fix legacy VB6 software from time to time, it's not just the environment in which you're coding, it's also the fact that a large percentage of VB software, including "enterprise" software, looks like it was written by dyslexic monkeys with a fear of comments and proper indenting. By comparison most .NET software, even bad VB.NET code, looks amazing. And C#.NET is a lot like Java (better in some ways and worse in other ways).

Re:This would be suicide for Microsoft (1)

FirstNoel (113932) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428214)

That sounds like you had poor coders, not a VB6 issue if the coders aren't professional. I've written/debug plenty of VB6 code. Compared to VS 2010 Visual Basic.Net yeah, it's not as easy in some respects. But there's a familiarity there to "pre-objected oriented" code that a lot of older programmers are used to.

Just because something is new and shiny doesn't mean it's automatically better than the older version. VB.Net 2002 sucked donkey balls compared to VB6, it took them to 2008 to get it good enough for me. I know a few coders now who are just starting to get into .NET and away from VB6, it's not a simple switch for all.

Doubtful (1)

Subratik (1747672) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427860)

They might drop .net like VB but that doesn't stop them from creating a newly-improved programming language exactly like javascript and html that is bound to blow the competition out of the water... and let's not forget, no backwards compatibility!!!

Re:Doubtful (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427986)

And just imagine, all this effort just to reinvent what C did 40 years ago.

Don't Worry (1, Troll)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427864)

You can always switch to Mono.

ROFLMAO!

Re:Don't Worry (1, Troll)

gregarican (694358) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427982)

Yeah, Mono is up to...what....NET 1.1 or 2.0 now? That will surely be a great safety net!

Re:Don't Worry (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428146)

sure, you can just go to Miguel's de Icaza's new company Xamarin and hire them as consultants to write Mono to whatever .NET version you need, for a nominal fee

And nothing of value was lost (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427878)

I highly doubt that MS will dump .NET simply because it is there technology and the control it provides. I would be more worried about them embracing, extending and extinguishing HTML5 and JavaScript as anyone could develop using these free tools instead of Visual Studio.

There, They're, Their... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36428298)

There, They're, Their...

breaking news (4, Funny)

nimbius (983462) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427884)

developers worry that closed platform multinational vendor may deprecate without concern
bloated proprietary framework in favour of "Next Big Thing(c)" in order to shore up appearance
of internet dominance. further research suggests multinational vendor may dabble in/support "next big thing"
until it loses its questionable interest, profits slip, lawsuits ensue, or wacky CEO sings songs.

all this followed by analysis/fearmongering/rampant speculation that closed platform multinational vendor may have
only been relevant a decade ago and/or is secretly a homosexual sharia law terrorist kenyan.

Misleading, FUD, etc (5, Insightful)

A Friendly Troll (1017492) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427900)

The developers worry about Silverlight and WPF, not .Net in general. .Net will still have its place for desktop apps and it will still be used as a server-side web platform. Silverlight and WPF have nothing (well, almost nothing, to the point of being inconsequential) to do with that.

But this is Slashdot, and that's Soulskill...

Re:Misleading, FUD, etc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36428000)

This really. OP understands very little about what he is writing about.

WTF is WPF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36428306)

Seriously...

Re:WTF is WPF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36428372)

Windows Proprietary Framework or something. Who cares. Seriously. It's just another MS TLA.

Re:Misleading, FUD, etc (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36428348)

Exactly right. I sat there wondering how they could possibly be kill the whole framework, until flipping through those forums.

First, those people are retarded. Second, Silverlight is largely DoA, except for a small handful of high profile uses (like on Netflix, which people HATE). What are these people screaming about?

Re:Misleading, FUD, etc (1)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428360)

Indeed, my first response to the summary as written was, "What is Microsoft going to replace desktop and server-side C# with, C++? Yeah, right."

Silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36427902)

I'm a .NET developer and this is just useless worry. Javascript is already widely used and HTML5 isn't something that will replace .NET, it's something that will replace Silverlight.

Silverlight devs, on the other hand, have a right to be furious.

Re:Silly (2, Funny)

Tarlus (1000874) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428030)

Silverlight devs

Are you sure that should be plural? =)

Re:Silly (0)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428176)

yes, for all two of them, including the one looking for work in this recession

Its shit like this slashdot.... (5, Insightful)

Yold (473518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427906)

JavaScript is a great language, but using it for full-blown enterprise app development would be a major setback. Strongly typed languages are great for the enterprise, because you know (and Intellisense knows too) at compile time what to expect from objects.

Furthermore, I'd speculate that the performance of the .NET Virtual Machine is miles ahead of any JavaScript VM. I cannot recall hearing about any JavaScript VMs that support multiple threads either.

