Tim Anderson's ITWriting
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Tech writing blog
January 29, 2004Why many developers don't get .NetPosted 1771 days ago on January 29, 2004Judging by comments on Borland's newsgroups, many Delphi developers do not see any advantage in migrating to Microsoft's .Net Framework, even though with the new Delphi 8 Borland has given them a relatively easy way to do so. The reasoning is simple. Developers write code to solve problems; with Delphi 7.0 and earlier they get fast native Win32 code, and have full control over application dependencies. Migrate the app to Delphi 8.0 or C#, and they get a slower application that consumes more memory and requires a 20MB+ runtime. So what's the point? Well, there are some things you can say in .Net's favour. ASP.Net is great; there are some excellent components for .Net; it's a good preparation for Longhorn; working with XML and web services is easier in .Net, etc etc. But this is missing the point. What really counts is whether you believe in the philosophy behind .Net. This is best expressed in the term managed code. I highly recommend that those considering .Net fire up the Framework Configuration manager (Control panel - Administrative tools just in case you can't find it) and take a look. Go into Runtime Security Policy and look at Permission Sets. Hey, I can specify which applications have web access, or socket access, or can write to the file system. Or look at the Applications section, add an application, view and check its dependencies, set a restore point and run a fix on it. Managed code. As I write we are in the grip of yet another wave of viruses, caused by people opening what they thought were documents. Of course, if all our applications were managed code that couldn't happen. You could start setting policies such that only applications which you (or your administrator) approved could run. It's the kind of thing that has to happen if we want truly secure computing, and not the current nonsense of anti-virus daemons. There's another part of the .Net vision that I must mention. Components and assemblies. Say you have an application which consists of a Windows Forms executable and a .Net DLL with non-visual code. Want to make it a web application? No problem, just write an ASP.Net front-end that calls the same DLL. Want to offer an alternative Windows front-end? No problem, just create a new Windows Forms project that calls the same DLL. Do your customers want to integrate your application with Word, or Excel, or their own custom application? No problem, just document that API which your non-visual DLL presents and give it to them. Remoting and web services offer further possibilities for integration. But you can do that already. There's COM, there's old-style DLLs. True, but here .Net has huge advantages. In .Net every assembly is a reusable component. There's proper versioning control, side-by-side execution or shared assemblies.No registration, much easier to work with than native code DLLs. I'm of the view that managed code is a better way to do computing. I will add that Java has many of the same advantages, so I'm not saying that the future necessarily belongs with .Net. Nor am I saying that porting every application now is sensible. Developers should be pragmatic. But behind all the hype .Net is worth it. (c) Tim Anderson 29th January 2004. See ITWriting.com for more tech comment. it's the economyPosted 1764 days ago by Frank • • • Reply
a lot of the delay in the adoption of .NET has to do with the dearth of resources allocated to IT departments. Re: Why many developers don't get .NetPosted 1764 days ago by Alan McBee • • www • ReplyThe best thing about managed code is what it has to offer the NON-developers. You referred to it earlier with the Framework Configuration Manager. I happen to think it's pretty sweet stuff as a developer, but the best thing about .NET is that the systems engineers that have to work on and support the various networks of systems that might run my app can do so without worrying about whether my app tries to take priveleges it shouldn't, and I don't have to provide any special admin interface for them to get that functionality. Plus, even after have walked away from my codebase, my apps can leverage things built into the CLR and the framework that can reduce the TCO of my apps, without my having to do the R&D work that it takes to implement those functions, or to provide the after-market support I would have to do in order to keep up with additions/improvements to .NET as if I didn't use it. Different market, different architecture.Posted 1743 days ago by Warren Postma • • • Reply
Dot Net slows your applications down, ties your apps permanently to the Microsoft monopoly, and while it provides services that an IT manager might like (the policy stuff. Start Run gpedit.msc anyone? You like that? You'll like Dotnet), it doesn't solve the problem of portability, or the problem of maintainability, it implies vendor lockin, and fifty more years of closed-source slavery. In short, it's a big win for microsoft, and a big loss for everyone else. Re: Different market, different architecture.Posted 1742 days ago by Keith J. Farmer • • • ReplyAnybody can implement the CLR based on the published standard. In fact, several already have been doing so under Linux and GNU. Microsoft itself has made a Javascript reference implementation just for that pupose. The allegation of vendor lock-in was disproven years ago by MS's own actions. Re: Different market, different architecture.Posted 1740 days ago by Warren Postma • • • Reply
Allegation? It's more than that. It's history. Microsoft uses it's 'embrace, extend, extinguish' strategy when it is on the outside looking in, and when it's on the inside, looking out, it puts undocumented barriers to interoperability into its products, and feigns ignorance. The CLR is not the issue. It's the libraries that are the issue. Re: Different market, different architecture.Posted 1733 days ago by cablito • • • Reply
heard of mono? Re: Why many developers don't get .NetPosted 545 days ago by Dave • • www • Reply
If you like .Net but have VB, there is a good VB.Net to C# converter at www.vbconversions.net. |
Recent postsUsers plead with Borland to give up .NETIE7 to be released 18th October,... If Microsoft doesn't use UAC, why... Google's unsettling lack of direction Vista security: now prove it |
Re: Why many developers don't get .Net
Posted 1766 days ago by Kevin • • • ReplyIt all depends what your requirements are. As a Delphi developer I need an easily deployable application that doesn't require the presence of a large runtime (.NET). That is important because I sell my apps over the Internet. I realize that there are nice enhancements that us Delphi developers can take advantage of (garbage collection is probably my favourite). However, for me the cons outweight the pros right now. Delphi 7 is a very powerful dev tool. Unlike VB6 that really sucks compared to VB.NET we Delphi developers don't have to make the jump to .NET just to get a decent dev tool. I'd like to see improvements to the Win32 development tool. .NET can wait for Longhorn or when the runtime is widely deployed.