Not that I entirely disagree, Rick, but .Net versions try to pre-fabricate (I prefer the term automagic) everything as well. Look at the default endpoints for REST in Framework 4.0 as opposed to the hand-rolling in 3.5. I agree also that there are developers who are afraid to look into new technologies, mainly I think because they find something that works like DataSets and stick to them.

There's really nothing wrong with "if it ain't broke don't fix it". I have a WCF/REST app I've been working on for several months. On the consumption side I use all manner of XML consumption - LINQ to XML, XML to DataSet, hand-parsing XDocuments. I suppose I could have coded the consuming app to use nothing but LINQ to XML but I was more efficient working with what I already knew where there was no tangible benefit from going bleeding edge in all areas.

Another note on examining new technologies: I think MS is really messing up in this area lately. The help files are so atomic and there are very few soup-to-nuts examples for a new learner to digest the whole of a new technology. .Net apps are layered technologies and help on a given namespace or type will only go so far in helping someone but almost all we have are granular help entries.

I work with several developers and our running joke is that if it ain't AdventureWorks or PUBS you won't find a good example and 1/2 of those you do are wrong anyway. Look around - how many LINQ to XML examples out there simply omit that you need to preface an element name with XNamespace???


>>And in small but important ways, it happens within the .Net ecology. Think "stored procedures are good" in .Net 1.1 to "stored procedures limit scalability" now (the latter being what SQL Gurus have been saying for 10 years at least). Think of ado.net to Entity Framework, Linq2SQL to , well, maybe Linq2SQL, etc. .Net developers have got to like roller coasters, because they've been on a continuous rollercoaster ride for 8 years regarding data access. Well, I guess riding a surfboard on those big waves is pretty much the same, which might explain why I see you diving into each new technology as it comes around. As they say here in Kentucky, Bless Your Heart. <s>
>
>Uhm how is that different from VFP for example? In VFP there was never a real 'data access strategy' just a core DDL engine and a SQL (Rushmore) engine. To build sophisticated business apps you typically still had to use something on top of it like a framework that provided the same sort of abstraction that we have in .NET today. This means you can still today use raw ADO.NET and DataSets just as you could when .NET 1.1 was current.
>
>The point is as developers we are supposed to make intelligent decisions about technologies we utilize. Yet fewer and fewer people are willing to make the commitment to actually examine technology - they expect some pre-fabrictated that just works which IMHO is just NEVER going to happen.
>
>+++ Rick ---
>
>
>>
>>Hank
>>
>>>Uh, of course <s>...
>>>
>>>I suppose this should be pretty obvious to anyone: It doesn't matter which plaform you choose ultimately you as a developer you are dependent on the 'producers' of that platform and their vision whether it's Microsoft or some soft pedaling Open Source consortium. Regardless of choice you can get 'stranded' with old tech or abandoned when the folks in charge lose interest or go off to greener pastures.
>>>
>>>I think a lot of folks on this forum feel personally spited by Microsoft for discontinuing FoxPro even as its popularity nose dived years before the plug was actually pulled. I think you can hardly blame Microsoft for no longer wanting to support this product when even the lead loyal and dedicated lead developers were starting to lose faith and were rapidly redeploying inside of Microsoft.
>>>
>>>I understand that feeling of sitting on a sinking ship. I've been through it a few times in my career and it sucks royally, but I would argue that by the time it gets to that point it's actually a good thing to get tossed off the boat and into the cold reality beyond...
>>>
>>>+++ Rick ---
>>>
>>>>Hi Jess,
>>>>
>>>>re: dependency on MS, and MS controlling your future.
>>>>
>>>>That is so obviously true that I can't imagine how you would support the opposite side of the question. Ask not just the VFP developers of 2004, but the VB developers of 2004.
>>>>
>>>>Now, whether that is a bad thing is another matter entirely. Python is a great language; an argument can be made that of the non-Functional languages, it is the best conceived language (it should be: this was the initial consideration in creating it, if you've read Guido's writings on it) and is at least as well implemented as any of the others. Their PEP process, through which changes enter the language, is a model for all other languages to follow (but you will be a long time waiting to breathe if you hold your breath waiting for MS to adopt a similar process).
>>>>
>>>>And no matter how great Python is (it is one of the few official languages at Google, Yahoo, etc.), ISV's who sell to a range of customers from mom-and-pop's to mid-level corporations are more competitive when using MS products. It's all about perceived safety, from the customer's perspective. The customers at that level (and above, actually, in my limited experience there) don't care whether you are using an old-fashioned file drop or MSMQ or WCF or Biztalk (well, they might care if you use BizTalk because of the exorbitant licensing fee and the need to allocate another server). They are concerned about sleeping at night, thinking (wrongly -- the number of bugs in MS Products and OpenSource products is roughly the same; and OpenSource bugs average pretty much just as long as MS bugs in terms of time to being fixed.) that using a product built on the Microsoft technology stack is the safest way to go.
>>>>
>>>>So, you can make the case that Microsoft offers the most efficient development experience (thanks as much to 3rd-party vendors as to MS -- think ReSharper, think Intragistics and Telerik, think nHibernate or Habanero, etc.), and you can make the case that Microsoft keeps trying to get it right (I was told 4 years ago that it would be the 5th or 6th version of Visual Studio -- VS2010 is the 5th -- before VS had incorporated most of the features of VFP). If they make that goal for VS2012 or whatever it will be, I will be surprised and happy. Anyway, you can make all these claims, and support them in a reasonable fashion. But you can't claim that your future isn't controlled by MS. That's a bet, a wager, that you (and I) are making, that our basis for making a living, and in my case at least the competitive edge I've had in customized development tools, won't be flushed down the drain the same way that VFP and VB were. I think it's a good bet for a variety of reasons (the .Net infrastructure is so large that abandoning it would be extremely difficult), but it's something over which you and I and all the other developers have no control.
>>>>
>>>>Hank
>>>>
>>>>>>>Now that you're no longer dependent on MS, do you think you're totally free. No. You're becoming dependent into something which happens to be not an MS thing. And if someone decides to make use of MS product, it doesn't mean MS holds control of his/her future.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I also have a good grasp on PHP, but .NET is what makes us rich.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jesse,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I do not want to be rude as well. But these comments show you have not paid python the kind of attention it deserves. Even if you prefer to stick to an MS-only environment. Which of course may make a lot of sense. Python belongs to a completely different league. On a lot of grounds. Including non technical ones. The way the software architecture is evolved is both effective and, I am looking for an adequate wording, both convivial and vivacious:)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Regards
>>>>>
>>>>>Francois,
>>>>>
>>>>>My statement is not about Phython which I have nothing against. I just stated my view against his view of dependency on MS products and MS taking hold of his future just because he's using them which to me is not correct. Well, it's his feelings against mine which is not a big deal I think. It's just a 2 cents opinion.