Shit like this makes me not even want to come to this site.

Re:Its shit like this slashdot.... (4, Insightful)

JustSomeProgrammer (1881750) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428076)

+1 Agree. Javascript and HTML 5 I think is great for client side, but server side? I don't really want to write JavaScript for talking to a database.

Silverlight is not windows in a browser (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36427910)

There are no Datasets in Silverlight! How could MS leave that out? Every Ms Programmer loved Ado recordsets and they love Datasets. Adoption would have been higher. Also, all calls to web r service must be non blocking. Bug hurdle for dumber devs. And no right mouse button! Any surprise silverlight flopped?

That would be a GOOD thing (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427924)

If you're a Microsoft fan, this should make you happy - it would mean Microsoft is thinking about the future and realizing that future is multi-platform. In the past, Microsoft's behavior has been more along the lines of "attempting to shove the genie back into the bottle".

The problem I've encountered with a number of Windows "devs" is they seem strongly averse to learning anything new (or maybe they're simply incapable of doing so). In these guys' perfect world, everyone would still be running ActiveX-based apps with IE 6.

Re:That would be a GOOD thing (1)

choko (44196) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428244)

It's not that they won't or can't learn anything new, it's that learning a new language takes time. That's time that could be spent coding and making money.

Re:That would be a GOOD thing (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428294)

A multi-plataform Microsoft is the end of every Microsoft thing we have today. Fanboys are quite right to be afraid.

Also, the developers will take another hit... It seems that every decade MS makes their old developers' jobs go away, and create a shinning new technology that only inexperient developers will care to learn. Somehow, that doesn't hurt Microsoft's botton line, altough it severely hurts their image.

What about just being the rendering engine? (1)

CokoBWare (584686) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427930)

When MS says Win8 = HTML5/js, couldn't they just mean that apps built with the new tools for Win8 will RENDER using HTML5/js, but all of the platform is still .NET? This seems the likely evolutionary choice for me...

Sensational (1)

JonnyRocks (877543) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427942)

This story has gotten out of hand and I didn't think would show up here. They showed a start screen with tiles done in HTML5. .NET is not oging anywhere. All your full fledged applications will run on .NET. Microsoft themselves have invested in .NET, in their own products.

Does dumping .NET mean dumping XNA? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427946)

If Microsoft dumps the .NET Framework, then it dumps XNA Game Studio, and it also dumps the only widespread set-top platform for video games from the smallest of studios.

even if it's true... (1)

TWX (665546) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427952)

...that's why you take a good, hard look at who pulls the strings for a given language and why before you adopt it. When a company, by itself, is the controlling body this is a risk. Granted, consortiums can take a long time to do things, and single companies theoretically can respond more quickly when needs arise, but a company is in the position to write the floor out from under you for the sake of their profits.

Microsoft has a track record of this kind of behavior. It's no surprise if true.

Excuse for having IE as Windows default? (1)

BlindMaster (2262842) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427954)

I guess there might be other strategy for MS to make this change. One thing I can think of is to have IE bundled with Windows, so they can ship and enable IE by default for better experience.

The concern is pretty simple, as a manager... (1)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427960)

What is the future of Silverlight/WPF going to really hold for us? We use it in Line of Business apps because we can cross deploy to our Mac users and Windows users, get a level of performance we know we can trust, and not worry about browser issues as we would in native ASP or PHP.

Microsoft is committed to the platform, and I don't think there's any denying that; the problem is that with a presentation of this magnitude, there has to be room to clarify the positions, and quickly. I work in the financial sector and people jump on news that ultimately amounts to nothing. It takes but a moment for their PR person to get out there and say we are fully commited to .NET as a platform, and the HTML5/JS is only going to be used for the tiles, or whatever.

My gut instinct tells me that this is a result of in-fighting within the teams at MS; the IE9 team is heavily embedded into the HTML5 arena, and obviously the rest of MS has its own methods and thoughts on things. Simply put, Ballmer needs to go, and they need a unified voice back in charge to get the infighting out (I have had friends who quit MS for this specific reason) and get the engineers able to shine.

Because despite what people at Slashdot think, MS hires some *really* smart people. They just have a terrible management layer.

Par for the course (-1, Troll)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427968)

Anybody who have ever gotten into bed with Microsoft has gotten fucked. Why would you be any different? If you've made big investments in .NET, you have no one to blame but yourself.

open-source will naturally dominate (1)

achlorophyl (2205676) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427978)

Aren't JavaScript and HTML5 kind of open-source philosophy? While .NET is apparently very proprietary... I think if you truly appreciate the world community of intelligent developers, we as a group will "naturally" move to more open practices... With a large group experimenting with code, how can any one corporation hope to match the bug-catching, the innovation?

