Oh my God! The sky is falling on .NET v2!

25 Comments

• Hi Jeff,
  
  
  
  I totally agree with you. The opener the process, the more complains you'll get.
  

• Jeff you sound like a Microsft drone :-)
  
  
  
  You miss the point totally. I love VS 2005, I wish I could have this tool 2 years ago.
  
  
  
  The problem (well for me at least but surely for many) is Microsoft breaking its own rules. Being compatible with the previous version and also more important for me provide something to migrate your projects.
  
  This apply to web projects of course, windows projects are more or less intact from the earthquake.
  
  
  
  Yes it's seems strange to see this rumbling noise suddenly now, but you must understand that after the phase OI called the 'open the box and play', now it's time to see what we will do withj our projects the one we have to maintain every day.
  
  
  
  And even if I am a big Microsoft advocate, there no way. It's so incredibly complex to have one single real .Net 1.1 project running under VS 2005. And this is where a lot of people like me are different from the usual Beta crowd. We are working with massive or even modest web projects, and my boss don't give a damn about VS 2005 or 2010. If I convince hime to do the jump (and this is not an issue for me) I bet you he will kill me straight if I show him the days I spend on the bloody thing. And no the Beta argument doesn't apply here, not only becuase of the Go live licence, but because the tool has bugs and missing features in a way it's really doubtful to have something ready on the first week of November. Believe me, to have Scott Guthrie sending me an email in the middle of the night to say they reckon something is wrong with the migration tool and immediately sending me a set of new assemblies, for me this is a strong proof something goes wrong. And don't be ridiculous to associate this with some VB6 petition. This has nothing in common, we are talking here wbout web applications and the lack of important features like multi project building. I can't bear the idea to live with VS 2005 for 3 to 4 years without any serious promiose of updates by Microsoft.
  

• Of course, if someone has a different opinion, they miss the point, didn't read your post, don't know any better, etc. I've heard all of that before.
  

• I agree with both of you !
  
  
  
  I don't think v2 is going to be a failure, nor do I think there should be a Beta 3. But the reason I don't think there should be a Beta 3 is because I know how big a deal a beta is and I want v2 as soon as possible -- because I will be gladly using it.
  
  
  
  But then why do I make my "negative" posts and agree with the opposite view too? Because the whole point of the open process is to get our feedback, and I'm giving it -- sometimes loudly. Why? Because I want the RTM to be as good as it can be, because I don't plan on waiting until a SP.
  
  
  
  Will I survive without a project file? Most assuredly YES. I can make multiple server forms possible, and make web apps stay alive, and do just about anything -- given the time. And that's the rub -- why should it take lots of my time to do something that is very easy today.
  

• I agree with Paschal. The sky is certainly not falling and VS 2005 is going to be awesome. I cannot wait for it. I do have some concerns about the "breaking changes" to the project system I've found with Beta 2. Quite frankly, I never had an issue with how ASP.NET projects were set up in the first 2 versions of VS.NET. In my opinion, the project model in the first two releases made development of ASP.NET and Winforms apps very similar. Now, it seems that everything else remains consistent except ASP.NET apps. Why?
  
  
  
  Even migration of a small product-based ASP.NET web application I built took a couple of hours to work through and around. Why? I can deal with correcting warnings, but these were not merely warnings. The thing wouldn't compile a project built with Option Stict On and Option Explicit On unless many changes were made. And the idea of introducing a new Refresh file seems like such a hack to me.
  
  
  
  More importantly, as Paschal mentions, is the fact that scrambling going on at this point on the part of MS is worrisome, although not un-appreciated. We hear, "These things will be fixed", but isn't the idea of a Beta 2 to be feature-locked? Some of the changes being offered aren't bug fixes, but IMHO new features. Will we get a chance to fully test and report back on the changes? Without a Beta 3 or extended RC, no.
  
  
  
  Sorry for the long comment, and Microsoft, we love the openess you've shown on this version. I hope we never go back to the old-ways. Along those lines of openess, hear we are, offering our input.
  
  
  
  

• Beta3? No, that will only slow down the process
  
  Fix more bugs? Oh yes. We all know Microsoft won't release a service pack for vs.net. They never did. So any bug that's postponed has to be fixed NOW. And I'm not talking about silly things, but things like operator restrictions on generics for example and after reading a lot about it: the webproject crap.
  
  
  
  personally I think the current webproject is a real PITA, so I use class library projects, but I'm unsure if I can still use class library projects in vs.net 2005 for websites.
  

