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!

The Longhorn Dream Reborn

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the longhorn-dream-is-enlarging-barton-springs dept.

Microsoft 254

gbjbaanb writes "Early this month, Microsoft dropped something of a bombshell on Windows developers: the new Windows 8 touch-friendly immersive style would use a developer platform not based on .NET. Cue howls of outrage from .NET developers everywhere, but here Ars Technica describes what's more likely to have been going on and why Microsoft is finally getting its act together for developers."

cancel ×

254 comments

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

Microsoft Obsoletes [Another] Developer Tool (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36548362)

Film at 11.

Seriously, was it not expected at this point?

Re:Microsoft Obsoletes [Another] Developer Tool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36548392)

Suck my longhorn.

Re:Microsoft Obsoletes [Another] Developer Tool (1)

xkuehn (2202854) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548454)

And people ask me why I don't want to be a programmer.

Re:Microsoft Obsoletes [Another] Developer Tool (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36548498)

Say what you like about PulseAudio, OSS, and GTK/QT - when you write something for *nix, or more specifically for FOSS, it tends to have long-term viability.

Re:Microsoft Obsoletes [Another] Developer Tool (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548578)

It's harder to obsolete a library when people can just fork it and keep on as they always were. Unfortunately, they're free to do so whether or not the new option is worse than the older one.

PulseAudio - indeed (3, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548598)

im somewhat of an audophile, and despite i have been using windows xp with extra software like srs audio sandbox (cryztalizes and clears sounds) and a good sound card (original x-fi x-treme music, from the production batch which got the good chips) with crystallizer and so on, on top of an altec lansing fx6021 speaker set (in-concert array microdrives totaling 12, crystal clear) for a long time,

i was dumbstruck with the audio quality pulseaudio + x-fi x-treme music + audacious media player with crystallizer plugin gave, when i switched to linux.

now im switching to linux every time i want to listen to music in high quality.

Re:PulseAudio - indeed (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36548782)

most audiophiles prefer unaltered streams.. there is no 'crystalizer' support for xfi under linux.

yeaaa (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36550570)

they do. good luck finding such streams in the world of dynamic range boosted audio recordings.

there is no crystalizer support for x fi under linux, but audacious media player does that perfectly well (even better) with its crystalizer plugin.

Re:PulseAudio - indeed (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548936)

now im switching to linux every time i want to listen to music in high quality.

If only there were similarly good tools for professional music production in Linux. It's getting there, but not yet.

Though as I've written before, there's definitely a place for Linux in the studio. Especially with Cockos' Reamote.

Re:PulseAudio - indeed (2)

petteyg359 (1847514) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548988)

The terms "audiophile" and "cryztalize" don't go together. Not even if you spell crystallize (or crystallise for the silly country) correctly.

Re:Microsoft Obsoletes [Another] Developer Tool (2)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548768)

As opposed to all those MFC apps I wrote 15 years ago, which no longer work. Oh, wait... they do work.

Visual Studio For the gypsy-punching WIN!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36548424)

Did anyone really think that Mycro$opht would screw over it's Developers Developers Developers??

Do people reallly think that Mycrasaft are a bunch of racist losers like Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump, and the Tee Paartyy??

Get real!

Not quite... (-1)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548464)

The difference is that Longhorn's projected API's were advanced API's built on existing languages, tools, and frameworks, whereas the JavaScript switch is an attempt to move developers to a totally different (and arguably inferior) system. It solves the architecture-compatibility issue easily enough, but there are serious limits in what currently exists as "HTML5 and Javascript" (lack of threads, performance, etc) that make this a potentially very bad decision.

Re:Not quite... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36548522)

i love it when it's blatantly obvious you didn't read the article. i guess i shouldn't expect more from here though

Re:Not quite... (0)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548552)

Sure I did. It can be summarized, roughly, as "Microsoft won't abandon developers because, uh, they won't. And the reason they've said nothing about native and .NET development is... hmm. BUT THEY'LL PULL THROUGH!"

Re:Not quite... (3, Insightful)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548792)

No, because they looked at Windows 8. And because anybody who's not, literally, mentally defective knows Microsoft isn't going to abandon .NET. You have to be a little smarter (say, 105 IQ) to know they're not going to abandon Silverlight, so I'll cut you a little slack there.

The idea is ridiculous. You seriously think people are going to write complex end user and enterprise apps in JS/HTML5? Seriously?

Re:Not quite... (1)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549574)

Enterprise, yes. Personal, maybe/probably not. Lemme answer for him since I work on "enterprise" applications.

In the enterprise, you have two options for deploying to hundreds of users: installing local apps on every workstation, or using Citrix (which is nice, but pretty flakey sometimes). Citrix is basically Windows Remote Desktop, but more tuned to the task. In fact, MS licensed the technology from them.

Anyhow, when you need to perform maintenance or upgrades, you have to touch hundreds of workstations. Yes, there are ways to do this more easily, but it's easier with Citrix. And it's most easy if you just have web server software to upgrade.

Now, none of this actually relates to Microsoft per se, but this is how large ISV enterprise-oriented companies are moving. Hope that helps!

Re:Not quite... (1)

cob666 (656740) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549904)

I work at a pretty large multi national manufacturing company that is primarily a windows shop but also has a pretty large Citrix user base. Citrix is primarily used by users on the shop floor that require basic functionality (although we have several custom applications that are run under Citrix). While I agree with you that maintenance can be very easy in a Citrix environment, the company I work at has a pretty good handle on how to leverage AD, GPO and Windows Update Server to ensure that all machines connected to the network are updated properly and are always configured properly. I don't work in the networking group but I think it's pretty impressive how simple it is to manage such a large number of Windows workstations pretty much 'hands off' if the domain servers (login scripts and GPO rules) are configured properly.

I'm looking forward to seeing how Microsoft is going to implement a new core set of APIs without shitting on the current developer base.

