Saw it coming

> Sorta blows MM's ".net is about Web Services period" theory ;-)

If only that were true.... I am sure he will find something else to latch on
to and ***** about! ;-)

Cal

http://www.msnbc.com/news/737079.asp?0dm=N11IT

I think that some of us actually saw this one coming. I'm glad Microsoft
could also see the writing on the wall and pull the plug on this one. It
would seem that they are backing off of Web Services as a whole from the
marketing standpoint and emphasizing the real power in .NET, ASP.NET rich
client apps.

Sorta blows MM's ".net is about Web Services period" theory ;-)

Hi Jay --

> http://www.msnbc.com/news/737079.asp?0dm=N11IT
>
> I think that some of us actually saw this one coming. I'm glad Microsoft
> could also see the writing on the wall and pull the plug on this one. It
> would seem that they are backing off of Web Services as a whole from the
> marketing standpoint and emphasizing the real power in .NET, ASP.NET rich
> client apps.

They'd be smart to do that, but apparently they're not.

> Sorta blows MM's ".net is about Web Services period" theory ;-)

NEW ORLEANS, April 11 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Today at Microsoft TechEd 2002,
Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT - news) provided developers with a vision for the
future of computing based on XML Web services.
-- http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/020411/sfth041_1.html

Later... Karl
--
[Microsoft Basic: 1976-2001, RIP]

It
>> would seem that they are backing off of Web Services as a whole from the
>> marketing standpoint and emphasizing the real power in .NET, ASP.NET rich
>> client apps.
>
>They'd be smart to do that, but apparently they're not.
>
>> Sorta blows MM's ".net is about Web Services period" theory ;-)
>
> NEW ORLEANS, April 11 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Today at Microsoft TechEd
2002,
>Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT - news) provided developers with a vision
for the
>future of computing based on XML Web services.
> -- http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/020411/sfth041_1.html
>
>Later... Karl
>--
>[Microsoft Basic: 1976-2001, RIP]
>


To bad. I had read earlier that the plan was to talk up rich clients more
and web services less. Web services are nice to work with, just don't have
much need as of yet.

Rich clients and web services are not mutually exclusive.
Office, for example, makes use of them.

-Rob

"Jay Glynn" <jlsglynn@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>To bad. I had read earlier that the plan was to talk up rich clients more
>and web services less. Web services are nice to work with, just don't have
>much need as of yet.

Yes I know. I did a demo recently that used a rich client app to call a web
service. The problem is that most of the devs in the room were surprised to
see that you could do that. I think Microsoft has not done a really good job
in explaining what it is that can be done on the client these days.
Everything has been about web services. I see client apps making a bit of a
comeback so to speak. Not everything fits in a browser, and it is in this
arena that .NET beats the pants off of Java and J2EE.

"Rob Teixeira" <RobTeixeira@@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3cb5fea8$1@10.1.10.29...
>
>
> Rich clients and web services are not mutually exclusive.
> Office, for example, makes use of them.
>
> -Rob
>
> "Jay Glynn" <jlsglynn@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >To bad. I had read earlier that the plan was to talk up rich clients more
> >and web services less. Web services are nice to work with, just don't
have
> >much need as of yet.
>

"Jay Glynn" <jlsglynn@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Yes I know. I did a demo recently that used a rich client app to call a
web
>service. The problem is that most of the devs in the room were surprised
to
>see that you could do that. I think Microsoft has not done a really good
job
>in explaining what it is that can be done on the client these days.
>Everything has been about web services. I see client apps making a bit of
a
>comeback so to speak. Not everything fits in a browser, and it is in this
>arena that .NET beats the pants off of Java and J2EE.

Does it? This only proves you know nothing about Java. Java was not created
to run in the browser (Can you only use .Net for Web Services?). I've been
doing this in Java before .Net came out. We switched our Applet to an Application
in like 5 minutes and we were using a home grown version of web services.
Serialized Java objects can be sent over HTTP and have been since at least
1998. Switching to Web Services (serialized XML vs serialized Objects) in
Java is easier than making my wife mad at me.

Have you seen Java Web Start? And as far as I can tell doing this with Assembies
and Namespaces will be a pain.

So you may like .Net better but it doesn't beat the pants off Java. Try
doing Jini in .Net.