• So because they never released a SP before means they never will. That's an example of one of those irrational things I was talking about.
  

• "So because they never released a SP before means they never will. That's an example of one of those irrational things I was talking about."
  
  I can only conclude that they never will release a service pack. What evidence is there that they WILL release a service pack? It's 2.5 years AFTER vs.net 2003 was released! Didn't they promise a service pack for vs.net 2002 right after 2003 was released?
  
  
  
  I've given up on them for service packs for VS.NET. Perhaps we're lucky and they find it necessary to release a service pack, but I doubt it. The main reason I think they don't release a service pack is that IF they do that, there is less need to upgrade to a future vs.net, and us upgrading to a newer version is MANDATORY to get new technology implemented by developers, at least for MS. If most developers stick with .NET 1.1, stuff for longhorn will take ages to get mainstraim, at least the code based on .NET 2.0.
  

• What evidence is there that they won't? Things change.
  
  
  
  We have these "certainties" in the roller coaster enthusiast world too, like Cedar Point builds a new coaster every two years. Still waiting for that one to pan out.
  

• Enterprise developers releasing software on Beta platforms? That's a complete oxymoron. You may work for big companies and produce large scale systems, but they are not "Enterprise" systems otherwise you'd not even be talking about Go Live licenses and that sort of thing. I'm all for using VS2005 for getting a head start and laying some foundation, but in my opinion the serious amount of risk you're taking working so much with a Beta product is frightening. Until the RTM version is released your playing with fire in my opinion.
  

• I knew someone would chime in with chest thumping. Thanks!
  

• >>>We all know Microsoft won't release a service pack for vs.net. They never did.
  
  
  
  Really? Then what's this link, dated 8-Mar-05?
  
  
  
  Microsoft® Visual Studio® .NET 2002 Service Pack 1
  
  http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=c41d8159-b42f-4d06-a797-e510494976ee&displaylang=en
  

• Yeah look at the date: 3/8/2005. Sorta pointless if we have to wait that long for a VS SP.
  
  

• "I guess this is the down side of having a very public and open beta process. "
  
  
  
  Actually it is the problem of having not so open Development Process. Do not know how many times I have gone in and changed Open-Source software because of small issues like this. I know, I know M$ ain't going to do anything like this, but to do the least, should listen to the Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers...(I forgot how many times Steve Ballmer said that. But I guess you get the point).
  

• >>>Really? Then what's this link, dated 8-Mar-05?
  
  >>>Microsoft® Visual Studio® .NET 2002 Service Pack 1
  
  >>>http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=c41d8159-b42f->>>4d06-a797-e510494976ee&displaylang=en
  
  
  
  Waiting 3 years for a service pack isn't acceptable. Six months to a year, yes; 3 years, no. The version after VS 2005 will probably be out in 3 years time anyway.
  
  

• BTW... I found a solution to my web project issue! Don't use them! It works! Now that's what I call a feature MS! Tell all of your customers that they really don't need to use Frontpage Server Extensions, then when you release the project, make it so that you can't publish sites to remote servers without frontpage server extensions.
  
  
  
  Then take out the dll from developers projects all together because you know us web developers, we dont' know what them things are anyway. We all just code inline like those nifty macromedia MX people. Heck, we should just model vs.net off of macromedia MX cause MX is super neato.
  
  
  
  I can't copy my project or publish it to remote sites like I could in 2003. But it's better than trying to publish a project for 3 hours in vs.net 2005. So some inexperienced people take over MS's flagship product. Now get all these great new features!!! Weeee!
  
  
  
  

• Sounds to me like you just don't know how to adapt and don't understand the product. I've not had any problem publishing sites via the built-in FTP. No assembly required, and so what? Actually, I take that back, usually I have a reference to a class library project, and sure enough, that project's assembly makes it into the site. You're too hung up on the business of physical files, when it's all about objects. Seriously, if it takes you three hours to copy a project, that's not Microsoft's fault.
  
  
  
  Who has ever used DataSets with the designer? Who uses DataSets at all?
  
  
  
  Show me which objects aren't disposed.
  
  
  
  And for that matter, if you're "pulling your hair out," then maybe you should not use a beta product and bitch about how much you can't stand it.
  

• Did I mention it was beta software? I'm sorry, did you pay for VS 2005? That's about what I thought.
  
  
  
  >I'm an MCSD/MCAD .net
  
  Good for you. That doesn't mean anything other than you can memorize stuff.
  