Re:Not quite... (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36550084)

Anyhow, when you need to perform maintenance or upgrades, you have to touch hundreds of workstations. Yes, there are ways to do this more easily, but it's easier with Citrix. And it's most easy if you just have web server software to upgrade.

You can have both of the world with REST (no session logic on the server) and a framework that accepts plugin-updates (e.g. Eclipse framework).
I heard cases in which stock trading apps were crafted this way - can't respond fast enough in a simple page in browser (mainly because of the server overload), can't afford not to update them, can't imagine a way in which the deployment a new version can be achieved by "download the installer and run it" means.

Re:Not quite... (1)

CapOblivious2010 (1731402) | more than 3 years ago | (#36550248)

...can't imagine a way in which the deployment a new version can be achieved by "download the installer and run it" means.

These people have a serious lack of imagination. You install the app once, via whatever mechanism you choose, then it "self-heals" by downloading updates and replacing itself on disk. It's not that hard, and (assuming you never screw up the upgrade process ;-) it works great.

Re:Not quite... (2)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549590)

> No, because they looked at Windows 8.

Except that they didn't. They looked at a random build. Remember that Sagans of KLoCs were written for Longhorn and then abandoned. That wasn't the first time and it won't be the last. People wrote articles based on those leaked copies too, because they were intentionally leaked for just that purpose. It has always been thus, everyone else's shipping products are compared to what Microsoft says it will ship 'RSN.' Then it eventually ships and isn't anything like what was promised. Rinse and repeat every couple of years.

About all that can be stated with any certainty is that Windows 8 will probably ship sometime between 12 and 24 months from now and will add support for ARM and a tabletish touch interface. The tablets are a done deal because they would totally piss off OEMs who are already putting product into the pipeline that they would ship Android or Meego if Microsoft changed course on em.

Windows 7 is the only product that resembled the prerelease hype and that was because the goals were so minimal, Make a Windows Vista that doesn't suck donkey balls. Since they had eliminated most of the worst suckage by Vista SP1 (and people generally were buying it on new hardware instead of upgrading by then) about all that was left was to reskin it so people who had heard that "Vista Sucks" wouldn't look at 7 and instantly associate it with Vista.

Re:Not quite... (5, Informative)

Z34107 (925136) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548542)

RTFA.

Windows developers want to be able to build immersive applications, and they don't want to have to use HTML5 and JavaScript to do it. They won't have to. ... Far from being left behind on the legacy desktop - which was the impression that many took from the presentation - native C++ and managed C# will both be first-class, supported ways of developing immersive, touch-first, tablet-friendly Windows 8-style applications.

Re:Not quite... (3, Informative)

segedunum (883035) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548912)

Unfortunately the article doesn't explain how they arrived at that conclusion other than it being their own opinion and possibly their own wish. That whole Longhorn WinFX finally coming to reality thing is another opinion piece. We heard many similar stories for Cairo many moons ago and that whole object oriented operating system rubbish around Windows 2000.

Re:Not quite... (2)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549134)

The whole idea is to confuse you, so that you won't jump ship, and the ______ that you use now will kinda sorta be ok, and hey, imagine stuff working from phones to tablets to notebooks to desktops, any of which could have a cool GPU to do stuff, and you can maybe sorta use your old code.

Got it? Great. Logon now. Please. Pretty Please. HTML5! Java! You're a FOSS guy, right? You like that Java stuff! We promise not to fork it! Not like that stuff that's in court facing a huge settlement with Oracle, right? C'mon, please???

Re:Not quite... (1)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549332)

You know Java isn't related Javascript, right?

Re:Not quite... (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549490)

Yeah.

Re:Not quite... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36550518)

Yeah.

i don't think you do.

Re:Not quite... (1)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548960)

The way I see it is that MS is trying to push toward an easy interface for creating apps, while still leaving "legacy" languages functioning. It's a good sign really, there's a lot on the wind about where iOS will be headed. While Apple may not be able to beat MS at raw market penetration, iOS has shown that you can decimate market leaders by simplifying application development, delivery and accessibility. Look at Nokia, at one stage they almost owned the mobile market, now they have lost almost all their market power.

If MS can pull this off by streamlining mobile, tablet & desktop development I am betting we'll see a final clash of the titans between Apple and MS. At the moment it's just a bit of a dance around each other, will be a great fight to watch.

Re:Not quite... (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549808)

The way I see it is that MS is trying to push toward an easy interface for creating apps

So they're switching to Qt or GTK? Probably Qt but it doesn't really matter because they'll also provide wx so you can use the language of your choice and the UI details will be transparent. So what that means is dumping a bunch of legacy code and providing wx.net. Sounds good to me, I won't have to change a thing to remain cross-platform.

Re:Not quite... (1)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549086)

It solves the architecture-compatibility issue easily enough, but there are serious limits in what currently exists as "HTML5 and Javascript" (lack of threads, performance, etc) that make this a potentially very bad decision.

What decision? They aren't 'moving developers' to this platform, all i've seen is that they have a new development platform - clearly not as technically capable as their multiple existing development platforms - based on HTML5 and Javascript.

Re:Not quite... (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549344)

HTML5 plus JS can be a nice option for small stuff - gadgets, simple apps, etc. Lack of threading isn't very important - you can use asynchronous tasks, Ã la Web Workers. Sure it's less powerful, but more than enough for many tasks (and probably preferable if you don't really need threads).

The main concern is Trident's performance compared to V8 or TraceMonkey.

Re:Not quite... (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 3 years ago | (#36550574)

The difference is that Longhorn's projected API's were advanced API's built on existing languages, tools, and frameworks, whereas the JavaScript switch is an attempt to move developers to a totally different (and arguably inferior) system.

But this is not a radical switch to Javascript designed to eliminate all other development systems any more than when Microsoft used HTML and Javascript to implement the Windows Sidebar [microsoft.com] , or when they used HTML and Javascript to implement HTML Applications (HTAs) [microsoft.com] , or when they used HTML and Javascript to implement Active Desktop gadgets [microsoft.com] .

