>>There's being "ahead of the curve" and there's being "out there". By this measure of technology forecasting I could now claim, correctly, that .Net will be dead "before long". Better learn something else. I could repeat this every now and then on a regular basis. Factually my statement is true. Practically I would be wasting your time, at least probably for the foreseeable future. Eventually I will be right though. Damn I'm good - I was sooo ahead of the curve.
>
>It is interesting to note that the 'COM/Win DNA Model' lasted about five years. It started around Office 97/VB5/VBA integration. It was an amazing innovation/development by MS. And only five years later it became 'legacy'. It does make you wonder how long MS will stick with its current paradigm. I wonder if we've reached a stage in software development where more developers are making software in 'outdated/legacy' languages versus evolving/modern languages.

Dave;

I think the goal of software is to have new technology requiring new tools on a 12-month cycle. This will promote greater profits.

On the other hand the software world could sit down and discuss standards and work towards that goal to enable a better and more stable environment. Without standards we end up like the Sony Beta vs. JVC VHS event. The best dog won because of marketing, and technical excellence meant nothing.

Less than half-baked visions and concepts dominate software, with little or no regard for developers or users. The name of the game is to be “first to market”, dominate and make a good profit regardless of cost. Then bring out new versions that attempt to fulfill the original concept but are never fully developed. When a technology “hits the wall”, dump it for the latest and greatest vision.

Tom