Hi Robert...

>
Pop quiz. You make developer tools. 80+% of all desktop apps are built with your tools and have been for years. You won that battle a long time ago. But the other guys are coming up fast and are possibly ahead in the newer areas of the Web and the Enterprise. You are in danger of becoming the number 2 developer tools vendor in a very important space that accounts for much bigger $s than the desktop market. Where are you going to spend your limited time and resources?
>

Before I spend money, I want to know why the other guys are catching up, why MS is in danger of becoming the number 2 developer tools vendor. For if I don't ask these questions, and more importantly, get the answer, MS could be in danger of dropping to number 3 or 4.

If you don't understand the context, you are merely throwing money away. Given the backlash to .Net. clearly, something is amiss.


>And why does that delegitimize the desktop? I think it is a fallacy that we are saying all apps should be Web apps. Visual Studio and the .NET Framework are saying that all apps should be architected so that if you want to make them Web apps you don't have to throw everything out. This is no different than folks who build all of their apps to be logically n-tier.
>

The implied message in .Net is that Desktop apps don't scale. The other message, whether implied or not, is that the web is the backbone that should be focused on. Or, that every app one day will need to go to the web. The fact is, COM did/does this well. If you constructed your apps in an n-tier fashion, using components, it is a matter of a new UI. What the development community needs more than anything is an effective HTML editor - ala Homesite. MS has/had yet to crack this item.

Finally, why should all apps be architected to take advantage of the web, at least the .Net way? Why should .Net, a product that has not seen the light of day define a good architecture? I again come back to the question of what was wrong with COM? It works for me. And after a few years, I, along with many others, have become quite proficient at it. Why not build on that?????

My point is that MS needs to let a technology mature before bailing on one that has gained quite a bit of momentum and support. Change is good. Innovation is required. However, this whole endeavor, give the timeframe is not so much revolutionary as it does not make sense.

Given the latest round of hacks, and the fact that it would appear this problem will only get worse, I want to minimize just how much I depend on the web. That is not to say that I don't want to depend on the web. Rather, I want to target my dependence.

From an economic and finance standpoint, I am astounded by the effort required, the learning curve, etc that appears to be required for .Net. Some of the technical aspects are very intruiging. However, when it is all said and done, there has to be a payback. As I am fond of saying, software development is not an academic excersise. Somebody is going to have to suck up those bucks, big bucks at that. As an indendent, one has to weigh carefully the expendetures of time and money in learning new tools. When you are learning new tools, you are not making money. As you can see, MS and the independent to some degree, have opposing goals.

All MS has to do is sell the box. We have to make it work....


>I agree that we spend very little time talking about the desktop as a company. I think a VFP out of VS should and would.
>


That has always been the cornerstone of my point. And FWIW, as the number 1 developer tool vendor, if you spend little time talking about the desktop, you are effectively delegitimizing the platform. Perhaps not explicitly, but implicitly MS is...


A good discussion that is overdue for sure...


< JVP >