This is just a continuation of their development strategy that dates back to 1997. The controversy surrounding the use of HTML5 for the interface is just stupid and unjustified angst that ignores nearly 15 years of API precedent.

So then, (-1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548526)

after silverlight, they are dropping .NET too ? what happened to "developers developers developers" ?

Re:So then, (3, Funny)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548536)

Toss a few chairs and you'll get over it.

Re:So then, (5, Interesting)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548572)

They're not dropping Silverlight or .NET. Try to pay attention. Nobody with any sense ever thought they were going to, but the usual suspects took every opportunity to make a "Durr hurr, Microsoft screwing over developers" thing out of it when there was no indication whatsoever this would happen.

Nobody sane wants to develop large applications in fucking native JS and HTML5, and Microsoft knows that.

Re:So then, (2, Insightful)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548648)

You'll never find a shortage of people who will take anything they can to shout about how microsoft is screwing everyone (these days it's often done with Apple too). Seriously this is entirely based on the fact that they announced that the apps they showed were based on HTML5 and Javascript, yet from that you end up with morons shouting 'MS are killing silverlight and .Net!!!'.

Re:So then, (3, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548728)

You mean that rumor I heard about Steve Ballmer turning tricks in Bellingham are false?

Re:So then, (2)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548796)

You mean that rumor I heard about Steve Ballmer turning tricks in Bellingham are false?

I wouldn't go that far ;)

Re:So then, (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36550378)

You mean that rumor I heard about Steve Ballmer turning tricks in Bellingham are false?

Having visited Bellingham, all I can say is he'd fit right in

Re:So then, (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36549114)

+1 to this, some of the tards crying on linkedin was priceless

Re:So then, (0)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549268)

I'm kinda glad to see .NET go. It was a nice idea but like so many things Microsoft tries to invent, they just don't seem to carry on the way they imagine. Sure some things stick but those are usually the things they force on users, businesses and governments everywhere. But you know, I like my xboxes...

Re:So then, (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36549668)

erroneus, you always leave w/ your tail between your legs? http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2253808&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=36521452 [slashdot.org]
Looks like you got your ass beat and ran.

Re:So then, (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36550436)

Wow, APK? You actually follow this guy around? You have *serious* mental health issues, mate and I say that with all sincerity. You have spent a good 10 years carrying on in the same way - abusing everyone online, shouting about your l33tness and generally just coming across like a tool. Have you truly never wondered why every single person you speak to online thinks you're an idiot? Is every single person on the planet wrong, except you?

Re:So then, (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36550232)

They are NOT dropping .Net ... Do you seriously think that MS is going to make people write enterprise applications and server processes in HTML and Javascript??? Why are so many people incapable of applying a little critical thinking after reading/hearing something? Here's a test: go try writing a service in html & javascript. Do it. Go now, I'll wait. K, how well did that work out? Still think they're dropping .Net?

The GUI will be based in html & Javascript ... which potentially means an end to winforms & WPF. POTENTIALLY. There's a lot more to .Net than GUIs.

On a side note, the sky is falling, and oh, WOLF!

Re:So then, (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#36550534)

You missed out on hta applications then... Ok Microsoft absolutely has tried to get people to develop application in HTML/vbscript/javascipt in the past/

Re:So then, (1)

WNight (23683) | more than 3 years ago | (#36550298)

They're always looking for new ones who don't know how the last ones got screwed.

Re:So then, (3, Funny)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36550318)

what happened to "developers developers developers" ?

They moved into the "O-cloud-O cloud-O cloud" [readwriteweb.com]

Standard modus operandi (3, Interesting)

mrsam (12205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548556)

If anything, we should be surprised that anyone's surprised. Whether or not TFA's theory is true, one thing is absolutely clear: .NET, like any Microsoft technology, has an expiration date.

Anyone remember COM, VBX, and other MS-Windows technologies of yesteryear? Or the Visual Basic debacle of more recent vintage. For as long as I can remember, there's been a steady churn of Microsoft technologies, coming and going.

Microsoft makes a lot of money from selling its development tools, documentation, etc... to its developer base. Microsoft simply runs the whole show. They are in full control, and call all the shots. And they understand perfectly well that if they keep the same technology platform in place, over time, they lose a good chunk of their revenue stream. That's why they have to obsolete their technology platforms, time and time again. They need revenue. It makes perfect sense. If you are a Microsoft Windows developer, one of your primary job functions is to generate revenue to Microsoft. Perhaps not from you, directly; maybe from your company. Whoever pays the bills for Visual Studio, MSDN, and all the other development tools. Maybe it's not you, personally, but it's going to be someone, that's for sure.

So, perhaps this is the death knell for .NET. Perhaps not. If not this time, maybe next year. But it's inevitable. It's a certainty. If you are a .NET developer, your skills will be obsolete. If you were a COM developer, or a VB6 developer, your skills became obsolete a long time. I see no reason why .NET developers will escape the same fate. It's only a matter of time, but that's ok: all you have to do is invest some time and money to retrain yourself on the replacement Microsoft Windows technology, whatever it's going to be, when its time comes. But, it'll come.

Originally I came from a Unix background. Many, many moons ago I explored the possibility of boning up on the MS-Windows ways of doing things. But, after a bit of some exploratory peeks and pokes, this became painfully clear to me; that whatever I learned, all of it was going go to waste, in its due time. And that was pretty much the end of my venture into the Windows landscape.

Well, I'm happy to report that read(2), write(2), and all the other syscalls that make up POSIX, and its derivatives, still work the same as they did decades ago. Everything I have learned, as the sands of time have rolled on and on, I still put to good use today, and I make a pretty good living using them. Nothing has gone to waste. Honestly, this is more than I could say for my peers who practice their craft on MS-Windows. A lot -- not everything but a lot -- they learned decades ago is now completely and totally worthless to them, and to anyone else.

So, whether Windows 8 is Longhorn reborn, as TFA says, or not, one thing can be said for certain. .NET is dead. It's just a matter of time. Good luck learning its eventual replacement. Of course, you understand that it'll be dead too, some years after that, of course; just keep that in mind, as you make your long term plans.

