D
dreams2text
Check out the article titled : Dear Mr Gates, A suggestion to make the
CLR Ubiquitous at http://dreams2text.blogspot.com/
CLR Ubiquitous at http://dreams2text.blogspot.com/
L
Lloyd Dupont
well it would be nice, but no need ;-)
the guy should just convince his commercails to convince his clients...
the guy should just convince his commercails to convince his clients...
G
Guest
Interesting idea, but I am fairly certain Bill is not hurting due to
Sudarshan's refusal to use .NET. I am currently deluged with calls for .NET
positions, which tells me companies are adopting faster than developers. One
of two things will happen:
1. Developers will get up to speed
2. Companies will switch to another development platform
Let's consider #2. What platform?
Java? Risky career move considering the plethora of material showing C#
performs better. While I am in the camp that believes coding strictly for
perf is a mistake, a failure after moving to Java would hurt the executive's
career path. There are, of course, areas of the country where this is not
true; here in Nashville, TN, however, it is a Microsoft town.
COM? CORBA? You now guarantee a platform lock. I do not consider this a bad
idea necessarily, but it has to be considered in the political arena of
business. Then, what language if you go COM or CORBA? With COM, you have VB
or C++. You can still find VB resources in greater numbers than C++, but
classic VB is heading out, despite the new MSDN VB6 site
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbrun/). If you head CORBA instead, can you find
enough resources? In some markets, I am sure.
I predict developers will head where the bread and butter is. While the
market is screaming for .NET, they will head to .NET. If Team System takes
hold in the Enterprise, the deal is pretty much cemented.
--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
***************************
Think Outside the Box!
***************************
Sudarshan's refusal to use .NET. I am currently deluged with calls for .NET
positions, which tells me companies are adopting faster than developers. One
of two things will happen:
1. Developers will get up to speed
2. Companies will switch to another development platform
Let's consider #2. What platform?
Java? Risky career move considering the plethora of material showing C#
performs better. While I am in the camp that believes coding strictly for
perf is a mistake, a failure after moving to Java would hurt the executive's
career path. There are, of course, areas of the country where this is not
true; here in Nashville, TN, however, it is a Microsoft town.
COM? CORBA? You now guarantee a platform lock. I do not consider this a bad
idea necessarily, but it has to be considered in the political arena of
business. Then, what language if you go COM or CORBA? With COM, you have VB
or C++. You can still find VB resources in greater numbers than C++, but
classic VB is heading out, despite the new MSDN VB6 site
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbrun/). If you head CORBA instead, can you find
enough resources? In some markets, I am sure.
I predict developers will head where the bread and butter is. While the
market is screaming for .NET, they will head to .NET. If Team System takes
hold in the Enterprise, the deal is pretty much cemented.
--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
***************************
Think Outside the Box!
***************************
L
Lloyd Dupont
..NET rules! 
However my friends in Paris and a recent job interview in France let me
think the old continent is resisting hard...
But here, in Australia, it has taken off seriously this year!
However my friends in Paris and a recent job interview in France let me
think the old continent is resisting hard...
But here, in Australia, it has taken off seriously this year!
C
CT
I predict developers will head where the bread and butter is. While the
So true; Amen!
So true; Amen!
D
Dreams2Text
Bill seems to be at least partially concerned. Checkout
http://weblog.infoworld.com/udell/2005/09/15.html
====================
JUdell: But that's interesting, because I've really never met a
developer who didn't like the framework and runtime once they got going
with that stuff, but they often lament the relative non-ubiquity, still
to this day, of those bits. And the question has been, you know --
what's the thing that gets that stuff out there? It sounds like maybe it
will be Office 12 as much as anything. Is that...
BillG: Right. That will be one of the things, I mean Vista, Office 12,
there'll be a lot of things. And you know, that kind of download size is
getting more acceptable, and we're getting more installations of it. But
you're right, we've got to drive that forward. There comes a point where
it's just common sense. We're not quite there.
========================
In a sense it is not too hard to get corporations start projects. The
CLR is just a CD away or downloading it is no big deal when it is your
job to do that. But try this at home.... assuming you have a wife or
brother or sister who uses a computer but is not very bleeding edge
professional. Give a CD with .Net on it and ask her or him to install it
describing it as one of the foundational technologies of Windows which
will make his/her computer ready for application that would be available
soon. I bet you will get the response. "I have better things to do right
now". We will see about .Net later.
What matters is the ubiquity of the platform. Even if 40% of users do
not have the platform and you can't start writing general purpose apps
in C# and put em up for download. Your potential users will choose a
smaller app from a competitor simply coz he wants to postpone the .Net
CLR download. As a career there is a bright career even in PL/I
coding... I find a lot of job listings... That is not the reason for me
to choose a language at all.