Re:open-source will naturally dominate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36428024)

No... you can get C#/.NET on just about every platform now (look up Mono). There are open standards for it. The only thing really holding it back on other platforms is simple prejudice because it comes from Microsoft.

Re:open-source will naturally dominate (1, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428308)

It's hardly "simple prejudice". First of all Mono sucks and does not offer anywhere near the current .NET experience. Mono developers are stuck a generation behind.

Second of all, there are many reasons not to trust Microsoft or its technologies, and damned few reasons to trust it. It's not like .NET does things so incredibly well that other platforms are left in the dust. Mono is not a killer app, any more than .NET is.

Re:open-source will naturally dominate (1)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428406)

The problem is HTML5 and JS are not appropriate languages for 90% of development projects. Ever tried to, oh I don't know, make a complex CMS entirely in javascript and HTML5? What about multithreaded applications? What about just the fact that JavaScript is terrible to write any sizable library for an enterprise in? Do you really think Microsoft is going to back a dynamicly typed, poor-performing, ill-organized scripting language to be the only language for writing windows apps?

You can write Visual Studio in .Net, can you write a browser in JS?

No (1)

allometry (840925) | more than 3 years ago | (#36427988)

Perhaps its just me, but this question is mixing apples and oranges.

JS/HTML5 are stand alone utilities in their own right, but you typically don't see a website these days without some form of ajax going on. You still need something to fulfill those requests from a server and .NET, PHP, Java and many others fill that role well.

So, why posture a question like this? Why would Microsoft want to kill .NET development and toss away all the progress they've made with ASP.NET, C#, WP and XBOX?

I do quite a bit of .NET development with MVC 3 and I'm not the slightest bit worried. Anyone who's doing work with Silverlight should be, because I can see that technology being axed in favor of pushing tools that use HTML5, JS and CSS 3.

Re:No (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428004)

So, why posture a question like this? Why would Microsoft want to kill .NET development and toss away all the progress they've made with ASP.NET, C#, WP and XBOX?

People were asking the same thing about VB6+COM. Microsoft does it because they can, and because Windows is still a substantial enough target for developers that they'll go along with it, mumbling and threatening to jump ship to be sure, but going along with it nevertheless.

Fear Mongering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36428018)

This panic surrounding Microsoft and HTML5 is the dumbest fear mongering in all the years I've read about Microsoft fear mongering.

Then use mono-moonlight (3, Interesting)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428022)

It's too easy and too soon to say told ya, it could be a clever MS strategy to instill panic and when hordes of devs cry release a new shiny net for win8, with Ballmer chanting "we care for you!!" in front of some burning chairs sacrificed for the occasion.

If things go wrong... till a couple months ago slashdot was full of people telling .net is good, 'cause there is a free implementation... since it appears to be true, to an extent, .net developers should regroup on mono, at least to keep investments already committed to .net safe for a few years.
It's not like a full free software stack when you run it on windows and MS will make sure that their own stuff runs better than mono on their own OS, but bitching about microsoft is a sign of little attention to their track record.

Awww (1)

ravenswood1000 (543817) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428046)

They are from Microsoft. Let them cry. Poor babies

Maybe not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36428064)

.NET Framework is more then making websites. I look at .NET Framework as a backend solution to build apps that can scale and multiple tiers of services that it can provided or developed on.

HTML5 and javascript are easy frontend tools to get a design or small apps to the market faster.

Really? C'Mon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36428066)

Let's also keep in mind that .Net's strength is server side... HTML5/CSS3/JS is a means to pretty up the client presentation. This whole idea seems ridiculous.

Hey, hey. (1)

drolli (522659) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428068)

There seem to be people out there who confuse .net with silverlight or things running in your browser.

Yes. that is *one* technology where .net can be, but is not much used. It is like "oh, cryptographic tokens dont run java exclusively", has oracle/sun let us down?

The main amount of .net in my impression is on the server side/native windows applications. As far as i can see microsoft is *not* going to make the windows desktop and html5 browser coupled to some small computing core with ajax.

In the web, silverlight never catched on. If you couldn't interpret the statistics as a company for yourself and did invest more in it than a functional prototype in the alpha stage to figure that out, you deserve to loose the investment; if it wipes you out financially, good for the world. End users may have illusions about technologies which are there to stay. Softwar companies not.

Microsoft always consistently supports very old technologies which were successfully introduced. Things which were not successful are most of the time kept compatible but not evolved. And microsoft never tried to push a technology beyond the point where a vast majority of the customers plainly did not find it useful.

