.NET equals Efficiency - Page 3


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 151

Thread: .NET equals Efficiency

  1. #31
    Bob O`Bob Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency

    Zane Thomas [.NET MVP] wrote:
    > On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 18:49:57 -0800, Bob O`Bob <bob@cluestick.org> wrote:
    >
    > >If dotnet falls apart, this forum will cease to exist long before that.

    >
    > But there will always be an OffRamp - somewhere in cyberspace. ;-)



    Excellent point.

    Thanks.
    That thought made my day.



    Bob
    --
    posting from work, but representing only myself

  2. #32
    Bill Storage Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency

    And we all know that's where the real fun is.



    "Zane Thomas [.NET MVP]" <zane@mabry.com> wrote in message
    news:3c9e6aa8.100707828@news.devx.com...
    > On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 18:49:57 -0800, Bob O`Bob <bob@cluestick.org> wrote:
    >
    > >If dotnet falls apart, this forum will cease to exist long before that.

    >
    > But there will always be an OffRamp - somewhere in cyberspace. ;-)
    >
    >
    > --
    > When freedom is outlawed
    > only outlaws will be free.




  3. #33
    W.E.(Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency

    In article <3c7457d0$1@10.1.10.29>,
    "Bill Storage" <storage@bplusmylastname.com> writes:

    [...]

    > You boasted a few years back of having never done data access in
    > VB, at a time when the VBPJ poll showed the vast majority of apps
    > were database-centric.


    For someone who uses phrases like "You're about 6 standard deviations
    off the mean," you certainly are quick to make invalid characterizations
    of such statistics. The poll did not represent a random sampling of VB
    users. Instead, the sampling involved two significant sources of bias,
    as the article itself noted.

    In the end, all it showed was that a large percentage of responding
    readers (of a magazine with heavy coverage of database apps) described
    database related apps.


    --

    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
    * CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
    * * *
    * Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
    * Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
    * or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
    * * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

  4. #34
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency

    On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:31:05 -0800, "Patrick Meader"
    <pmeader@fawcette.com> wrote:

    >Extrapolating that to him being the cause of VB6's alleged demise is just
    >hyperbole. Fun, maybe, but not very nice.


    Sounds to me like a measure of buck passing is happening. No one wants
    to see the pointing finger all the while the corporate world doesn't
    have a clue what it needs .NET for.

    MM

  5. #35
    Bill Storage Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency

    "W.E.(Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote in message
    news:3C74AF16.6BD0A00F@netzero.net...

    > > You boasted a few years back of having never done data access in
    > > VB, at a time when the VBPJ poll showed the vast majority of apps
    > > were database-centric.

    >
    > For someone who uses phrases like "You're about 6 standard deviations
    > off the mean," you certainly are quick to make invalid characterizations
    > of such statistics. The poll did not represent a random sampling of VB
    > users. Instead, the sampling involved two significant sources of bias,
    > as the article itself noted.
    >
    > In the end, all it showed was that a large percentage of responding
    > readers (of a magazine with heavy coverage of database apps) described
    > database related apps.


    Not doing db wasn't my basis for saying Karl was far from normal. Karl and I
    have known each other for many years and ***** at each other a lot but still
    have beers. I thought Karl might relish being called unusual in that
    manner - sort of an intentional ambiguity that could be seen as a compliment
    or an insult. Sheesh.

    Most code I have ever seen deals with dbs.

    Yes, I'm aware that there are fewer than 10E9 VB coders, thus 6 std dev
    would not apply.

    Bill



  6. #36
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency

    On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 18:26:49 -0800, "Bill Storage"
    <storage@bplusmylastname.com> wrote:

    >........ Are you expecting
    >that if you ***** loud enough, Microsoft might change their minds and roll
    >it all back?


    Yep. Got it in one! That's exactly what might happen. Coca-Cola and
    others have turned round the Ship of Chutzpah and said We don' speaka
    da lingo. The very idea that three million programmers and countless
    thousands of businesses across the world should have their entire
    business plans for the next five years upset because of a little team
    of navel gazers in Seattle just makes me physically sick. Bleeuch!

    MM

  7. #37
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency

    On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 18:49:57 -0800, Bob O`Bob <bob@cluestick.org>
    wrote:

    >Bill Storage wrote:
    >>
    >> Let's remember this discussion, and revisit it in a couple years.
    >>

    >
    >Sucker bet.
    >If dotnet falls apart, this forum will cease to exist long before that.


    I'm sure any Linux publisher would take it over -- at an Open Source
    price, of course.

    MM

  8. #38
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency

    On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 03:34:19 GMT, zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas [.NET
    MVP]) wrote:

    >On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 18:49:57 -0800, Bob O`Bob <bob@cluestick.org> wrote:
    >
    >>If dotnet falls apart, this forum will cease to exist long before that.

