>>VBers aren't screaming as loudly now as they were at first because MS has backed off some of the "enhancements" that had been planned for the product.
>
>But momentum has been lost. And VB.NET and C# are a disappointment as far as I'm concerned in terms of what might have been; ie. I think VFP is more elegant.
>
>I've worked in Visual Interdev, VB and VC++ and found it pleasant ... I think .NET is ponderous and ugly. I was so relieved that VFP7 still had the VFP6 sparkle.

It's all a matter of personal opinion. .Net does alot for you.

>
>>Java isn't all it's craked up to be. Periodically I read that Sun has changed something in Java that breaks the "write once, debug everywhere" mantra.
>
>Of course, and VB isn't as good as Delphi, but VB's timing was better.

Delphi was also a casualty of it's owner. "We're Borland. No, we're Inprise. No, we're Borland". The company's future is still somewhat shakey.

>
>Not so with Java; it's been out of the gate for some time now and it's accumulating a significant code base. People will not start "rewriting" existing Java apps because of ".NET". And they aren't going to wait the 12-18 months it will take someone to "ramp up" once .NET is released.

But it's really hard to write web apps currently. Even with HTML and Java. .Net will make alot of that easier to do. That will have a big impact on the adoption of .Net.

>
>Java programmers will be a dime a dozen; a good .NET developer will command a pretty good rate ... if there is any demand. Companies will go with the cheapest solution.

No, companies will chose the best solution they can afford. That may not always be the cheapest solution.

>
>>>This is one MS is not going to overtake (ie. Web development).
>>
>>I disagree here. .Net will be successful, but it will take some time. Remember, this *is* Microsoft. Of all the things MS does, it does marketing best.
>
>I also remember IBM ...

IBM was terrible at marketing (and still is, IMO). The way they did things was to make the different model incompatable, so that when you outgrew your existing hardware, you had to replace all the software too.

>
>There is also a new generation that doesn't have the same facination with MS that "we" might have.
>
>Put yourself in the shoes of someone who is not as familiar with MS or .NET as we are, and imagine the signals they get when they start looked at WWW, HTML, dynamic web pages, etc .... It's not .NET.
>
>I suspect most people think of MS and Windows; when they think of the Web, they think HTML and Java. And when you search the Web for Java, you find Sun; and so it goes.
>
>(Even my brother, who is a Fireman, does HTML and Java in his spare time ... as do his kids).
>
>If .NET. is to make any significant impression, MS may have to give it away ... and I think we know how the courts will react to that.

They will. Every copy of Windows will ship with the CLR and much of the infrastructure needed to make .Net work.

>
>>>Word had it that MS had the best Java native compiler; they should have exploited that instead of trying to change the game.
>>
>>MS didn't have a choice. The courts forced them out. What made their java compiler good were the Windows extensions.
>
>Actually, I was thinking performance-wise; not function.
>
>They weren't forced out; they decided they didn't like the rules they orignally agreed to so decided to start their own game.

They read an interpretation of the contract. Sun and the courts disagreed with Microsoft's interpretation.