>You did when challenged - certainly not in the message I originally responded to.

Not realy. I never stated I know NET. What I do is read what people whose opinion I trust, have to say about NET development, read articles etc, all as part of my own technology research. Up to now I did not reach conclusion NET was suitable for me.

>
>>Budget north of 10million, serious NET dev team, 3-4 years pass, budgets gonne , project never completed kind of a story...
>>If NET technology was mature, battle proven, Why could'nt they make better technology assesments / projections ahead of drying money out ?
>
>I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't know why these projects failed. Maybe they were poorly architected. Maybe they were poorly specified. Maybe the dev team wasn't managed properly. Maybe the dev team wasn't experienced enough. Maybe they didn't use test driven development or agile approaches to development. Maybe it was outsourced overseas. Maybe the choice of .NET was incorrect for the project. Maybe it was many things. But you just think it was the development tool - amazing :)

No it is not technology fault. It never is! It is almost always human error that is responsible for failure .


>>How many of 'codenames' were invented but then died out since 2001 onward ?
>
>Sedna, Tahoe, Europa.
>
>>It was partially reaction to sweeping statement on VFP / eT project by JB. Other then that I expressed my concearns above.
>
>So it was a sweeping statement not based on your experience but a purely emotional reaction.

Bad attitude does occasionaly gets me into spin {g} , but no, it was not just emotional reaction.
And if you read my post among me joking here and there, you will perhaps realise that I did not say anything
really outrageous.