Re:Standard modus operandi (5, Insightful)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548766)

I'm happy to report that read(2), write(2), and all the other syscalls that make up POSIX, and its derivatives, still work the same as they did decades ago.

Great, so it's dead too since it hasn't changed for decades? Same as with COM, there's nothing stopping you from using it and it still works the same as it did many years ago. You can still use all the old technologies and they still all work just the same as they used to.

Re:Standard modus operandi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36549012)

Not true. Allot of the programs need to be run in compatibility mode for a reason. Not to mention the development environment and so forth do not support it.

Re:Standard modus operandi (2)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549326)

Not true. Allot of the programs need to be run in compatibility mode for a reason.

Because they are either unsafe or have been used incorrectly, so they get run in compatibility mode, but as i said they don't work any differently. Just the same as how apple worked in their technology transition phases.

Not to mention the development environment and so forth do not support it.

Of course the development environment supports it, are you sure you know what COM is?
And what's the 'and so forth'? Is that just an attempt to pad out your argument?

Re:Standard modus operandi (2, Interesting)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549206)

Your confusing implementation with interface. read and write's implementation has kept up with the times while maintaining the same interface. So to the programmer it doesn't matter if you are doing a read on a floppy or a wide scale distributed file system via the FUSE interface*, logically it's all the same. Furthermore, although the read and write interfaces haven't changed, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from developing new interfaces that run on top of these functions.

Now compare that to Microsoft who constantly deprecates interfaces which means no new features are ever back ported, doesn't release new dev tools that are compatible with the old interfaces etc. There's a huge difference.

* logically it doesn't matter, though obviously the more the programmer knows about whats going on in the black box the better.

Re:Standard modus operandi (2)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549354)

Your confusing implementation with interface. read and write's implementation has kept up with the times while maintaining the same interface.

Kept up with the times? So has Win32.

Now compare that to Microsoft who constantly deprecates interfaces which means no new features are ever back ported

Oh come on don't be obtuse, look at MFC, it's nearly 20 years old yet it still gets new features, it even got the new ribbon APIs.

Re:Standard modus operandi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36549482)

compare that to Microsoft who constantly deprecates interfaces

yeah POSIX never deprecates interfaces...lol...

Re:Standard modus operandi (1)

assertation (1255714) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549672)

Of course the technologies still work, but does Microsoft support them? Does Microsoft update them to fit modern needs? Can you get as many jobs writing in them? Can you get jobs other than maintenance jobs in them?

Re:Standard modus operandi (1)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549780)

Of course the technologies still work, but does Microsoft support them?

Well ancient things like COM and MFC are still available in the latest VS and are still supported.

Does Microsoft update them to fit modern needs?

MFC is nearly 20 years old and got all the recent ribbon updates.

Can you get as many jobs writing in them?

I don't know.

Can you get jobs other than maintenance jobs in them?

Of course, you can't find any?

Re:Standard modus operandi (4, Interesting)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548844)

Fortunately, free software means that Windows developers can use Win32 approximately forever! On WINE.

I have a theory: like backups, no-one ever really gets the idea of free software until the lack of it has bitten them in the arse, good and hard.

Re:Standard modus operandi (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36548934)

And maybe that's why free software is never going to be mainstream. Even fans of free software like you seem to consider it to be a backup for proprietary software.

Re:Standard modus operandi (2)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#36550324)

You have a funny definition of "mainstream". Apache? Java? Firefox? Android? Linux? GCC? Hell, even the "closed" iPhone has free software at it's roots.

Apple was able take a pre-written free kernel and FreeBSD and pop some proprietary shine on it and rival the largest software company in the world on the desktop, and hand them their ass in mobile.

Re:Standard modus operandi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36548850)

Yeah .Net is dead. Don't know why people ever liked it, it has no wifi and less space then a nomad. Lame.

Re:Standard modus operandi (0, Troll)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548868)

How did this long, rambling, factually inaccurate glob of nonsense get modded up? .NET isn't going anywhere. You're just a UNIX dinosaur trying to blather on about how the primitive tools you write to develop primitive applications are so stable. Congratulations on that, btw. And I have no problem with UNIX, I just find the old school who never bothered to learn anything outside their little domain but still knock it to be risible.

Here's a clue - you're not a fucking COM developer, you're a C++ or .NET or (other) developer who uses COM technology. Here's another clue - it's still around and you can use it if you want.

I'm glad, though, you can spend 10X as much time writing an app in C/C++ and using (lol) your read(2) and write(2) calls.

I'll be back to mock you in 10 years when .NET 8.0 is being released, btw.

Re:Standard modus operandi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36549538)

He may be a dinosaur, but you're just too scared (or too stupid) to actually learn anything hard.
Developer time isn't always the most important thing. Generally, the more important the application, the more important efficiency is.
You're probably just gutted that the things you make every day aren't that important. They're just for small to medium sized businesses or home users. They're not very exciting.
Shame.

Re:Standard modus operandi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36549620)

troll fail

Re:Standard modus operandi (3, Informative)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548884)

You're kinda comparing apples and oranges: on the one hand, MS is trying to provide APIs, libraries features and tools for advanced, maybe even "innovative" features (maybe in misguided ways, but that's not my point), on the other hand, you list almost bare-metal APIs.

As far as I know, these haven"t changed in Windows much either, but most devs simply don't use them.

I'm fully aware that COBOL isn't dead either... It's just not where most of the jobs/money/action is, though I'm sure quite a few people are quite happy working in that space.

all of it was going go to waste (2)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548896)

Originally I came from a Unix background. Many, many moons ago I explored the possibility of boning up on the MS-Windows ways of doing things. But, after a bit of some exploratory peeks and pokes, this became painfully clear to me; that whatever I learned, all of it was going go to waste, in its due time. And that was pretty much the end of my venture into the Windows landscape.