Mark

>a
>>comeback so to speak. Not everything fits in a browser, and it is in this
>>arena that .NET beats the pants off of Java and J2EE.
>
>Does it? This only proves you know nothing about Java. Java was not created
>to run in the browser (Can you only use .Net for Web Services?). I've
been
>doing this in Java before .Net came out. We switched our Applet to an Application
>in like 5 minutes and we were using a home grown version of web services.
> Serialized Java objects can be sent over HTTP and have been since at least
>1998. Switching to Web Services (serialized XML vs serialized Objects)
in
>Java is easier than making my wife mad at me.
>
>Have you seen Java Web Start? And as far as I can tell doing this with
Assembies
>and Namespaces will be a pain.
>
>So you may like .Net better but it doesn't beat the pants off Java. Try
>doing Jini in .Net.


I don't think that I denied that Java could or could not do any of the things
that your talking about. The beating the pants comment was refering to the
fact that a rich client application is .NET is not only easier but performs
better and is easier to maintain then the Java equal. And yes I have done
both. It may be opinion, but one that is shared by many developers. I actually
like Java for doing certain things. It makes sense to use Java under certain
situations. Making a rich (read fat) client application is not one of one
of those situations.

Here's another opinion for ya.

If you think that Java GUI development or Java GUIs are in any way on equal
footing with .NET GUI development or .NET GUIs, then you are probably working
on a team where someone else is doing the GUI development.

I work with a bunch of heavy Java dudes, and not one of them has ever told
me, "Java GUIs rock!" or "Java GUI development is straightforward, simple,
and FUN!" On the contrary, they say how it is plagued with bugs and inconsistencies,
and is a chore to develop and maintain.

I don't do any Java GUI development myself, so I can't say this for me.
But from the people I trust for information on Java, I have never heard anything
good about Java GUI development.

"Jay Glynn" <jlsglynn@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>a
>>>comeback so to speak. Not everything fits in a browser, and it is in this
>>>arena that .NET beats the pants off of Java and J2EE.
>>
>>Does it? This only proves you know nothing about Java. Java was not created
>>to run in the browser (Can you only use .Net for Web Services?). I've
>been
>>doing this in Java before .Net came out. We switched our Applet to an
Application
>>in like 5 minutes and we were using a home grown version of web services.
>> Serialized Java objects can be sent over HTTP and have been since at least
>>1998. Switching to Web Services (serialized XML vs serialized Objects)
>in
>>Java is easier than making my wife mad at me.
>>
>>Have you seen Java Web Start? And as far as I can tell doing this with
>Assembies
>>and Namespaces will be a pain.
>>
>>So you may like .Net better but it doesn't beat the pants off Java. Try
>>doing Jini in .Net.
>
>
>I don't think that I denied that Java could or could not do any of the things
>that your talking about. The beating the pants comment was refering to the
>fact that a rich client application is .NET is not only easier but performs
>better and is easier to maintain then the Java equal. And yes I have done
>both. It may be opinion, but one that is shared by many developers. I actually
>like Java for doing certain things. It makes sense to use Java under certain
>situations. Making a rich (read fat) client application is not one of one
>of those situations.

Then you (and they) are using the wrong Java IDE and/or technique. I have
good, complicated Java UIs that were easy to make and maintain. Being in
the majority doesn't make you right. I just puts you in the major. Common
thinking is that Java UIs are crappy. So everyone repeats it or never learns
to do it right and so thinks it is tough an crappy. Have you used SWT yet?

Mark

Looking at all the questions about UI in .Net it seems it isn't either. And
there are things that can't be done in .Net that can be done it Java GUI
development. Oh, you can hack some of them yourself. Where is the cell
renderer class?

What IDE are they using? How many years Java experience? Are they doing
AWT or Swing?

Mark

"Jason" <jason@creative_nospam_corp.com> wrote:
>
>Here's another opinion for ya.
>
>If you think that Java GUI development or Java GUIs are in any way on equal
>footing with .NET GUI development or .NET GUIs, then you are probably working
>on a team where someone else is doing the GUI development.
>
>I work with a bunch of heavy Java dudes, and not one of them has ever told
>me, "Java GUIs rock!" or "Java GUI development is straightforward, simple,
>and FUN!" On the contrary, they say how it is plagued with bugs and inconsistencies,
>and is a chore to develop and maintain.

Let's see, Swing runs on Linux and Unix and Mac. .Net runs on Windows.
.Net had better be better. Thing is, while Swing isn't perfect, it is pretty
good especially for what is trying to be. You've never had any bugs in Windows?
Well I've had plenty of good ones in VB. I've had GUI problems that happened
only on machine. Try debugging that.