As a small application developer, I hate the fact that I cant write apps
put it on the net and expect people to download it and install it and
pay me cash if they like it. I could do that with VC++ or old VB. Today
I can no longer do that with .Net even if I want to. VC++,VB are low
level and the C# way of doing things is a lot more elgant. Why should I
be deprived of the opportunity to put up a photosharing program, an IM
software or the Next killer App by simply writing it in C# and expecting
the average Joe to have the CLR on his desktop at home.
I know pretty well that my not using C# right now matters little to
BillG. but i dont see anyone getting the point of my statements. Nobody
is going bankrupt here. But hey it is all about max profits for the
corporation and max power for coders.
"When some one asks me what other choices do you have", I am reminded of
the cafeteria Menu. Well ya. I can live on that food. But hey life is
more than just survival.
Sudarshan.
http://weblog.infoworld.com/udell/2005/09/15.html
====================
JUdell: But that's interesting, because I've really never met a
developer who didn't like the framework and runtime once they got going
with that stuff, but they often lament the relative non-ubiquity, still
to this day, of those bits. And the question has been, you know --
what's the thing that gets that stuff out there? It sounds like maybe it
will be Office 12 as much as anything. Is that...
BillG: Right. That will be one of the things, I mean Vista, Office 12,
there'll be a lot of things. And you know, that kind of download size is
getting more acceptable, and we're getting more installations of it. But
you're right, we've got to drive that forward. There comes a point where
it's just common sense. We're not quite there.
========================
In a sense it is not too hard to get corporations start projects. The
CLR is just a CD away or downloading it is no big deal when it is your
job to do that. But try this at home.... assuming you have a wife or
brother or sister who uses a computer but is not very bleeding edge
professional. Give a CD with .Net on it and ask her or him to install it
describing it as one of the foundational technologies of Windows which
will make his/her computer ready for application that would be available
soon. I bet you will get the response. "I have better things to do right
now". We will see about .Net later.
What matters is the ubiquity of the platform. Even if 40% of users do
not have the platform and you can't start writing general purpose apps
in C# and put em up for download. Your potential users will choose a
smaller app from a competitor simply coz he wants to postpone the .Net
CLR download. As a career there is a bright career even in PL/I
coding... I find a lot of job listings... That is not the reason for me
to choose a language at all.
As a small application developer, I hate the fact that I cant write apps
put it on the net and expect people to download it and install it and
pay me cash if they like it. I could do that with VC++ or old VB. Today
I can no longer do that with .Net even if I want to. VC++,VB are low
level and the C# way of doing things is a lot more elgant. Why should I
be deprived of the opportunity to put up a photosharing program, an IM
software or the Next killer App by simply writing it in C# and expecting
the average Joe to have the CLR on his desktop at home.
I know pretty well that my not using C# right now matters little to
BillG. but i dont see anyone getting the point of my statements. Nobody
is going bankrupt here. But hey it is all about max profits for the
corporation and max power for coders.
"When some one asks me what other choices do you have", I am reminded of
the cafeteria Menu. Well ya. I can live on that food. But hey life is
more than just survival.
Sudarshan.
W
William Stacey [MVP]
I am not sure why Office 12 is a delivery vehicle for the framework as IIRC
there is still no managed code in it. That said, it probably makes some
sense as it something most everyone will install and have the CDs for so the
extra 20MB will not be noticed. From my perspective, it is mostly
ubiquitous by now anyway. There are still a few dial-up users out there,
but they are probably not a target for your apps anyway. Could be wrong.
there is still no managed code in it. That said, it probably makes some
sense as it something most everyone will install and have the CDs for so the
extra 20MB will not be noticed. From my perspective, it is mostly
ubiquitous by now anyway. There are still a few dial-up users out there,
but they are probably not a target for your apps anyway. Could be wrong.
D
Dreams2Text
Hi William,
BillG does not seem to think so... His statement that "We are not quite
there yet" says it all. As the headfigure of Microsoft I expect him to
paint a pretty picture of the situation. If he himself says otherwise...
it means we are quite some distance away. Does anyone have facts and
figures from a third party so that everyone gets a pretty picture. I
would like three figures. One favouring microsoft. One unconcerned party
and some Microsoft basher. So I/everyone get a clear picture.
Warm Regards,
Sudarshan.
BillG does not seem to think so... His statement that "We are not quite
there yet" says it all. As the headfigure of Microsoft I expect him to
paint a pretty picture of the situation. If he himself says otherwise...
it means we are quite some distance away. Does anyone have facts and
figures from a third party so that everyone gets a pretty picture. I
would like three figures. One favouring microsoft. One unconcerned party
and some Microsoft basher. So I/everyone get a clear picture.
