I would also add that it seems as though the members of the MS developer community that are most eager to jump on the latest bandwagon are those among us that make a pretty good living doing nothing but writing and speaking (and teaching) about new technologies. It only benefits those "Acedemics", as I call them, more if the latest technology changes more often than not. They spend most of their time reviewing new technologies before the rest of us ever see them. Then they capitalize by making appearances and writing articles that makes them appear to be some kind of guru in the IT world.

These folks often seem to have prior knowledge of "new" tools and of course will advocate everyone in the "real" world to hurry up and get on the new bandwagon. All the while they are on the next bandwagon already. Meanwhile, the rest of the working programmers are continuously aiming at a moving target. That's why people are getting pe'd off. Of course it makes sence for Speakers and Editors and people who own training academies to tell everyone to move on and spend their weekends headbanging .NET and working overtime to come up with reasons to upgrade to SQLServer.

MS does not put any more value on us as developers than they do on the average consumer. They simply want you to upgrade, and they use the people who benefit the most from this as their advocates. What do you think a rep from a training firm would say if a company wanted to know if it would be a good time to upgrade 300 users to XP from Win2K?

Consumers AND Developers are getting tired of this cycle. If anyone thinks that MS will be happy to stick with .NET into the next decade is likely going to be disappointed and probably better have the checkbook ready for a ticket on the next new bandwagon.

I have people call me for help here in Thailand that are still under Win3.x. I simply tell them if they can't afford to upgrade their hardware and software I really can't help them. Backward compatibility is not MS's strong suit. (Not sure what my point is here but it is particularly irritating for people in the third world when they realize the computer they bought 4 years ago no longer works with newer software, they figure it should be a once in a lifetime investment)

Personally, I can only advocate staying on top of the latest and greatest because it is reality and I have to work for another 10-15 years. But, frankly I would rather not have to. I could'nt give a rat's behind how cool ASP.C# is, in fact I'd rather not code at all. ;)

To those listening in, I don't have to back up or substantiate anything I say here so don't bother fishing for an argument.


>My experience with "lets use another platform" advocates is this:
>Those continually suggesting radical, expensive changes to the latest this or that technologies either work for their parents or are less than competent with the current technology (they know all the OOP slang - but could not program their way out of a paper bag if their life depended on it!).
>
>A developer unsure of their skills [falsly] feels more comfortable with something new because it temporarily makes everyone else that succumbs to that argument almost as incompetent as they are.
>
>Its about looking cool or not appearing "small". In the the end - if the project delivered, regardless of language or technology, does the job - then the requirement is satisfied.
>
>Another issue with "technology brand first" advocation: The weak will tend to believe that the tools they use are more important than their analytical skills or dedication to a project. We should never let the market think the tools we use are more important than we are. We are the only reason those tools get to market. We are the only reason they are successful. It's not the tool, it's the developer stupid!
>
>
>SET RANT OFF
>Peace