I have to disagree, as anything learned is an advantage you can leverage in future learning.. Also, during the time that 'xyz tech' is in vogue, you are employed and making money from it.. that's not a waste in my book..

Re:Standard modus operandi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36548908)

You are comparing POSIX syscalls to application development frameworks. To be fair, most of the syscalls in Windows have not changed. Today you are still able to write an application in pure Win32, and it will work.

Re:Standard modus operandi (4, Interesting)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548914)

I have a client that has been dragging their feet about leaving their VB6 codebase running on an Access DB and migrating to .NET on MS SQL. Last week one of them saw the Microsoft announcement about 'HTML5 & JavaScript' and now they're afraid transitioning to .NET will be a dead end. Now they want to wait to see how Windows 8 will run their VB6/Access code. They have a lot of time invested in Office 2003 macros & Access code modules, but their DB is nearing the 2GB Access limit and their programmer is retiring in 6 - 12 months. They'll be running XP, Office 2003 & VB6 until they have no other options.

Re:Standard modus operandi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36550050)

Good luck explaining to your why 2GB is a limit now-a-days and in fact good luck to you, sir, explaining why their system which has worked perfectly well up till now is effectively redundant.

Just to re-iterate, the solution you have been running for the past X years to the client's utmost satisfaction is now REDUNDANT.

Int the software world there is (literally) no need to be redundant.

I have spent some time working with MS technologies (MS Exchange was the worst offender) and this xGB limit is the way these motherfuckers sell you some other `solution`. My advice? Dump all your info into a free solution - MySQL would be my first suggestion. It will take you around one month (at the outside. In reality maybe around one day or even one hour)

Once you are there, laugh at the artificial glass ceiling MS imposes on you and enjoy your freedom to operate.

Really, this proprietary vs free software argument is getting old, when there *is* no argument in favour of the old, artificially crippled shite.

Re:Standard modus operandi (5, Insightful)

Jahava (946858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548950)

Microsoft makes a lot of money from selling its development tools, documentation, etc... to its developer base. Microsoft simply runs the whole show. They are in full control, and call all the shots. And they understand perfectly well that if they keep the same technology platform in place, over time, they lose a good chunk of their revenue stream. That's why they have to obsolete their technology platforms, time and time again. They need revenue. It makes perfect sense. If you are a Microsoft Windows developer, one of your primary job functions is to generate revenue to Microsoft. Perhaps not from you, directly; maybe from your company. Whoever pays the bills for Visual Studio, MSDN, and all the other development tools. Maybe it's not you, personally, but it's going to be someone, that's for sure.

So your argument is that Microsoft intentionally periodically obsoletes languages in order to make money? Am I reading this correctly?

You do understand that:

  • Pretty much every commercial MS developer already has an MSDN license, which (minimally) gives them access to the latest development languages, SDKs, and tools.
  • Developing a new language that is at least as compelling as a current one is an expensive and non-trivial feat.
  • Obsoleting a language costs Microsoft a ton of money in rewriting their own software to create new APIs and then use them.
  • Each API and system rewrite introduces new bugs, costing Microsoft even more money identifying, patching, and being held accountable for.
  • One of the oldest MS-supported development languages, C++, has not been obsoleted.
  • One of the major issues with MS development is the legacy APIs that bias towards C++ functionality.

I think your theory has some holes. Now, Microsoft has definitely obsoleted languages - Visual Basic for one (and good riddance) - but they did that because the language had shortcomings. I'd detail them but we have a nice article that already does that. The .NET framework and language stack, C# in particular, is on the same general level as Java: it is a language that more or less suits the needs of every platform developer. Why the hell would they want to obsolete that?

No, languages aren't the issue with MS development, nor are they the theme of the article; frameworks are. A perfectly good language can be horrendous to use if it is unable to properly interact with its host environment to accomplish what it needs to accomplish. In this case (once again FTFA) C++ could interact worlds better with Windows than .NET could, and so .NET use suffered. This was an implementation failure on Microsoft's part. The article stipulates that Windows 8 intends to bring .NET back on-par with C++ as a development language, which (if true) means that it will be stronger than ever.

It's also worth mentioning that in terms of accumulated skills and experience, learning a new language is trivial compared to truly learning a new framework. How you interact with the system and cause it to give you the resources and services that you want in the manner in which you want them is the heart of all modern systems programming, regardless of language. If Microsoft emphasizes .NET in their APIs, then .NET will be a viable Windows development platform; if not, then who knows? None of that reflects on the language itself, but rather on its appeal over other languages.

Now, eventually every language will be obsoleted ... probably? I suppose we haven't been through that many generations of languages to know for sure, but that seems to be the case so far. There are various reasons languages die ... they suck, better ones come out, nobody likes them, no frameworks support them, or their target developer group gives up on it. .NET's main backer is currently and will likely always be Microsoft, and its most viable candidate platform will likely always be Windows. Supporting or not supporting .NET as a first-class Windows development language (through framework support) is a serious to its standing as a desirable developer language. However, the article makes the point that Microsoft's .NET framework capabilities are increasing substantially, not decreasing. This speaks positively for its future.

Disclaimer: I am a UNIX developer as well. That said, the article is well-written and I would bet on its speculation being correct. In that case, MS is making the right moves, and that includes their new frameworks and continued support for .NET.

Re:Standard modus operandi (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36549218)

> In that case, MS is making the right moves, and that includes their new frameworks and continued support for .NET.

That is, of course, until Microsoft decides nobody use them anymore, and will discontinue support. You can mention all the advantages .NET has over the old stuff - but Microsoft could have revamped Visual Basic in their next version, adding new clauses to the language, support for try-catch, etc. The language syntax would still suck, but it would be friendlier.

I know some people who loved to develop in Visual Foxpro. When Microsoft dropped the support, they cringed, because VFP still had bugs, and they won't be fixed anymore. They're stuck in an obsolete language to maintain their applications. So, what will happen to it? Will Microsoft release the source code so they can manage without it? You wish.