Warm Regards,
Sudarshan.
W
Willy Denoyette [MVP]
William Stacey said:
True, Office 12 remains unmanaged code, but it will have extended managed
Addin support out of the box.
Willy.
W
William Stacey [MVP]
I don't really see the issue anyway:
1) If you need it, just download it. Bootstapper code can do this
automatically. You only need to do it once.
2) It is in the Windows Update, so most folks probably get from there
anyway.
3) Vista will have it built in.
4) You can ship it on your install CD if needed.
5) It will be on Office12 if I read that right.
Even if you have it, what happens when FX3.0 comes out and your app requires
that (and 4.0, and 5.0, etc)? You need to download again or get it on some
other vehicle. I don't see it as an issue, but just part of the app
requirements. Same as if app requires SQLExpress, etc.
1) If you need it, just download it. Bootstapper code can do this
automatically. You only need to do it once.
2) It is in the Windows Update, so most folks probably get from there
anyway.
3) Vista will have it built in.
4) You can ship it on your install CD if needed.
5) It will be on Office12 if I read that right.
Even if you have it, what happens when FX3.0 comes out and your app requires
that (and 4.0, and 5.0, etc)? You need to download again or get it on some
other vehicle. I don't see it as an issue, but just part of the app
requirements. Same as if app requires SQLExpress, etc.
D
Dreams2Text
Hi William,
Well, I dont want to start a flamewar here and remind you of a billion
sources that think otherwise. For starters, here is what former
Distingushed Engineer of Microsoft.
http://mark-lucovsky.blogspot.com/2005/02/shipping-software.html
He quit Microsoft saying Microsoft does not know how to ship
software(including CLR). He said this in Feb and maybe things changed
over time. Maybe he is being selfish and afterall he works for Google
now. So he will tell what is good for Google. I dont need to believe him
any more than I believe you. But seeing all this, I at least feel there
is a controversy, if not a real issue. That makes me uncomfortable using
C#. When you know there is VC++ and MFC and ActiveX anyway and all you
need is a lot more effort. I think many choose effort over risk. At
least I would.
Anyway, here is a small favor you can do if you like. Just forward the
link
http://dreams2text.blogspot.com/2005/09/dear-mr-gates-suggestion-to-make
-clr.html
to Mr Gates. Maybe you can even mark it as possibly Internet humor. Just
let him have a look. Maybe he thinks otherwise. And if you think that is
unnecessary, then that is also fine. Have a nice day bye.
Regards.
Sudarshan.
Well, I dont want to start a flamewar here and remind you of a billion
sources that think otherwise. For starters, here is what former
Distingushed Engineer of Microsoft.
http://mark-lucovsky.blogspot.com/2005/02/shipping-software.html
He quit Microsoft saying Microsoft does not know how to ship
software(including CLR). He said this in Feb and maybe things changed
over time. Maybe he is being selfish and afterall he works for Google
now. So he will tell what is good for Google. I dont need to believe him
any more than I believe you. But seeing all this, I at least feel there
is a controversy, if not a real issue. That makes me uncomfortable using
C#. When you know there is VC++ and MFC and ActiveX anyway and all you
need is a lot more effort. I think many choose effort over risk. At
least I would.
Anyway, here is a small favor you can do if you like. Just forward the
link
http://dreams2text.blogspot.com/2005/09/dear-mr-gates-suggestion-to-make
-clr.html
to Mr Gates. Maybe you can even mark it as possibly Internet humor. Just
let him have a look. Maybe he thinks otherwise. And if you think that is
unnecessary, then that is also fine. Have a nice day bye.
Regards.
Sudarshan.
W
William Stacey [MVP]
Well, I dont want to start a flamewar here and remind you of a billion
First I have no interest in a flame either. There is no need. You either
use it or you don't. But I have some thoughts on this:
1) This is one guy out of 60000+ employes. This post is always put up from
anti-framework folks (not saying you are), and that list is getting short.
2) As you say, this was after he accepted the job.
3) His comparison is totally flawed. Amazon is a consumer service, .Net is
a development platform. There is really no reasonable comparison to be made
here. They use web pages and maybe some ActiveX. They don't ship software,
they ship other peoples products (and do that well I must say).
4) Its not a smart client where you have to ship bits, it is web pages. If
you want to do web pages, you don't need Framework on the client either -
just IE or other. So you can do the same thing Amazon or Google does, so
the point would be mute.
