Is anyone else excited about .NET?

[joohang]

I am. .NET does 0wn. 🙂

Most people who say sh*t about .NET are either misinformed or know sh*t about it. Or they dismiss it claiming that (something else) can do the same thing. Oh big f***ing deal. It doesn't change the fact that Microsoft did a fantastic job with .NET. As far as I'm concerned, I couldn't care less how much it resembles something else or it "borrowed" from some other thing. It doesn't change the fact that I find .NET development more fun and made my life a lot easier.

My 2 cents.

P.S. If you like PocketPC (or have one) try the .NET Compact Framework.

 

[joohang]

<< Is J2EE slower than .Net? Quite possibly. But if Oracle, BEA or Sun wanted to craft a Pet Store 28 times faster than .Net, that too is also possible. Or a standard C++ Pet Store 28 times faster. You get the picture. >>


The whole benchmark issue is very controversial. You do have a good point. I've seen a Microsoft response to a competitor's (probably Sun, but can't remember) benchmark claiming 2x more performance than .NET. Microsoft argued that the competitor didn't follow Microsoft's recommended best practices and rewrote the app to post a new benchmark.

I personally think that this whole benchmark issue is a never-ending game. As far as I'm concerned, .NET is fast enough and I am convinced that it is.

On another note, talking about best practices, I often get annoyed when MS-haters say all sorts of BS about Microsoft-based development even though they completely ignore any industry best practices out there. The ignorance of many (unfortunately) companies is absolutely unbelievable. Same goes to logistics. I'm young and don't have decades of IT experience stacked up, but I've seen quite a few companies who don't spend any time researching and blame Microsoft when their machines blue-screen every couple of days.

 

[AmigaMan]

As a former VB programmer who is now into Java fulltime, I have to say I like .net. We had a presentation here where I work and this guy was showing us how to do different things in VB.net and it was cool! Where I work, there are three camps, your VB programmers, your Java programmers who work on the web portal, and the COBOL programmers who work on the mainframes. All three loved what this guy was showing.
I think that .net has a great chance to succeed, especially on the client side using VB.net. To do the same things this guy was doing using Java would have taken a while, he did it in a couple seconds. I'm not as certain how things work on the server side. A downside was that it sounded a little IE centric, which is not good for us since we have all sorts of users/browsers connecting to our web application. I'd hate to be the one to tell the (L)users that they all now have to use IE. We'd get helpdesk calls from newbies who think the internet is AOL and don't know what a browser is, to geeks who would want to use Opera. Not a good situation!
I'd really like to start using .net to see what it's capable of, but I don't think my company is going that way for the web application, just client applications.

 

[joohang]

AmigaMan,

The ASP.NET WebForm controls are compatible down to HTML 3.2 for their basic functionalities. They work better in IE because it's automatically rendered in DHTML to reduce server roundtrips, but unless you inherit and add more features without considering browser compatibility, your web applications are good to go down to Netscape 3.x.

 

[Sunner]

Another step in MS's scheme to rule the computer world.

An interesting idea, and I'd probabaly be excited if it wasn't for the fact that I have a feeling MS will stick it up the a$$ of everyone else in the end.

Sounds all fine and dandy right now, criss platform and all, but I dont trust MS to keep it that way, if it ever gains momentum, they'll lock everyone into Windows sooner or later.

 

[Turkey]

When you use a method to set and get a property, you can do error checking and processing on the data. So, unless there's some funky binding going on, it's not OO. 🙁

 

[Nothinman]

When you use a method to set and get a property, you can do error checking and processing on the data. So, unless there's some funky binding going on, it's not OO

But that doesn't make it non-OO, it just makes it potentially more dangerous. If you try to assign a wrong type the compiler will catch it, and you can overload the = operator if you want to do checking beyond what the user of the class is doing.

 

[ShastyMcNasty]

<< The syntax label->Text = "some text" is completely non-OO. It should have been label->setText("some text"). And passing pointers to functions... How antiquated. If the rest of C++.NET is like this example it is just another crap API from MS. It's too bad they didn't borrow a bit more from Java! >>



>Are you really this obtuse? You do, of course, understand that properties is nothing more than syntactical sugar, right? Can you please tell me how you think a property >assignment is non-OO?

>I imagine you'll have no real response, which means we can ignore your posts and label it as the typical post from an anti-MS zealot. You should spend more time reading the >facts and less time perpetuating such ignorance.


Man.... you read my mind.

 

[manly]

<< When you use a method to set and get a property, you can do error checking and processing on the data. So, unless there's some funky binding going on, it's not OO. 🙁 >>



Except in C#'s case, the syntax is just syntactic sugar that actually hides the private fields with accessor methods. Besides, the point here is data encapsulation, and not really OO.

You can do data encapsulation in straight C if you wanted to.

However, you do raise the good point that with Java-style "properties" (the getProperty, setProperty coding convention), your accessors can do more work than just setting private fields.

Like I said before, it's kinda silly how much the new syntactic sugar in C# is being hyped up. Java's strengths aren't at all about conciseness. In fact, Java is quite a "verbose" high-level language, so to speak. And syntactic sugar is very easy to add to the language if it's a good idea.