Post by toreroPost by Gary StarkPost by toreroInvited the spokesmen of various companies, told them to issue the
invoice, then, with sadistic smile, told them 'And now, please do it
again without the mouse'. Vital point, I'd say, considering that daily
turnover held lots of tens of documents per person. None of those
brillant 'state-of the art' solutions survived.
I see that as simply being a matter of poor design. I agree that apps should be designed
to function without a mouse, but that by no means excludes Windows apps; it just focusses
the design aspect more finely. This is a good thing, IMHO.
You hit the point.
Yes, I know. :)
Post by toreroMany developers I know focus on technology itself.
Many so-called developers haven't got a clue about the development process. They can paint a
screen, attach some data soruces, and that's about it. Sometimes that's good enough.
Often it's not.
Post by toreroThis is also the point why I don't trust RADs abilities to _rapidly_
develop applications.
Yep. Same here. They can do great jobs of prototyping, but at some point the prototyping has to
stop.
Post by toreroin design. If new technology doesn't offer anything _really_ helpful and
innovative to customer [not to developer!], it usually loses with known
Correct. But sometimes the end-benefits to the customer might be intangible or just buried
beneath the surface: a seamless COM interface, for instance, or better performance over a large
LAN.
Post by toreroPost by Gary StarkPost by toreroaccounting, aim at Mrs. X of accounting. Are you sure Mrs. X of
accounting needs all the .Net stuff?
What do _you_ think "all the .net stuff" might be?
That's a serious question ...
I am almost an ignorant, really. Multi-platform working and better
security. Did I miss something?
The multi-platform stuff is a big marketing push, and while it's there, from a developer's
perspective it's a minor point.
It's certainly got far better security, but it's also a better Winforms environment, with a
very rich and robust class heirarchy that we (and our clients' applications) can hook into and
take advantage of. I'm certainly neither an expert nor an advocate, but a short but serious
play within the environment (enough to become comfortable and competent with the features) was
enough to tell me that this is not VB3.
Post by torero<g> To tell the truth, I'm looking from
pragmatical point of view. If I need free webserver, I start to look for
Apache/Linux is good for this ...
Post by toreroone. Once upon a time I needed better reports editor than CA-RET, so I
Who doesn't? :)
Post by torerodecided to buy VO2.6. And so on. As I told you I gonna look at C# soon
but for the time I cannot define big pros of migrating from VO or even
serious interest in C#.
And that's the totally wrong approach to be looking at it from, IMHO.
I think you should be exploring it as an educational, self-development, or research exercise.
But you should be doing that very seriously.
Any migration needs and/or paths will become self-evidient through your normal business
routines, but you need to be armed with the knowledge beforehand.
If you don't know, you cannot compare and make the call, but if you do, your decision processes
will be enriched, and better quality decisions will follow.
That's the deal, AFAIC.
Post by toreroPost by Gary StarkPost by toreroWhen I talk to my customer, he
asks for the benefits and costs, not for technology used [in acceptable
But they equally want to be sure that the money they're going to spend on the
technological solution is going to give them good value and longevity. I cannot seriously
guarantee that with a solution based on DOS or W9x.
I still can with VO, and I certainly can with .Net.
"Certainly"? All we can guarantee is few years more. You presume MS is
about to issue .Net platform and harvest income for the rest of its
days? We both talk only about sooner or later deadline.
MS has (to my knowledge) certainly announced that the .Net platform will be included in its
upcoming OSs, and that its security will also be a feature of those platforms. Will you be
comfortable supporting the needs that the new security regime imposes upon your clients'
applications when they buy a new box that comes with the new OS?
Post by toreroPost by Gary StarkPost by torerowords with more modern one". OK, I switched from VO2.5->2.6 and I can
see the benefits. But switch to C# ONLY because it's new and cool and
offers advanced options that neither me not my clients need, if Vo
satisfies my needs?...
I certainly wouldn't suggest switching because C# is cool. But it does have advanced
features, many of which make my tasks easier. If my tasks are made easier, that should
translate to a reduced cost to my customer.
You see, it all depends on alternative costs. I don't stay hard with VO,
but it can happen I will do some things 10 minutes faster in C# while
learning C# will take me uncomparable time.
If you're comfortable with VO, you will need to make about a week's investment in C# to become
comfortable and somewhat competent there. It took me well under that length of time, btw.
But once you are at that point, you will start to see some significant benefits.
Post by toreroBesides, reduced costs are not absolute value. Suppose you wrote VB app.
VB is still modern language, right? What about costs reduction when the
whole app is not .Net compatibile and must be rewritten?
The app can easily be converted to VB.Net, actually.
Post by toreroPost by Gary StarkAdd to that the stability of the platform (and the fact that there are some tasks that I
can do in C# that I cannot do in VO) and we have a compelling case to move forward.