This Is News? (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428090)

>Microsoft developers feel left in the dark and very angry at the way they are being treated.

I thought that was the normal state of affairs for MS developers.

Netflix? (1)

warchildx (1695278) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428102)

Doesnt netflix require silverlight? will microsoft be migrating this to something else, or include "microsoft silverlight runtime" for future windows os, but no new feature releases?

Silverlight, probably. .NET, probably not. (1)

JMZero (449047) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428104)

This story made a lot more sense when it was about Silverlight. HTML5+Script does a lot of what Silverlight is meant to do, and it thus makes sense Silverlight is going to get less love.

However, HTML5+Script doesn't replace the other roles .NET has in the MS dev plan, which is basically everything else: random desktop apps, services, database-integrated software, server-side web stuff. That last one might seem like the closest, but even then it makes sense for MS to leave the server side mostly the same, but just change how it works on the client side.

MS has certainly dumped developers before - and I fully expect them to screw over Silverlight developers - but .NET is a reasonable framework, the bulk of which is not replaced by HTML5+Script. Even as someone who's fairly skeptical about MS, I find it very unlikely we'll see a major shift from .NET in the next 5 years.

Oh geeee (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428118)

i WAS telling that anyone who banked on microsoft, including net thing, could get shafted, and a lot of microsoftbots had slammed me. fast forward to > now .... and ?

Re:Oh geeee (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428362)

Yeh I can just see Microsoft's next server platform being HTML5 + JS

Silverlight and WPF might be going away but ASP.NET is unlikely to go anywhere for some time to come.

They aren't comparable (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428122)

I like Javascript; it's a nice little language, more elegant and powerful than it's often given credit for. However, it has a certain domain, and it cannot be used for every task .net is good for. The only things moving from .net to Javascript will be small, undemanding apps.

Now, I wouldn't put it past MS to drop .net and introduce something new; but it won't be a JS/HTML5 combo. It would be something else. Right now, if they dropped .net, most development would move to C++ or Java, not javascript.

ftfy (1)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428132)

PHBs Worried, Devs Secretly Hopeful, Microsoft Will Dump .NET

In Other News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36428138)

Grape juice makers are worried about apples being thrown out in favor of oranges ...

I'd not worry about it. (1)

waddgodd (34934) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428140)

I'd pretty much count on Microsoft phasing out .NET. Soon? Can't see that happening, the investment was too great too recently to get people to switch from visual studio. I DO see the first phase coming soon: accelerating the EOL of the products on the market now. I'd have thought that Microsoft devels would be ready for this kind of dick move by now, it's happened with every other Microsoft IDE.

Hey, .NET devs (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428148)

You know how all us freetards keep harping on about software freedom and why it's actually important and stuff?

This is why.

.Net Programmers Shouldn't be so Upset (1)

smist08 (1059006) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428150)

After all COBOL programmers still get jobs. In the computer industry you either upgrade your skills or off to a legacy programming retirement home. .Net now joins the ranks of COBOL, VB6, Fortran, etc. as well paying but un-exciting jobs maintaining old programs. No one is going to start writing a new exciting program that doesn't run on all of iOS, MacOS, Android, WebOS and even Windows. What's the point, lots of people are doing it, get on board.

.NOT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36428154)

This is a great move for Microsoft because it ruffles the feathers of the amateur .NET/.NOT 'developers'. .NOT was a failure and even Microsoft has realized it.

Killing SL will not directly kill .NET (1)

rabun_bike (905430) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428178)

First, .NET != Silverlight. Killing Silverlight will not kill the .NET CLR. A special version of the .NET CLR was created to support Microsoft's push into vector based graphic UI's (e.g. Silverlight) but .NET is just a programming language that Silverlight adopted for good reason. HTML5 + JS, in my humble opinion, is simply a change in direction from the previous attempt of trying to dumb down flashy Windows's UI development with XAML. After all, XAML was simply a XML based description language for the underlying vector graphics engine. If you haven't picked up by now, the interfaces to this vector graphics engine are changing with the industry. This of course sucks for those who are heavily invested in Silverlight development. Likewise, Flash developers are being locked out of the Apple ecosystem and are facing different frustrations. In all, the reality is that the industry is moving forward and there are a lot of people who have invested into these technologies and they are not going to be happy about the changes. I don't blame them. I, just as any developer on the Windows platform, have suffered through the Microsoft technology graveyard which has headstones for VB6, VBX controls, ActiveX, COM, COM+, MTS, DNA, MSMQ (to a degree), C++'s MFC, ATL, RDP, DCOM, DAO, VBScript, VBA, and ASP among many others. Microsoft technologies entering triage include C++ CLR, ASP.NET, XAML, WPF, and I am certain quite a few others. Now, in my humble opinion I don't think the .NET CLR is dead or even dying as it is the defacto programming language for WinForm development on the Windows platform. But it isn't going to be a hot technology. One could argue new Windows based applications won't need .NET but that will take some time if it is even possible. The language is really the only sane way to build applications for Windows unless you are using one of the very nice open source C++ frameworks or you simply have given up on Windows and target the web. In that case you better brush up on HTML5 and JS.

