Unfortunately I think that if you think like that you shouldn't be in the IT field. If there was no alternative to you or I, or anyone else who's been doing this for decades, not just years, it would be different.

I was reading a book about software maintenance, written by a guy right after the dotcom collapse. The last chapter he starts off by saying that if his book hasn't scared you off from entering the IT field yet, he at least suggests that while you are planning on how to enter the IT field, you also plan on how to exit it. For just the reasons you discuss.

The IT field is in a constant state of flux. And we are forced to go along for the ride. We can sit and talk about how our years of knowledge in company x makes us indespensible. But if we have a salary of 90k/yr, the college grad at 50k/yr looks awfully attractive. Especially if the company has decided to go with the technology the college grad used his entire career at the university while you or I have no knowledge of the technology at all.

I've seen people complain when Windows started taking over, when Object Oriented started becoming a popular buzzword, and I didn't see any good come of it for them. Other then to help get them further from the latest technology curve.



>Fred,
>
>I'm not talking about an app generator, nor anything like it.
>
>What I am saying is that it baffles me why after 20+ years of development, things are in such a sad state of affairs in the software world. Computers were supposed to make our lives easier!
>
>Yes, I can burn production grade DVD's on my home computer and I have access to more information (through the internet) than I ever dreamed possible. Yet, to develop a simple application I need to learn the .net classes, (or other class set) and then learn the language of my choice, (C#,VB or any of the other ports or choices), a set of reporting classes, a set of data handling classes, and either write my own framework or learn someone elses, not to mention the acutual business model that prompted the need for the software in the first place.
>
>In the current development model, these products may be developed and sold by different companies and have dis-similar styles and dis-similar goals. Since we will be using a disconnected set of software options it will be a nightmare to keep the whole mess rectified over a long haul. You think dll hell was hard, wait until we have to start dealing with upgrades to each individual set of classes or softare packages. .NET 2.0 may or may not be compatible with LINQ 1.0 and when you move from .net 3.0 to .net 4.0 will link 1.0 still be compatible. How long after .net 4.0 will linq be compatible. How about when you decide that a great third party set of classes is just what you need but they are not up to speed on .net 4.0, but the new features in linq .2.0 are just what you need and it requires .net 4.0.... and so on.
>
>.NET hell. It's will be the future!, You won't even have a say in when Microsoft upgrades the .NET framework. Windows Automatic Updates downloads updates to the framework and you don't or won't know about it until your customer calls and say's your software is no longer working.
>
>At least in VFP, most of what we did was in the same product and we could choose when to send out an upgrade to the runtime. In VFP, we have a programming language, a UI, native data handling, native reporting, the ability to connect to almost any data source and options for incorporating addtional classes when needed. When you upgrade a combined language, data handling, UI and reporting, about the only thing you have to worry about is if the third party classes work properly or if the user's current OS is compatible with your software.
>
>In .NET, you get programming language, UI, and a set of generic classes and that is about it. Everything else is dependent on a third party or a disconnected product from the same vendor.
>
>As an example:
>Let's assume I went to my FORD dealer and purchased a truck. With the new software model, I would only receive the body and frame. It would then be up to me to purchase and (somehow) install an engine, suspension, a wiring harness, an interior, safety features (air bags and such) as well as a set of tires and then it would be up to me to somehow get everything to work together properly and then get the vehicle past emissions inspections and federal safety inspection. How is this better than just purchasing a completed truck.
>
>I'll say it again, in my opinion, the .NET programming model takes us backwards, NOT forwards. Over the last few years (and the next few years) ODBC, OLE, ACTIVEX, COM, COM+ and any number of other hot MS creations have been or will be phased out.
>
>Yet, the one thing you can still do is:
>
>"USE c:\mytable.dbf" and have instant access to your data.
>
>I don't see any reason why Microsoft could not create (or advance) a complete and comprehensive AND CONNECTED one product solution to what should be a simple process.
>
>It will be many years before we get back to the simple and efficent software development enviroment we already have in VFP. MS could have added to VFP: greater than 2 gig support, 64 bit support, native encryption for security, classes slimilar to .net, and on and on. In their infininate wisdom, they decided not to. Instead, we get .NET. A horribly disconnected and bloated set of software solutions.
>
>Welcome back to the stoneage.
>
>Jim McConnell
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>I for one am very dissapointed in the current state of affairs in the software world. Things are more complicated than they have ever been. There is no reason that 20 years after the first desktop computer, things should be more complicated than they have ever been. With all of the advancements over the last 20 years, things should have become less complicated and I should be able to create viable sofware with just a few clicks of the mouse.
>>>
>>>In my opinion, things have regressed 15+ years with .net and they won't get better any time soon. In .net, it takes a 40meg runtime just to get started. When I started programming with FoxPro I thought a 10meg hardrive was huge.
>>>
>>>In my opinion, we've just been transported to the stone age.
>>
>>You're not the only one with that opinion, Jim. Though I may not go so far as to call it the "Stone Age", I definitely feel things have gotten way more complicated than they should be by now.