I'm not the least surprised to hear that from you. < s >.

It'll be interesting to see if in the next decade, say, where .NET technology fits into a graph like the one on page 60 of the July 2002 issue of Wired Magazine. In my view, in ten years, .NET will be lucky beyond dreams to be as significant as the VB branch is on that graph.

I suspect that the number of applications written in Visual Basic between 1990 and the end of 2001 will dwarf the number of applications written in .NET between 2002 and 2013, the same period of time.

I'm just guessing, of course, but considering that

All Development= (New Development)+ (Maintenance of existing systems)

then for .NET to be as successful as some pundits predict, then the world needs to be developing new systems at the rate they were being developed through the 1990's and, guess what, that's not exactly a sure bet. I just don't see this happening, at least not in the developed world at least, certainly not in rich Western countries.

But of course I could be wrong...

**--** Steve




>I am simply commenting that the combination and proportion of sessions looks good. I have been critical of conferences and in fairness, wanted to comment when I saw something that was good.
>
>As for the rest of the post, after about 2 sentences, it appeared to be another run-on rant and bailed. There may have been a buried point, but one that would not have been worth the work of figuring it out.