DevX does seem one sideded - Page 3


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 45 of 45

Thread: DevX does seem one sideded

  1. #31
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: DevX does seem one sideded

    On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 15:06:52 -0800, "Robert Scoble"
    <robertscoble@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >5) The death of the farm system. During the 1990s, there was a good "farm
    >system" of small companies. Today that system is totally dead due to the
    >excesses of the VCs (and because Microsoft hasn't been looking outside
    >itself to grow and has been investing internally for growth). Remember where
    >Hotmail, PowerPoint, FrontPage, WebTV, etc, came from? That's right, small
    >companies). Right now VCs are clueless as to what to invest in and Microsoft
    >isn't taking up the slack. What's the most innovative thing that Microsoft
    >announced at CES? Come on, a watch? <sigh>


    You gotta tell the time!You just gotta! It's IMPORTANT! And you can
    hook it to your freezer, or cycle, or your kid! Where else would we be
    in 2003?

    MM

  2. #32
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: DevX does seem one sideded

    On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 15:06:52 -0800, "Robert Scoble"
    <robertscoble@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >Not to mention: The Visual Studio group started treating us like IBM used to
    >treat Microsoft. And they are amazed that people still don't understand what
    >.NET is? Well, duh. If you want people to understand something they don't
    >understand, you invite them over for a conversation. So far I'm still
    >waiting for the conversation to start.


    Maybe folks are afraid the conversation will turn into browbeating.

    MM

  3. #33
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: DevX does seem one sideded

    On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 15:57:02 -0800, "Phil Weber"
    <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote:

    >Robert: Well, I can't say that I "love" any corporation, but I like
    >Microsoft as much as I ever have. I think they make the best development
    >tools. I own MSFT stock. I'd work for them, if they'd let me do it without
    >relocating.


    I don't think you should make it so difficult for them by insisting
    they relocate.

    MM

  4. #34
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: DevX does seem one sideded

    On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 16:17:28 -0800, "Robert Scoble"
    <robertscoble@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >So, I'll count you as a lover, but with an asterisk.


    A star-crossed lover?

    MM

  5. #35
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: DevX does seem one sideded

    On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 16:17:28 -0800, "Robert Scoble"
    <robertscoble@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >Oh, and, I've talked to many who take a "I love Microsoft" stance publicly,
    >but then when you get them off the record, or visit their houses, you find
    >that they are only taking that stance to profit off of them.


    Yeah, off the record the voodoo dolls get taken out. Ooh, what lovely
    pins you have!

    MM

  6. #36
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: DevX does seem one sideded

    On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 16:14:22 -0800, "Robert Scoble"
    <robertscoble@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >> Robert: Who's "us?" MS has invited influential developers to Redmond, on
    >> multiple occasions, to have such a "conversation."

    >
    >Exactly.
    >
    >But, .NET is a lot more than technologies for developers, no?
    >
    >Ahh, the confusion reigns: http://www.atnewyork.com/news/article.php/1568041
    >
    >So, is .NET just a runtime? Heh.


    ..Net is all about web services. Period. Well, I've said it often
    enough, and now it's confirmed. Again. That article above says as
    much: <quote> ".NET is intended as a set of software technologies
    designed to facilitate information between people, systems and devices
    -- the basis of which is XML Web services."</quote>

    All I can say is, if the basis is web services, so must every part and
    every facet be, too. Microsoft was (maybe still is) convinced of the
    spread of web services. That's why .Net was born, well, that and a
    need to kick sand in Java's face.

    MM

  7. #37
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: DevX does seem one sideded

    On 11 Jan 2003 09:19:58 -0800, "Rob Abbe" <rabbe@mn.rr.com> wrote:

    >Sounds like you like them because they stroked your ego by inviting you to
    >come to a meeting with the other "influential" programmers.... Maybe I'm
    >just jealous


    Mebbe that's not all they stroked... <g>

    MM

  8. #38
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: DevX does seem one sideded

    On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 15:47:24 +1030, "Mark Hurd"
    <markhurd@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

    >I guess the issues you highlighted (esp. that there's too many alternatives, a
    >mundane corporate p.o.v, and the bad MS PR) are even overridding free
    >software...


    Yes, it's all become deathly boring. There's only so much excitement
    to be had from watching a little mouse pointer travel round the
    screen. Even sex loses its edge after several orgies.

    MM

  9. #39
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: DevX does seem one sideded

    Hi Eddie --

    > : They would
    > :: *never* consider shipping a version of Word or Excel that couldn't
    > :: read the last version's data.
    >
    > But isn't that precisely what happened with the first release of Word
    > 97 (pre Sp1).


    No, I think it was the other way around. They had *forward* compatability (old DOCs
    still loaded) but they omitted backward compatability (newly saved DOCs wouldn't load
    in older versions).

    > Didn't MS come out with a bunch of nonsese to justify it
    > then speedily backtracked and issued SP1 to correct that deliberate
    > oversight.


    Yep, they knew they'd f'd up, bigtime. By "just" providing forward compatability.
    In the case of VFred, they couldn't even get that right.

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



  10. #40
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: DevX does seem one sideded

    Hi Rob --

    > >Think there's a chance you didn't consider another viable option? >Namely,

    > using what
    > >works now? I think Microsoft achieved a state of "good enough" a few >years

    > ago.
    >
    > VB6 is still used here and will be for some time, just not for new projects.
    > There were many factors that played into the use of Java. Moving forward,
    > we thought it would be difficult to attract and retain programming talent
    > if we didn't make some sort of move. Plus the VB6 UI is really starting
    > to show it's age, it's also becoming difficult to find new ActiveX controls
    > and we expect support to drop off for what we do use now. Like I said many
    > reasons, it was not a knee jerk reaction out of bitterness even though it
    > may sound that way.