Re:Killing SL will not directly kill .NET (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428388)

.NET is a framework that several languages including VB, C# and Python can target. It isn't a language in itself.

Hope so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36428182)

.Net is horrible, but at the same time I have no desire to write programs for my own machine in HTML/javascript. Doesn't anyone use C/C++ and a compiler anymore.

WebOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36428188)

So they copied HP/Palm's mobile app platform?

like baseball fans, after the strike (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36428222)

the always vow they won't come back, and they always do

what are MS developers gonna do, look for another job ?

you become a parasite, ya gotta go with the host...

so, about those dev tools (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36428250)

Does this mean I'll get decent javascript tools?

I've got no farking care in the world what I develop in as long as I've got decent tools to do it with.

Since when is silverlight cross plateform ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36428280)

Silverlight is maybe "cross windows" but not corss plateform. There are some attempt at duplicating it on linux, but nowwhere near what's on windows.

Long term yes for windows 8 no (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428288)

Dot Net is not going away in Windows 8 and it will probably be supported for at the very least the next decade. I would expect the trend to be away from it though toward emca script to be very real, that and possibly other interpreted languages. The whole bytecode interpreter concept is yesterdays tech. There was a brief period where for performance reasons it made sense, Dot Net if anything appeared after that day was passed. I have been saying this for years now and I stick by it. We are at a point where devices are powerful enough that a purely interpeted language is faster and more felxible to develop in, is more portable, and performs fine for all but a small subset of applications. Those applications that don't work well as interpeted code or so performance intensive that only native code is a real solution, whatever languge you select. Bycode interpeters be it CLR or JVM are answers to a question nobody is really asking anymore. They have little value other than incumbancy.

Spoken like a true web developer (4, Interesting)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428346)

"The problem is that Microsoft needs a technology that gives it an edge, and HTML5/JavaScript is everybody's edge."

Pardon the French, but are you fucking kidding me? HTML5/JS isn't anybody's edge. HTML/JS is in no way appropriate for writing an actual application. It may work, barely, in some circumstances, but it's the worst tool for almost any job except where it's required (in the browser).

Fortunately, as stated elsewhere, the concern is with the abandonment of Silverlight (which isn't really that great a loss, except for the people MS tricked into investing time and money in), not .NET as a whole.

Re:Spoken like a true web developer (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428392)

*nods*

That's saying "Microsoft needs more customer lock-in and more proprietary things to force on their users, not following open standards and inter-operability." what's wrong with you?

Of course, I suppose that might be good for Microsoft, but not the rest of the planet. Whose side are you on anyway?

.NET / CLR was the logical choice (1)

Altesse (698587) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428350)

Is it just me or was the obvious choice to use the CLR as the commeon ground for every development Windows-related ?
Just as Dalvik is used for Android, the CLR could have been integrated to every Windows, be it Intel or Arm-based. That way, developers could have coded once (in .NET) and deployed on Windows 7, Windows 8-Arm, Windows Phone, etc.

This is a stupid article. (3, Informative)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428404)

And this is why it's stupid:

Web development is a small subset of what you can do with .NET.

The other 90%+ of things you can do with .NET you're not going to write as a web application. Period.

Someone might as well ask whether HTML5 will replace C++. It'd be as about as idiotic of a question. Not only is the answer obviously no in either case, even asking the question reveals that the asker doesn't have even the most basic idea of what they're talking about.

UI / Logic Separation (1)

Lawand (1345185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36428408)

The next big thing might be the separation of UI and core program logic. An example of this is what Nokia's Qt is heading towards: QML for UI (which is similar to or might even be a subset to Javascript, I am not sure) and Qt for the program logic and actual implementation of functionality. This is a powerful approach and it has many advantages that I think most Slashdot reader know. This might a new (optional) strategy for Microsoft applications, HTML5/Javascript for the UI and .NET for the implementation. Disclaimer: I am an expert in neither Qt/QML nor HTML5/Javascript/.NET and what I am saying is just a thought, and I haven't heard about Microsoft (or anyone else for that matter) saying that this is what they are aiming at. I just wanted to share a thought.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>