brady gaster

yadnb

how about we concentrate on the NEEDs?

Rob, I'd have to say that I'm glad you've taken notice to these beefs we keep hearing about.  I've kept my trap shut (shock, awe, surprise, and be-bafflement abound now) for some time about this, but it's terribly frustrating that since 99% of the enterprise clients out there who are using .NET are really using 1.1 “stuff,” it seems a smack in the face by Microsoft and Microsoft bloggers to completely 86 any discussion, technique, or interest in 1.1 technologies. Most companies won't even start using 2.0 its “really” released - much less Whidbey, which goodness knows when will come out. Usually, large companies are slow to adopt because of cost, problems in releases, and slowness to adopt/test/integrate newer stuff. Does this mean that Microsoft will abandon them in the sense that fewer and fewer articles will be published about the existing, widely-used technologies?

Sure, Whidbey must be cool - to be honest, I've not even taken a look at it yet! Why not, being an “early adopter,” and all? Simple - no need for my clients, no need for my business, and no benefit for me aside from pure academia. So maybe I'll miss the boat!??! I can live with that, because my work will get done, my clients will be happy, and I'll release applications that can actually help a business stay in business.

When I was teaching, this was a little different. When I had the time to play a lot more than work, this was different. And when I didn't need to buy the newest, largest, most powerful computer out there just to install and use the stuff, this was different. But currently, I've heard horror stories of installing, using, and debugging the new stuff. So I ask everyone - why would I want to risk blowing up my development environment (at work or home office, that is), and risk losing time (and thus money), and risk my clients' unhappiness and probably hold up their businesses for goodness knows how much time as a result of the fact that I 86'ed my environment by installing alpha/beta/release candidate technology...

when no one can use it in the first place!

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for new stuff. I'm all for learning. I'm all for toying around with the nifty new shiny toys. These are all awesome, needed exercises. But what's more important - using something that's so new no one else even has it and no client will allow you to utilize or making good - or great - with the existing technology?

I choose the latter. I choose to push the boundaries of what's already released, already in production and accepted in my client base's technological arsenal. I choose to use what's there for the betterment of my business and my clients, and to innovate with the tools I already have at my disposal.

Technology doesn't exist for technology's sake. It exists for a greater good - to be useful.

Comments

TrackBack said:

# April 30, 2004 3:54 PM

Paul Wilson said:

I think the value in at least reading about the future is so that you can better plan for it. Now don't get me wrong, you can't really change some things you're doing today -- but some things you can -- and that's my point. You may not be able to use generics today, but you can use versions of MasterPages today. But if you didn't read to know they were coming, and already here to some extent, then you would continue to use other techniques that aren't as flexible today or as future proof. So knowing what's coming can be a good thing -- but certainly it all needs to be in the proper perspective also.
# April 30, 2004 7:50 PM

John said:

You know, the thing that actually really hurts my feelings about Whidbey, Longhorn, etc. isn't so much that I keep hearing about it. It's that I *need* the stuff that's going to be in it (generics particularly) and I know I won't have it for a long time.

I keep bumping into problems with 1.1 that take me a serious amount of time to address, and I know that I won't be stuck with these problems in the future. In many ways it doesn't seem like Microsoft's fault, it's just the pain of really fast moving technology.

.NET v1.1 isn't even a 'mature' technology, yet it feels obsolete. Particularly for WinForms stuff which I find to be particularly lacking in many areas. MS obviously knows this (not that they want to have to tell you about it) but they are going to put all the 'fixes' (mostly 'features' I guess) into their future products.

It just feels like 1.1 is obsolete, but we still have to use it...

That said, I had to write some VB6 code again for the first time in a few years recently, and it was painful. v1.1 might suck, but it doesn't SUCK! :)

John.
# May 1, 2004 4:50 PM

Brett said:

More whidbey now!

So what if you haven't looked at it yet.

The more we know now, and the earlier we know it (so we can offer feedback and change it) the better. While working with Whidbey I have already identified a couple of key features that were missing that have been entered as defects for an upcoming release of Whidbey.

I would rather have more now then be disappointed later because something that was crucial wasn’t there because no one was looking towards the future.

# May 4, 2004 8:39 AM
Leave a Comment

(required) 

(required) 

(optional)

(required)