    Nah, it doesn't sound that way at all. I might question some assuptions, but I
    understand. Personally, VB6 and existing ActiveX controls (those few 3rd party I
    use) are quite sufficient for most projects I foresee in the near-to-middle future.

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



  11. #41
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: DevX does seem one sideded

    Hi Larry --

    >> I was talking with another (former) section leader from the old VB
    >> groups just the other day, and our joint conclusion was: The fun is
    >> gone. VBPJ/BasicPro used to target *enthusiasts* -- folks who coded
    >> for fun, whether they were paid or not. Now, they target folks who
    >> *have* to code. Same deal with Microsoft. The fun is gone.

    >
    > Your quite right, and I don't get it either.


    Yeah, go figure. It also explains, probably in good part, the ongoing "problems"
    with advertisers. Before, folks *wanted* to spend money, to advance their <er>
    enthusiastic endeavors. Now, with The Enterprise being the target market, they've
    aligned fully with those who's only concern is *not* spending money! Who the ****
    wants to advertise to them? <g>

    > The API used to animate
    > that player and draw its map are the same API's used to animate or
    > draw a usercontrol. Or, the mechanism for using RS232 to talk to
    > one's own ham radio, or wireless robot, is the same mechanism in the
    > methods that use RS232 to interface with production machines. But,
    > in one instance, ideas abound, yet in the other, its the old mundane
    > tedium.


    You got it. Who brought the internet to the state it's in today? It certainly
    wasn't Microsoft! (I won't answer, as I suspect most know.)

    > The community is still out there, they're just not as enthused as
    > they once were. I can only wonder what part of that can be
    > contributed to VBPJ folding, and the change you indicate (aside from
    > MS's part)....


    The fun is gone. <sigh>

    Microsoft no longer sells a general purpose programming language.

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



  12. #42
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: DevX does seem one sideded

    Hi Phil --

    > > The idea of Microsoft allowing itself to be influenced by a 2-
    > > way exchange of views with people who are not already in
    > > full agreement with them is not one that seems to have any
    > > influence within senior management circles in Redmond.

    >
    > Jonathan: Well, at the meeting I attended, there was plenty of
    > dissent (this was no gathering of yes-men),


    Very nearly unanimous, other than the couple-few "ringers" they included, yep.

    > and the VS.NET team
    > appeared to change direction on several points based largely on the
    > influence of the dissenters.


    Such as? You don't mean to hold up "AndAlso" and "OrElse" as your shining example,
    do you? They took that one good idea (ensure And/Or still worked as they used to!),
    and totally botched it up. What else did you feel they acted on? Changed direction?
    Puhleeeeese...

    > So, for what it's worth, my experience
    > has apparently been different from yours.


    Mine too, and I was there! <LOL>

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



  13. #43
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: DevX does seem one sideded

    Hi Robert --

    > Oh, and it seems to me that you guys only got invited up there after
    > a bunch of bad press hit PCWeek and someone's *** got chewed out by
    > Steve Ballmer.


    Yeah, thems were the days. <chuckle>

    Developers cry foul over new Microsoft language, c|net news, January 2001
    http://news.com.com/2009-1001-251154.html?legacy=cnet

    Microsoft's new Visual Basic--a .Not?, ZDNet, January 2001
    http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-527309.html?legacy=zdnn

    Microsoft tweaks geeks, c|net news, January 2001
    http://news.com.com/2011-1088-277811...net&tag=btmprm

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



  14. #44
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: DevX does seem one sideded

    Hi Rob --

    > Define "infuential" would those "influential" people still be
    > considered "influential" in a positive way by the vb community today?
    > If this is the end result, they sure had an influence on me.


    If he's talking about any of the meetings I was at, surely I can't be counted as
    having any/much influence. For that, I am thankful, I suppose. Far better than to
    be seen as taking such credit!

    "Drop backward compatibility altogether. Do us a favor; havenít you guys learned
    the lesson of DOS? Backward compatibility cost us so much money over the years. Break
    my code. Force me into getting rid of my old code if I want to add VB7 features into
    my product."
    Bill "Break My Code!" Storage
    http://www.fawcette.com/vsm/interviews/storage.pdf

    The problem there, of course, is the confusion between backwards and forwards
    compatability. What a damned shame.

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



  15. #45
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: DevX does seem one sideded

    Hi T. --

    >> I think there are a lot of factors contributing to the lack of
    >> enthusiasm.

    >
    > Robert, nice post!


    Yeah, he hit some good ones, though I'm not as quick to blame the downfall of IT on
    the economy as I am on Microsoft. They share at least equal "credit" methinks.

    > Although, for Karl it probably has more to do with the "Wild West"
    > being tamed.


    Good analogy, yeah. Similarly, it's probably the difference between flying an
    open-cockpit biplane and a 747. I can't think of anyone who'd consider the latter
    "exhilerating" in the same sense as they might the former.

    > Working for/at Dilbertesque type companies is about the only thing
    > that has stayed constant for me since I first entered this field and
    > that is something that can take the enthusiasm out of anybody.


    Sorry to hear that. :-(

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



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center