We've known Microsoft for too much time to play dumb and pretend they stopped being evil. Everything Microsoft does, it does for money. Want a modern example? IE9. It won't work on Windows XP. When us devs finally thought we could get rid of Microsoft's broken implementations of web standards, it drops the bomb on us. "Oh, we had to do it this way because of the accelerated graphics support". Accelerated graphics my ass. They did it for the money.

Fire and Motion (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549982)

This is all what Joel said in his blog about Fire and Motion. Every second you have to think about platform changes, you're wasting time that would be better spent building your product or even making it platform independent or even competing with MS - hey, you're both writing software. Windows developers are on a treadmill and think that's a normal condition. There are mature ways to write mostly platform independent code these days. This entire discussion is for people who are not using them - the rest honestly don't care and will not be wasting time thinking about it.

Re:Standard modus operandi (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 3 years ago | (#36550128)

What money does Microsoft stand to gain by not releasing IE9 on Windows XP? The most recent version of Visual FoxPro will also be supported through 2015. Asking a company to support old versions indefinitely is probably too much.

Your post is essentially a rambling rant against "evil" Microsoft. I suppose that's why you posted AC...?

Re:Standard modus operandi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36550292)

That is, of course, until Microsoft decides nobody use them anymore, and will discontinue support.

that's generally what you do when no-one uses something anymore, why support something no-one uses?

Everything Microsoft does, it does for money.

newsflash: companies exist to make money.

Want a modern example? IE9. It won't work on Windows XP.

and the latest version of safari won't work on System7 oh no!

When us devs finally thought we could get rid of Microsoft's broken implementations of web standards, it drops the bomb on us. "Oh, we had to do it this way because of the accelerated graphics support". Accelerated graphics my ass.

'Accelerated graphics my ass'? oh what a response.

They did it for the money.

yes so much money for accelerated graphics.

MSDN Licenses (2)

nzNick (721082) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549788)

Keep in mind, MSDN licenses are annual subscriptions - so MS developers pay for the dev tools EVERY YEAR, and they keep on paying .......

Re:Standard modus operandi (2)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#36550458)

However, the article makes the point that Microsoft's .NET framework capabilities are increasing substantially, not decreasing. This speaks positively for its future.

That's true if the desktop stays dominant. With C++, you can write desktop, iPhone, and Android apps (well, you need to learn enough Java/Objective C to do the interfaces)... so I guess if non-windows platforms take off, you might still see .NET wain.

Re:Standard modus operandi (1)

guardiangod (880192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549010)

It wouldn't kill you to actually read the article, you know.

Re:Standard modus operandi (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36549040)

Originally I came from a Unix background. Many, many moons ago I explored the possibility of boning up on the MS-Windows ways of doing things. But, after a bit of some exploratory peeks and pokes, this became painfully clear to me; that whatever I learned, all of it was going go to waste, in its due time. And that was pretty much the end of my venture into the Windows landscape.

Well, I'm happy to report that read(2), write(2), and all the other syscalls that make up POSIX, and its derivatives, still work the same as they did decades ago. Everything I have learned, as the sands of time have rolled on and on, I still put to good use today, and I make a pretty good living using them. Nothing has gone to waste. Honestly, this is more than I could say for my peers who practice their craft on MS-Windows. A lot -- not everything but a lot -- they learned decades ago is now completely and totally worthless to them, and to anyone else.

Way to compare apples to oranges. .NET is a high-level framework... POSIX is an interface standard. You should be comparing POSIX to the Win32 API which has been around since the late 1980s and still works. Many programmers still make programs with it.

And oh guess what, Windows has a POSIX subsystem that is compatible except for threads and sockets, or you can get the Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX download (built in to Vista/7 Ultimate) and have full POSIX compatibility.

Also, I bet your peers learned many things that you cannot do in POSIX, like you know.. GUI applications... I suppose you never need to write any GUI stuff though, lucky you.

Re:Standard modus operandi (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549120)

Microsoft makes a lot of money from selling its development tools, documentation, etc... to its developer base. [..] That's why they have to obsolete their technology platforms, time and time again. They need revenue.

Tinfoil hat ranting. Do you have references to back this up? Microsoft makes the bulk [businessinsider.com] of their money by selling Windows and Office. Do you think they actually want to drive developers away? Note that "Tools" sales are bundled into "Server and Tools", which includes things like SQL Server, so only a tiny portion of Microsoft's profit comes from selling tools, if any.

Re:Standard modus operandi (2)

sg_oneill (159032) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549162)

I think your sort of missing where .NET was targetted. In my view .NET was never intended to be a replacement to the native C interfaces (MFC, COM, etc) but rather as a way of taking on the Java market for servers and Delphi/VLC market for desktop development, and succeeded in it because Java (at least at the time) was utterly unsuited to agile high turnover development, and Delphi was being tragically mismanaged, priced out of the market and being ignored in favor of utterly wierd "middleware" frameworks that nobody cared about by borland. The evidence for this all is compelling. C# had a distinct "java-ness" to it, but seemed to avoid javas worst language sins. It did however include a dot net library that out-of-the-box contained a metric tonne of useful but easy to use libraries for enterprisey-servery sort of stuff (and especially so when the workflow and soap type stuff is thrown into the mix. There was also a lot of Delphis best manners thrown in as well including an exceptionally well balanced GUI editor and widget toolkit that blew the old VB one out the water. The dot net libraries had a distinctly VLC flavor to them and in fact where designed by the same guy who designed delphi.

Delphi pretty rapidly disapeared from the mainstream, also aided by borlands ridiculous business and technical decisions (Many coders to this day hold Delphi 4 to be one of the most productive environments of all time, and later delphis to be complete messes) and Java is definately still around but arguably not the first choice anymore for doing dev on windows servers.