5) Lets get real about the market for your app. You did not say what it
was, but your real market is not millions of XP users, it may be more like
10,000+ users with interest in your app. The real question is how many of
those ten thousand already have .Net. This is also mute if they already
have it.
6) If a client really wants your app, they will simply need the fw. And if
you ship CDs, that is not an issue. If you download only, then they need to
get it using your app bootstraping installer or by requiring prereq.
QuickBooks requires .Net and I have needed to install that a few times. Did
not really bother me. Many existing and future apps will require .Net as
well.
I don't see any controversy. Is it controversy to require the Java runtime
to run some Java app? No, it is just something you need to install - plain
and simple. Is it controversy to require an OS and a web browser rev'd to
some version to get fancy web content - I don't think so.
You have the choice and are free to use what you want. No issue, just don't
use it if you feel uncomfortable using C#.
Nah, as I said, I don't really see it as an issue any longer. IMO, there are
bigger fish to fry.
First I have no interest in a flame either. There is no need. You either
use it or you don't. But I have some thoughts on this:
1) This is one guy out of 60000+ employes. This post is always put up from
anti-framework folks (not saying you are), and that list is getting short.
2) As you say, this was after he accepted the job.
3) His comparison is totally flawed. Amazon is a consumer service, .Net is
a development platform. There is really no reasonable comparison to be made
here. They use web pages and maybe some ActiveX. They don't ship software,
they ship other peoples products (and do that well I must say).
4) Its not a smart client where you have to ship bits, it is web pages. If
you want to do web pages, you don't need Framework on the client either -
just IE or other. So you can do the same thing Amazon or Google does, so
the point would be mute.
5) Lets get real about the market for your app. You did not say what it
was, but your real market is not millions of XP users, it may be more like
10,000+ users with interest in your app. The real question is how many of
those ten thousand already have .Net. This is also mute if they already
have it.
6) If a client really wants your app, they will simply need the fw. And if
you ship CDs, that is not an issue. If you download only, then they need to
get it using your app bootstraping installer or by requiring prereq.
QuickBooks requires .Net and I have needed to install that a few times. Did
not really bother me. Many existing and future apps will require .Net as
well.
I don't see any controversy. Is it controversy to require the Java runtime
to run some Java app? No, it is just something you need to install - plain
and simple. Is it controversy to require an OS and a web browser rev'd to
some version to get fancy web content - I don't think so.
You have the choice and are free to use what you want. No issue, just don't
use it if you feel uncomfortable using C#.
Nah, as I said, I don't really see it as an issue any longer. IMO, there are
bigger fish to fry.
L
Lloyd Dupont
to Mr Gates. Maybe you can even mark it as possibly Internet humor. Just
this very important issue he told me:
- there are more and more people having the internet
- if people can't afford download some software there isn't much you could
do about it
- the .NET framework is on the XP CDs anyway ;-) (Albeit as a optional
component), check yours!
I'm a personal friend of mister Gates (doh.. ;-) and when I told me about
this very important issue he told me:
- there are more and more people having the internet
- if people can't afford download some software there isn't much you could
do about it
- the .NET framework is on the XP CDs anyway ;-) (Albeit as a optional
component), check yours!
D
Dreams2Text
fine
R
Roger Rabbit
I agree. It was a really poorly constructed argument/point of view that Mark
Lucovsky made in attempting to compare Microsoft and Amazon. Hes completely
overlooked the differences between the massively distributed multi versioned
platform that is Windows and the highly centralised, highly specific and
relatively simplisitc e-tail service that is Amazon.
With respect to virtual machines, a more realistic comparision would have
been made between Java and Microsoft but then that comparision doesn't make
Microsoft such an easy target. His article sounds like sour grapes wrapped
up in a "pot shot" to me. Its not at all compelling.
Microsoft builds brains. Amazon merely sells memories created by others.
They might both use computers but i'd hardly consider them in the same
industry.
And for a company that doesn;t know how to ship software, Microsoft sure
does seem to ship a lot of it.
RR
Lucovsky made in attempting to compare Microsoft and Amazon. Hes completely
overlooked the differences between the massively distributed multi versioned
platform that is Windows and the highly centralised, highly specific and
relatively simplisitc e-tail service that is Amazon.
With respect to virtual machines, a more realistic comparision would have
been made between Java and Microsoft but then that comparision doesn't make
Microsoft such an easy target. His article sounds like sour grapes wrapped
up in a "pot shot" to me. Its not at all compelling.
Microsoft builds brains. Amazon merely sells memories created by others.
They might both use computers but i'd hardly consider them in the same
industry.
And for a company that doesn;t know how to ship software, Microsoft sure
does seem to ship a lot of it.
RR