  
  
  >HTF is it my fault that they promise you don't need FP server extensions for remote publishing but you really do? I don't want to run an FTP server on my box.
  
  
  
  So then how do you expect to get the files on the server? They give you every possible option. They all work.
  
  
  
  >Lots of people use DataSets with the designer.
  
  
  
  DataSets blow. They're overkill for 90% of what anyone does in Web projects on a daily basis.
  
  
  
  >You also think it's a good idea to publish your source code when going to production?
  
  
  
  I didn't say it was a good idea, and I don't. What does that have to do with anything? You don't have to publish the code.
  
  
  
  OK, so you found a couple of bugs, and they're in a beta product. It must suX0rz teh big one!!!111
  
  
  
  Seriously... you're painting a much darker picture than what's really there.
  

• And oh, you don't need FP server extensions to publish, as I still don't use them at the office. A fileshare does help though?
  
  
  
  

• http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/productfeedback/viewfeedback.aspx?feedbackid=dd1335af-e31c-4483-8d65-e47adea8bc29
  

• I have to agree with much of what Tom is saying. If the RTM is even close to what Beta 2 represents now in terms of outstanding bugs and performance issues (and there's no reason to think it won't be with the amount of postponed issues at the Lab) then I'm not sure Visual Studio 2005 will be the best bet for my company and my personal development. I think Microsoft should've focused on improving what was lacking in VS.NET 2003 and maybe add some core features such as generics, GridView, TransactionScope, etc.
  
  
  
  plex, DataSets and DataTables are used extensively in practically every project I've worked on. I'm also familiar with the custom business objects model as well, and even in my custom business object model I use untyped DataTables to retrieve data from the database.
  
  
  
  In VS 2005 I have a single DataSet schema that contains all my database tables (without relationships--I have to manually delete relationships automatically created for me every time I configure a TableAdapter in the designer, it's a real PITA). I then derive each of the data tables in my business tier and add business logic. It's a very good model and it removes a lot of the plumbing code I had to write in VS.NET 2003. I love being able to manage the data objects (DataTable) and data components (TableAdapter) in one place. It lets me worry about the BUSINESS side (the important side) of my application rather than worrying about select statement parameters. The DataSet designer in Beta 2 is buggy and pathetically slow. Anything larger than the smallest pet project renders the DataSet designer useless. Just take the Northwind or similar database, import it into a DataSet and try and use the designer. It's a joke.
  
  
  
  I think Tom's concern is (and I know mine is) that Microsoft is changing what were otherwise good designs between VS.NET 2003 and VS 2005. Eliminating Web projects (I know they said they were reimplementing after Beta 2 but I'll believe that when I see it, and in what form I see it). Removing key DataSet designer features like zooming really hurt the product. You should remember that just because you may not use DataSets doesn't mean no one else does.
  
  
  
  Also, Tom's comment about tiered architecture is correct. Strangely, Microsoft seems to push people *away* from tiered architectures by introducing such concepts as SqlDataSource controls. I couldn't believe it when I first saw an example of an asp:SqlDataSource control.....complete with inline SQL statement. Are these the kinds of precedents Microsoft wants to set? We need to move toward better development practices and features such as these hurt that effort.
  
  
  
  True, Beta 2 is not far from being probably the most kickass development tool ever created. Combined with [now delayed until 2006] Team Foundation Server it will definitely improve a lot of the bad things developers must deal with currently when coding with Microsoft tools (source control being the primary example here).
  
  
  
  It would be great to see a Beta 3. We've all been patient, we can be patient a bit more. The majority of production code does not ride on Microsoft's release date for VS 2005. I hope Microsoft clears up some of the biggest issues (performance and scalability) before RTM.
  

• You and everyone else act as if the bugs you find are being ignored, and they're not. Beta 2 isn't going to be anything like the RTM version.
  

• Of course they are not being ignored. All the bugs I'm referring to have had Microsoft responses. Unfortunately all the responses are Postponed and as far as I know that means postponed until Orcas. Additionally Microsoft has stated numerous times in many of these Lab issues that Beta 2 is feature-complete and they are only working on the most critical of bugs. How is it that RTM won't look anything like Beta 2?
  

• There's a difference between a *bug* and a *feature* that's missing.
  

• Take a look at the first thread in this link:
  
  http://netdialect.com/2005/tabid/103/ItemIndex/-1/Default.aspx
  
  
  
  As mentioned above, the feature missing in the article is not the only postponed bug.