Saw it coming


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 56

Thread: Saw it coming

  1. #1
    Cali LaFollett Guest

    Re: 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



  2. #2
    Jay Glynn Guest

    Saw it coming


    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 ;-)

  3. #3
    Karl E. Peterson Guest

    Re: Saw it coming

    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]


  4. #4
    Jay Glynn Guest

    Re: Saw it coming


    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.

  5. #5
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: Saw it coming



    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.



  6. #6
    Jay Glynn Guest

    Re: Saw it coming

    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.

    >




  7. #7
    MarkN Guest

    Re: Saw it coming


    "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

  8. #8
    Jay Glynn Guest

    Re: Saw it coming


    >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.

  9. #9
    Jason Guest

    Re: Saw it coming


    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.

  10. #10
    Guest

    Re: Saw it coming


    "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

  11. #11
    MarkN Guest

    Re: Saw it coming


    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

  12. #12
    Phil Weber Guest

    Re: Saw it coming

    > 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



  13. #13
    Jason Guest

    Re: Saw it coming


    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



  14. #14
    Rob Teixeira Guest

    Re: Saw it coming



    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
    >
    >



  15. #15
    MarkN Guest

    Re: Saw it coming


    > 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.

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