Microsoft put the final dagger in on this by realising what made delphi both boom and then die. Delphi took off because a generation of coders where raised on Turbo Pascal, and around the time Delphi 4 came out, Borland started putting Delphi 2 for free on magazine covers (which a LOT of my old workmates started out on) , an open source hobbyist community built amazing libraries and components and this made development bitchin' fast. But borland started pricing updates at astronomical prices. I could never convince my boss to update our Delphi 4's to 5,6 or 7 (and by that point we'd moved to linux) because the prices where just astronomical. Many thousands to get the features we needed. And there was NO WAY to be a delphi hobbyist anymore.

So microsoft comes along and basically gives dot net away. You could get free versions of vb.net and c# and whilst not totally suited to enterprise , where plenty good for hobbyists, and updating to a more enterprisey-suited visual studio (which included everything) really wasnt a huge hole in the pocket. And despite our suspicions that dot net would run like a dog compared to delphis highly optimized compiler (at one point it competed favorably with the intel C compiler) it actually ran more than good enough for pretty much everything except (at the time) high performance gaming (And to be honest, most high performance gaming was in C/C++ anyway, although I strongly suspect the old delphi compilers where infact up to the task)

Dot net is a fantastic platform. Its just a shame I cant use it on my mac. Or for that matter its a shame I cant use Cocoa on a PC, thats a pretty fantastic platform too.

Re:Standard modus operandi (2)

bored (40072) | more than 3 years ago | (#36550086)

Many coders to this day hold Delphi 4 to be one of the most productive environments of all time

I will buy that, in fact I would probably put it ahead of current .net platforms as well. Then there was C++ Builder which was basically delphi with ugly syntax. Either way, M$ started switching their API's to COM even before .net. That was the first major change in the M$ API churn. When that happened I pretty much started to write the native platform off because there wasn't any reason that those API's couldn't have been directly C callable with a COM wrapper. Then .net came out, and everyone was like WTF, and it constantly was lagging the platform (64-bit support was probably 1 year after the 2003 64-bit beta), and now with some of the win7 functionality. So it wasn't really a platform either, just a bunch of crap on the platform. Now this, which isn't particularly surprising, it was only a matter of time.

The developer interest in iphone/android proves that there are developers out there looking for a platform to write apps on because M$ has pushed basically every group away at this point.

I don't think I could consider writing a heavyweight application for a MS platform that I expected would have more than a 5 year life. I would probably end up using QT but I would seriously have to evaluate Lazarus.

Re:Standard modus operandi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36549454)

I maintain a COM addin for Outlook 2003 written in C. It has a companion service program also written in C and calls only Win32 APIs. I really doubt that I am the only one. How is COM dead?

Re:Standard modus operandi (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#36550544)

I maintain a COM addin for Outlook 2003 written in C. It has a companion service program also written in C and calls only Win32 APIs. I really doubt that I am the only one. How is COM dead?

I'm risking a "whoosh" here... did you really just ask why your program written for an 8-year-old piece of software is considered... a bit dated?

Re:Standard modus operandi (1)

cecom (698048) | more than 3 years ago | (#36550528)

No, no, you don't understand. Microsoft does this because they care! Ask any Windows developer :-)

Seriously though, objectively speaking, no matter how ridiculous this technology churn seems to us looking from outside of the Microsoft universe, it does keep people perpetually employed. It feeds not only Microsoft but a huge ecosystem of businesses, consultants, IT experts, MCEs, support stuff, technical book authors, administrators, etc. It is great!

It may look inefficient, but if it was really inefficient, would it continue to exist and be successful in a market-driven economy? Well, of course market rules wouldn't apply if there was a monopolist in the room :-)

Just to show how objective I can be, the constant API churn of the Linux kernel acts in much the same way. And it sucks.

Database Filesystem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36548664)

Call me when they start talking about that again. The one thing Microsoft stringed me along for so many years... it'll be in the next version we promise!

Not necessarily a good thing.. (2)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548848)

The thing about talking about something so significant in highly abstract terms is you'll tend to imagine it doing precisely what *you* think the words mean and how you think a vision could be realized.

Then, when you actually get to touch it, you realize their vision either isn't the same as yours, or even if it matches what you had in your head, in practice it won't work out so well.

The ultimate end-user filesystem experience hasn't changed in years for good reason. Any generic approach is going to be fraught with too much work to bother. Sure, Music, Video, Document, etc applications could use the filesystem as a standardized way to store metadata instead of proprietary databases here and there, but much of the time a file containing data is a shared thing in a central place, with much of the pertinent metadata a user caring about specific to their view, making combining that data in the filesystem awkward. Notably some permament attributes (that should go with the file on transfer so it can't just exist outside the file) like title, release year, etc exist that are global in nature, but personal tags, ratings, bookmarks, etc just don't mesh.

Re:Not necessarily a good thing.. (1)

bored (40072) | more than 3 years ago | (#36550242)

If your just talking about file meta data. NTFS as had extensible attribute (basically meta data) on files since at least NT 3.51 (maybe earlier). Plus the alternate file stream system would basically allow any application (aka backup applications, media applications, shell replacements whatever) to extend the concept in any way they wanted.

None of this is new, when I heard about the database filesystem back in 2002/2003 I though WFT, someone at M$ doesn't even know what their current filesystem is capable of. Nothing they were listing wasn't possible with just minor shell tweaks and a couple standardized api's on the existing filesystem. Plus, the whole thing strikes of a fundamental misunderstanding of how OS's manage resources and the fairly tight integration between a filesystem and the virtual memory subsystem in every modern OS.

Sure the concept of a database and a filesystem are pretty similar, in fact you can often substitute one for the other. Its a matter of what the data storage engine is optimized for. Database are optimized to speed up searching and modifying small records of a predefined length. Filesystems are optimized to minimize data access latencies on hierarchical pieces of data that are constantly growing and shrinking.

In fact writing a filesystem that backs its data in a database would be fairly easy. I could probably write a linux FUSE plugin to talk to sqllite in under a week. Making it work well would be another matter.

