Re: .NET and Delphi's future

From: Edmund (ed_at_kdtc.net)
Date: 10/24/03 

Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:52:49 +0800

pNichols wrote:

> Well, basically you have four choices (1) Stay with what you are doing today
> and bcome obsolete (2) Embrace NET which is the direction MS has chosen for
> you (3) Go to C/C++, PHP on Linux/Unix/Embedded, or (4) Go to Java
> development, and XPlatform development.

That pretty much sums up the options.

Why do I suddenly feel apprehensive about the future, given those
choices? My preference? Linux all the way, but that'd require knowing
C/C++ back-to-front. *Shudder*

> Delphi.NET IMHO, will have an even smaller marketshare than Delphi does. C#
> will become the defacto language for NET development. Second place will go

It certainly looks that way. Borland hasn't, so far, done a good job
at promoting Delphi.NET and already there are books out for C#.

> to VB.NET in the future. Currently (and this is a guess based only upon
> what I have heard) VB.NET may have more NET developers than C#, but I doubt
> that will hold as MS developers switching from other languages (C/C++,

Well, VB/VB.NET seems like an easier language to use for most people
who dread C/C++ and it'd be easier to handle for current VB users
anyway.

Mind you, fresh programmers who have never touched a single programming
language before would most likely go for C# as there's no prior
confusions with other languages.

> Delphi, etc) will probably go the C# route. Java Developers, having to do

C# seems to be becoming the 'only' alternative if I continue
to program on a M$-based O/S. Or I better quickly do a crash
course in Linux-platform programming.

> Yes, if you are an MS only shop, NET is the future. If you are a
> heterogeneous shop, Java is the future. At least for the forseeable future.

Don't know if this is a silly question, as I only just thought
of it. If I were to migrate to .NET, would that mean I'd have
to overhaul the whole computer system here? ie. replacing all
O/S (and hardware) with .NET-capable systems? (ick..)

> With the phenomenal growth of Linux, I can forsee NET becoming more and more
> of a minority player, overall. Do not now if that is good news for you or
> not, however <G>.

Definitely good news. Any future that isn't M$-dominated is good news.

>
> Some will point to Mono, but the Linux community isn't wild about either NET
> nor Mono at all. Look at some of the threads where Linux and Unix
> developers speak about Mono. They do not trust MS and they certainly are

I've heard about Mono, but never did pay too much attention to it. I
think it may be wise to do so right now.

> Probably for a while, but I can easily see where future customers are not
> going to want to invest in legacy technology. If you are Windows only shop,
> you will be supporting Win 32 for a while. But I wouldn't want to bet my
> future on something destined to become obsolete.

True. The issue aside for technological advancements and keeping
up with the Joneses is that there are costs involved and for a SME
(small to be specific) the costs are a little high.

> MS has stated numerous times that they are betting their future on NET. It
> would seem foolish, IMHO, to fight against something that you have no
> control over. If you want to be tied to a MS future, then you must follow
> what the company tells you will be the future. The only other viable option
> in the Application development arena, other than NET, is Java, for the
> forseeable future.

Here's where I don't understand. People keep on complaining about the
M$ monopoly and its domination over the market. I'm not surprised
considering what M$ does, people follow. In order for the market
to become more 'balanced', people can't just believe M$ willy nilly.
Now M$' product are becoming not only the most popular software, but
close enough to be deemed the 'standard' set of software (desktop
wise, of course. Server-wise, they aren't even close.)

Right now, the .NET framework/platform is a viable 'future' for the
general programming public, but things change. What I'm just hoping
is that there will be a standard for whatever future programming
language and that the platform is Open for all. Open Source is
preferably, but not necessary. That way, things won't be so darn
complicated. Perhaps this isn't gonna happen. M$ will definitely
want a stake in that to the point of owning the darn thing and
would legally threaten all who come hear.(re: Mono.)

I'll still hang on to W32 programming just probably for the
sake of the 'good ole days'.

Thanks for the input.

Edmund

Relevant Pages

  • Re: object system...
    ... for that you need machine language. ... isn't even as fast as other systems programming languages. ... Stroustrup's stated design goal was to enable ... all manner of elegance or abstraction can be sacrificed for speed, ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: DirectX in HLA
    ... I guess that you have a great knowledge of DirectX ... > understanding by looking at them in assembly language... ... > actually represents, really, is a means to "undo" the OOP so ... > is NOT an "OOPL" (object-orientated programming language), ...
    (comp.lang.asm.x86)
  • Re: DirectX in HLA
    ... I guess that you have a great knowledge of DirectX ... > understanding by looking at them in assembly language... ... > actually represents, really, is a means to "undo" the OOP so ... > is NOT an "OOPL" (object-orientated programming language), ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: LSP and subtype
    ... What is the class of problems solvable using UML? ... the language of physics cannot describe. ... whatever paradigm equivalent to 2GL/3GL ... there is still a great need for reuse and generic programming. ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Why C Is Not My Favourite Programming Language
    ... If you decide afterall that C programming is just not your thing you ... > C has no string type. ... > compiler take care of the rest. ... Why does any normal language ...
    (comp.lang.c)