“I wrote this after reading a confusing rant called ‘Microsoft’s .NET & The Advent Of (More) Nuisance Technology’ on a site called MacObserver. The mispresentation of .NET in that story concerned me — not because it was negative, but because the author confused .NET with Microsoft’s forthcoming web services (then called Hailstorm, now called ‘.NET My Services’). This is like critisizing MacOSX because you don’t like iPhoto.” Read the rest of the easy-to-follow presentation of .NET.
A .NET Primer for Mac Users
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
This is a clear, and easy to understand description of .NET. It has the virtue of being fairly non-technical as well, simplifying in digestion. I hope some Java folks read this, and re-consider that .NET is NOT a battle between C# and Java. For goodness sakes, both can run in .NET. The real battle on this front will be waged between the Sun and Micrsoft teams responsible for creating the runtimes and libraries which make each platform unique.
.NET != Services
Just like
Java != Sun ONE
The big test will be *if* Microsoft develops CLR’s (AKA virtual machines) for other platforms, or if they provide a baseline for hardware/OS vendors to write their own CLR’s. If they do provide the basis for doing this, then I’m all for .NET. I checked the Mono website, which is a .NET-like CLR. However this appears to be more like the Kaffe java project, rather than what would be a good baseline to start from an OS/Hardware vendor’s point of view. If Microsoft does allow a license agreement for this type of development, like Sun does, then I’m all for it. C# isn’t even half bad.
I’d love to see Microsoft supporting a platform independant coding solution. I just fail to see the logic from a business perspective. Being the shrewd business people that they are, I doubt they are going to actually support one.
>>I’d love to see Microsoft supporting a platform independant coding solution.
Ain’t gonna happen!
ciao
yc
…Cares!!!
That was one of the most stupid, moronic, or at least, immature things you ever wrote. Are you indeed so blind?
>>That was one of the most stupid, moronic, or at least, immature things you ever wrote. Are you indeed so blind?<<
That was the only sarcastic thing I could think of at the time Eugenia, no pun intended towards you or your article, just to Micro$oft and this thing called ‘.NET’
“What’s this thing I keep hearing about [.NET!]”
Name that film 🙂
CattBeMac is right Eugenia, and that’s the sad thing. Microsoft has once again said “Here’s a new WORD. Worship the WORD and associate all good things with the WORD.” but if you look at that article there are actually a huge pile of things under the .NET umbrella and most of them are very unimaginative.
The last time this happened was ActiveX. Microsoft lecturers went about teaching our poor dumb undergrads that ActiveX meant true component technology with distributed this and rapid that. Like .NET though ActiveX was primarily a banner for Windows developers to stand under and blow raspberries. It didn’t do anything Microsoft weren’t already doing, it just did it with a new WORD.
If you get Microsoft technical personnel in a room with academics and professionals who’ve been doing this stuff long enough to see right through the buzz words they’ll freely admit that this isn’t a coherent “route ahead”, it’s just Microsoft policy to have a WORD at any time and be able to tell customers “This WORD is the future, and you need the WORD” without explaining why.
In the article this is visible when the writer, after telling us that .NET is XML-RPC (which is already being done, better, elsewhere), goes on to say that it’s also the hazily defined CLR virtual machine (previously done, better, elsewhere). Those two things have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. The connection exists ONLY because Microsoft insists on using the same WORD to describe them “part of this complete .NET system”.
Is it just me, or do several of Microsoft’s recent product names sound a bit like curses?
“Windows ME!” No, Windows you!
“.NET My Services!” Go .NET yourself!
Their marketing department is smoking crack. Yeah, “VisualStudio .NET” sounds so much better than “VisualStudio 7”, and it certainly removes confusion as to what versions of VisualBASIC and Visual C++ are included…
“Must… push… new… strategy…”
– chrish