RTFA (5, Informative)

darkwing_bmf (178021) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549070)

The article says windows is getting a new API, WinRT, which is a modern version of Win32. .NET and C++ development will both be updated for WinRT and have the same capability as each other so you can work in the environment you choose. Silverlight is supported, updated and renamed (codenamed?) Jupiter. Some other new things were added. In summary, .NET developers, you're getting new functionality. C++ developers, you're getting new functionality. Plus it will be easier than ever to go back and forth between the two because, underlying it all, is a new unified API.

Re:RTFA (1)

Punkster812 (995750) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549782)

Thank you. I thought I was the only one. Why so many people thought Microsoft would simply drop .NET so quickly is beyond me. But I guess it's more fun to freak out first.

Another Summary (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549232)

Peter Bright, an Ars Technica contributor, writes that [arstechnica.com]

Early this month, Microsoft dropped something of a bombshell on Windows developers: the new Windows 8 touch-friendly immersive style would use a developer platform not based on .NET, which Microsoft has been championing for the past decade. Instead, it would use HTML5 and JavaScript.

But he doesn't believe the alarmist hype:

Windows developers want to be able to build immersive applications, and they don't want to have to use HTML5 and JavaScript to do it.

They won't have to. Want to write an immersive application in native C++? That's cool. Want to use C# and Silverlight? That's cool too. Both will be supported. Far from being left behind on the legacy desktop—which was the impression that many took from the presentation—native C++ and managed C# will both be first-class, supported ways of developing immersive, touch-first, tablet-friendly Windows 8-style applications.

(Feel free to write another, better summary. The one given is just completely inadequate for such a long article.)

Re:Another Summary (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549594)

For that matter Peter Bright is wrong, whether he believes the hype or not, because there was no bombshell to begin with. At no point it was said that "the new Windows 8 touch-friendly immersive style would use a developer platform not based on .NET". The only thing that was said is that you will be able to develop for Windows 8 using HTML5 & JS. A few people took the latter to imply the former, and published stories where said implication was treated as plain fact - like the one mentioned in TFA - and from there the hysteria took over.

As usual, if you want to know what's actually going on, stick to the primary sources - in this case, Win8 presentation videos. And they say: 1) There will be HTML5/JS, and 2) Full dev story will be told on BUILD in September. That's all there is to it for now.

So what's better? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36549264)

Currently I am working in a software project that is cross platform with Mac and Windows. I alone do the WPF/.Net side of things, a few other guys work on the Cocoa side of things. I am getting really tired of hearing them complain that it is hard or even impossible to create a rich and custom UI experience on OS X because of the lousy tools and development platform Apple offers. The Mac product is full of bugs and is about a good month behind on parity, and this is with 2 guys working on. I am sure they are equally tired of hearing me tell my project manager that I have just finished whatever feature they dreamed up of using WPF and .Net. Bottom line is, there is something wrong with a person or developer that prefers constant headaches and lack of productivity over something that offers rapid development, quality code, and ability to develop a rich applications without limitations. I should mention there is a small team looking to port to Linux and they are so lost they are at least a year behind to even reach parity with the Windows version.

I know everybody hates Microsoft at Slashdot, but you don't know sh*t about f*ck when it comes to software development if you are bitching about how bad C# or .Net or WPF is for developing applications. Bottom line is I get paid to develop software for Windows, and I can do it quickly, easily, and have a lot of fun doing it, but if I had to use the OS X or Linux tools for developing software, I would probably shoot myself.

Re:So what's better? (2)

NerdENerd (660369) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549764)

So why did this post get a zero rating? I am a .NET developer and agree 100%. Visual Studio 2010 is a fantastic development experience. I tried to do some iPhone development and hated XCode on the Mac. Objective C seems like going back in time. Why would I give up my managed environment and want to worry about de-constructors and managing resources. Anyone who criticises .NET development has probably never done any.

Re:So what's better? (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 3 years ago | (#36550110)

So if they knew they wanted a cross-platform product, why didn't your company select tools that work on all three platforms? For cross-platform GUIs there is ummm QT, GTK and wx. OK, wx is a wrapper but in some ways that's actually better because it uses native widgets. All three work on all 3 OSes you mentioned. Don't think your .net is better than what your MAC coworkers are doing - the company wants a cross-platform product and your chosen tool doesn't provide that - in fact, it hurts by not being common to all 3.

Re:So what's better? (1)

mswhippingboy (754599) | more than 3 years ago | (#36550408)

Cross-platform? Lol... just when I think I've heard it all.

I wonder what kind of idiotic apps manager would say - Hmmm we need an application that runs on Windows, Mac and Linux. What tools should we use? - I know - three development teams developing completely separate apps using completely separate languages and tool chains!!! Brilliant!

I guess someone failed to tell him there are cross platform tools that would allow the app to be developed once and deployed to all platforms.

but you don't know sh*t about f*ck when it comes to software development if you are bitching about how bad C# or .Net or WPF is for developing applications.

You post would suggest that maybe you and/or your management are the ones who "don't know sh*t about f*ck"

Microsoft fanfiction. (2, Funny)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549404)

The article is something that I have never seen before -- Microsoft fanfiction.

What creates an interesting problem -- since Microsoft fanfiction exists, according to the rule 34 there must be Microsoft slash fanfiction. But since there is only one instance of Microsoft fanfiction and it is not slash, someone on the Internet must write Microsoft slash fanfiction.

Go, Internet, go!

Re:Microsoft fanfiction. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36549950)

I call "Blue Sex of Death"!

Re:Microsoft fanfiction. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36550398)

Wouldn't it have to be Microsoft backslash fanfiction?

Re:Microsoft fanfiction. (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 3 years ago | (#36550494)

Wouldn't it have to be Microsoft backslash fanfiction?

Steve Ballmer \ Rick Belluzzo?

(can't unthink...)

Oh THAT Longhorn... (2)

Alimony Pakhdan (1855364) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549548)

Came here hoping for something about Texas, left disappointed.

There is a brilliance here... (2)

trippyd (307143) | more than 3 years ago | (#36550340)

Maybe the response from .net developers is more rooted in the fact that a JS/HTML5 based application development language brings a whole lot more developers to the party with less of a learning curve.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?