>
>I don't do any Java GUI development myself, so I can't say this for me.

>But from the people I trust for information on Java, I have never heard
anything
>good about Java GUI development.

I have my gripes too. But I do have good things to say.

Mark

> The fact that Visual Studio 7 is written in C# makes me
> think you must be able to do decent thick-client applications
> using .NET.

Jason: It's my understanding that VS.NET is written primarily in unmanaged
C++, with portions of the IDE (e.g., object browser?) implemented in C#. I
can't find any documentation on this one way or the other; if anyone can
point me to some reliable information on the subject, I'd appreciate it.
---
Phil Weber

The guys I know have done both AWT and Swing, though, like I said, I have
not done either myself. My Java experience is pretty good, but it has been
entirely for server-side data processing, using sockets and command line
interfaces.

As for myself, I have never seen a really good Java GUI. I have seen a few
that are passable, but not really great. Most are not very good, especially
if the programmer did not spend a lot of time on it. They all seem to be
slower than a normal app, look and act a little different, and seem to require
an inordinate amount of memory and resources. Maybe they are all just doing
it wrong. Maybe with enough work, you can come up with a Java GUI that performs
adequately and feels just like a Windows app. I wouldn't know. All I know
is that the guys who work with Java day in and day out don't like it for
GUI development. There are plenty of people, even now, who do Java on the
server and VB on the client because the GUIs are unsatisfying.

I would imagine that a Microsoft GUI written in .NET, which is based on years
of experience with MFC and VB, and the whole Windows paradigm, would not
have a huge number of problems. After all, there was Beta1, Beta2, and the
RC over a period of 2 years. This stuff isn't new. There is already support
for graphical .NET components from the same folks who did that sort of thing
for VB.

Nevertheless, there is probably still a lot of room for improvement. So
far, though, I like what I see a whole lot better than VB6. The fact that
Visual Studio 7 is written in C# makes me think you must be able to do decent
thick-client applications using .NET.

Some people prefer to use Java to do everything. That's fine. Some companies
prefer to develop their client-side code in Java. That is fine too, as long
as they are willing to pay the extra cost.

As for me, I believe Java is very good at some things, and not as good at
others, and .NET is very good at some things, and does not compare to Java
in others. For instance, in Java you have a very simple and elegant ClassLoader
architecture that can be used to write dynamically loaded applications.
This is great on the server. It's a bit of a pain to do dynamic compilation,
but you can make it work. .NET has the compilation stuff built right in
to the framework, but it's a pain to use. The dynamic loading is not as
simple as Java's, and in some ways it is less powerful, but it supports strong
names, which can make it more secure in some instances.

Java has support for ZIP files. The .NET framework does not natively support
any kind of compression whatsoever. .NET has a much more comprehensive and
robust set of classes for handling files and file IO (how do you find out
how much space is left on a hard drive in Java?).

Enough rambling. Gotta write some ASP.

"MarkN" <m@n.com> wrote:
>
>Looking at all the questions about UI in .Net it seems it isn't either.
And
>there are things that can't be done in .Net that can be done it Java GUI
>development. Oh, you can hack some of them yourself. Where is the cell
>renderer class?
>
>What IDE are they using? How many years Java experience? Are they doing
>AWT or Swing?
>
>Mark

I don't think there's any official documentation (unless you count developer
discussions on forums as "official").
AFAICT, parts of the framework were also implemented using C#.

-Rob

"Phil Weber" <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote:
>
>Jason: It's my understanding that VS.NET is written primarily in unmanaged
>C++, with portions of the IDE (e.g., object browser?) implemented in C#.
I
>can't find any documentation on this one way or the other; if anyone can
>point me to some reliable information on the subject, I'd appreciate it.
>---
>Phil Weber
>
>

> There are plenty of people, even now, who do Java on the
>server and VB on the client because the GUIs are unsatisfying.

I quit using VB on the client for the same reason.


>Some people prefer to use Java to do everything. That's fine. Some companies
>prefer to develop their client-side code in Java. That is fine too, as
long
>as they are willing to pay the extra cost.

What cost? You should check out SWT. For a demo get Eclipse. It runs faster
and better than .Net on my laptop.

>
>As for me, I believe Java is very good at some things, and not as good at
>others, and .NET is very good at some things, and does not compare to Java
>in others.

Can't disagree with that. Just the 'beats the pants off' statement.

>Enough rambling. Gotta write some ASP.

You have my sympathies. :)