If you compete in highly advanced-IT market every month counts. Some IT
people can wait a while. The rest will probably learn both.
To some extent, yes. But at what cost? I see a great cost in NOT learning.
Post by toreroPost by Gary StarkPost by toreroI would say rather "... based on good solutions". .Net, Windows, Unix -
all the same, effectiveness matters. At least in my playground <g>.
Yes. My point was that you need to be able to give high quality, informed advice. If you
are ill-prepared and/or ill-informed ...
Yes. But if you meet customer's needs but your market rival uses newer
technology you send the customer to him?
That's one approach. <g>
My approach would be to deliver the best solution based upon the best available technology.
Newer doesn't mean best. Best means best.
But unless you've explored all of the available technologies, how do you decide which is the
best for the job?
Post by toreroOn the other side, economic
calculation may cause you to suggest rather older solution than writing
new app from scratch.
Absolutely.
But you still need to know all of the facts.
Post by toreroPost by Gary StarkWAP boom???
Never !
I laughed when I first saw that poor excuse for a marketing party; I'm still laughing at
it.
_You_ did, I notice. Others not.
Yes. I rarely listen to the marketing hype. I know very few developers who do; it's not in our
nature. WAP was always going to be a braindead technology looking for a problem to solve. The
marketing dweebs thought it would be cool to surf the net using a high priced low bandwidth
connection on a device that displays about 32 characters of text. it doesn't take too many
brain cells to see just how dumb that concept is. Of course, marketing dweebs and brain cells
don't often go together too well.
Post by toreroPost by Gary StarkVideoconferencing is still coming, and I've yet to see anyone say that it's "here". It'll
be a little way behind VOIP, which I expect to start to take off over the next 18 months
or so.
Maybe offtopic, but I heard very simple explanation why videoconferences
will never be the success: people are not willing to look perfectly well
every time they want to talk or wait for talk. Simple and convincing,
isn't it? Bets are welcome <g>.
Are you talking about video conferencing, or video phone calls? The two are similar, and quite
closely related. But they are not the same.
For video phone calls, yes, that's true, but there are other needs too, that will eventually
drive this form of application to an eventual satisfactory level of market acceptance.
Conferencing is entirely different, and business (professional) needs will override any such
personal vanity issues.
Post by toreroPost by Gary StarkPost by toreroWhat about 'I need - I search' way? Change for the change? Uhm. Surely
The problem is that with that approach you're already behind the curve. In our industry
we're expected to be pushing towards the edge, not straggling along behind it, like a
teenager taken shopping with his mum!
I said 'I need - I search' in terms of serious development, not in
knowlege itself. I am researching all the time, reading press and so on.
I need to learn, so my research involves learning, exploring, and gaining a good understanding,
so that I'm (hopefully) not caught out.
Post by toreroBut it doesn't result in 'hurrah!'s every time when MS is issuing a new
piece of soft. But you probably think the same...
I do. MS make many best of breed products.
They also make a lot of crap. Remember Bob, anyone?
With me, reputation counts for very little: I make my calls based upon my own assessments, and
those of people whose judgement I've learned to trust.
Post by toreroPost by Gary StarkPost by torerowe need some basic development to keep up with GUI look though. But the
better way seems to be tracking down trends, not tools. Tools are
derivative, methinks.
Trends, tools, technology: we need to keep ourselves up to date with all of this.
But keep in mind dependencies chains, technology for people. Othwerwise
you can get stuck in useless gadgets only for they are 'state-of-the
art' like most do.
There's lots of useless gadgets out there.
WAP phones spring readily to mind.
Geoff had an 8-track deck fitted into his new car last year, I believe. <g>
Grum has one in his golf cart! <gd&rlh>
Post by toreroPost by Gary StarkPost by toreroPost by Gary StarkYou are free to use Linux, or Mac, StarOffice, whatever. Nobody has twisted your
arms to use MS products.
In laws terms - not. In real terms - OperOffice, Linux server
installations. That's all. Compare OpenSource OS desktop choice with car
choice. Can't you see the difference? Can't you see the monopoly?
KDE/GNOME? Not for this time, I suppose.
No.
I have Linux and Macs running here as a matter of course. I don't see any monopolies,
yhet all systems here talk happily amongst themselves.
Mine too. But I say about large Linux existence on desktops, not servers.
That will not happen in the mainstream, but that's mainly because of the arrogance that too
many Linux people have.
Linux is, quite simply, not as easy to use as Windoze. Installing some (what should be) simple
applications can be the cause of great angst, and Mable in the office hasn't got a hope in
Hades of dealing with it.
But that is a different argument, and OT for this thread.
--
g.
Gary Stark
***@RedbacksWeb.com
http://RedbacksWeb.com