    >
    >But there will always be an OffRamp - somewhere in cyberspace. ;-)


    Aw, cummon! We'll be crying into our beer next.

    MM

  9. #39
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency

    On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 17:47:02 -0700, "W.E.(Bill) Goodrich, PhD"
    <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote:

    >Generally speaking, our programs are response-time sensitive and do
    >not involve internet/intranet communications or large scale databases.
    >They run to the low tens of thousands of lines (if that) rather than
    >the hundreds of thousands. They often have to run on old hardware,
    >under consumer OSs (Win95 and up). They are modular, but not OO. And
    >they are produced quickly and effectively.


    Sounds quite like the kinds of apps I've been involved with. What a
    shame that the .NET zealots can't get it into their heads that their
    world of XML web services is very different from lots of traditional
    programming applications.

    MM

  10. #40
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency

    On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 18:10:45 -0800, "Bill Storage"
    <storage@bplusmylastname.com> wrote:

    >Spelling Microsoft will dollars signs (Micro$oft) IMO makes you look like an
    >***. Companies exist to make money.


    The dollar sign represents greed in this case. People have been using
    it for years.

    MM

  11. #41
    Robert Lantry Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency


    kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
    >On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:31:05 -0800, "Patrick Meader"
    ><pmeader@fawcette.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Extrapolating that to him being the cause of VB6's alleged demise is just
    >>hyperbole. Fun, maybe, but not very nice.

    >
    >Sounds to me like a measure of buck passing is happening. No one wants
    >to see the pointing finger all the while the corporate world doesn't
    >have a clue what it needs .NET for.
    >
    >MM

    Actually, having had now several requests for .NET from banking and pharmecuital
    companies, along with Monsanto Corp. wanting web services written, I think
    your last statement might be over-statement. Okay, not might...it is.

  12. #42
    Robert Lantry Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency


    What do web-services have to do with "lots of traditional programming applications?"
    You honestly seem to think that just because the tool can be used to write
    web-services you can't write "traditional" apps (whatever the **** that means.).
    You honestly haven't used VB.NET have you? You're much happier moaning
    and kibitizing over something you don't have any honest experience with.
    In other words, you're on a real kick to sound like you know what you're
    talking about but the fact remains you're completely in the dark.


    kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) wrote:
    >On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 17:47:02 -0700, "W.E.(Bill) Goodrich, PhD"
    ><bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote:
    >
    >>Generally speaking, our programs are response-time sensitive and do
    >>not involve internet/intranet communications or large scale databases.


    >>They run to the low tens of thousands of lines (if that) rather than
    >>the hundreds of thousands. They often have to run on old hardware,
    >>under consumer OSs (Win95 and up). They are modular, but not OO. And
    >>they are produced quickly and effectively.

    >
    >Sounds quite like the kinds of apps I've been involved with. What a
    >shame that the .NET zealots can't get it into their heads that their
    >world of XML web services is very different from lots of traditional
    >programming applications.
    >
    >MM



  13. #43
    Kunle Odutola Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency


    "Dan Barclay" <Dan@MVPs.org> wrote in message
    news:77o87uohdodf6u26l3hikmqgi77fh4oqut@4ax.com...
    > On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 18:26:49 -0800, "Bill Storage"
    > <storage@bplusmylastname.com> wrote:


    > >but you appear to be
    > >without a clue of what commercial development with a big team of coders

    is
    > >about, yet you claim very strongly to know what will "hose so many
    > >customers".

    >
    > Just how many of the 3,4,5 or 6 million (pick your number) VB
    > developers do you think program in a big team (larger than 3).


    Most. Most copies are bought on volume licenses IIRC or by companies. At
    least for the Prof and Enterprise editions.

    Kunle



  14. #44
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency


    "Karl E. Peterson" <karl@mvps.org> wrote:
    >
    >What is? That the ".notters" blame Bill for destroying the language? Of

    course it
    >is, that's why I asked for a cite.


    I seem to remember at least one person (two actually) who made such claims.
    One even referred to Bill as something like "Bill 'VB-Killer' Storage". Of
    course, those were all posts back in the happy VB7 newsgroups, which, according
    to the same person, fell victim to some black-helicopter style conspiracy.

    -Rob

  15. #45
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: .NET equals Efficiency


    "W.E.(Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote:
    >
    >For someone who uses phrases like "You're about 6 standard deviations
    >off the mean," you certainly are quick to make invalid characterizations


    >of such statistics. The poll did not represent a random sampling of VB
    >users. Instead, the sampling involved two significant sources of bias,
    >as the article itself noted.


    That sounds vaguely familiar. Kinda like your and Mike's assertion that the
    majority of some 3 million VB programmers are "non programmers".

    -Rob

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