

Microsoft worried over .NET fragmentation   - bdfh42
http://www.sdtimes.com/content/article.aspx?ArticleID=32690

======
jmatt
_“Since framework teams at Microsoft can develop managed code software so much
faster than they could using C++, their own efforts are dramatically
accelerated. They no longer have the time to do coordination with other teams;
such coordination would quickly become the bottleneck to getting their own
efforts out the door. In a culture such as Microsoft, which values shipped
software above all else, such a bottleneck will by necessity be bypassed,”
Hollis said._

So Microsoft's productivity is too good? So good that the business process is
slowing things down more than coding? Isn't that good? I see this as a problem
for managers at Microsoft not necessarily the developers.

I agree there are issues with .NET but this doesn't seem to be one of them. I
think the bigger problem will be what to do with enterprise code that was
written for 1.1, 2.0, etc and will be around for 10-20 years. Microsoft will
need backwards compatibility with all these releases for a long time (1.1,
2.0, 3.0, 3.5, 3.5 SPx).

------
mattchew
They're right to worry. It's a headache. Having a new version of the framework
every year is also a headache (for desktop development anyway).

I'm not sure what else they can do, though. .NET is their development
platform. They've got to keep turning out new stuff. Where else is it going to
go?

~~~
jmatt
I've never had any problems with getting installers to install the proper
version of Microsoft's .NET framework.

As for getting the right version of .NET on the customer's box their installer
works (in VS2008) and InstallShield works with no problems. I've done product
installs and enterprise installs with no problems from .NET framework
versioning.

I had problems upgrading code from 1.0 to 1.1 and from 1.1 to 2.0 but no
problems upgrading to new .NET frameworks since then. I've also had no
problems with VS2008 targeting different .NET frameworks. I agree historically
it was a problem but M$ has addressed it recently and things seem to work.

[EDIT: Reformatted and reworded things a bit]

~~~
mattchew
If your customers have to download a big new framework before trying out your
app, that is one more hurdle you've got to get past in order to sell.
Customers who are not computer sophisticated may be scared away and others
will consider it too much hassle (frex, if they are on dial-up).

~~~
jmatt
Ya that is a valid point. I've yet to work on a product which targets dial-up
or older machines.

The product I work on right now is for engineers who design and manufacture
things. 97% of them have .NET 2.0+ with XP or Vista. The remaining 3% are
Windows 2k. Almost everyone has .NET 2.0 installed but occasionally there is
some squirrelly box in a manufacturing plant with no internet connection. For
those customers they just use a CD with the application and framework on it.

If you are targeting customers using Windows 98 or Windows 2k then you are
also limited to .NET 1.1 or 2.0.

.NET 3.0 and 3.5+ are XP or Vista only. And as I mentioned before most people
in the windows world (at least engineers) are using XP.

------
chaostheory
I don't know why they're very worried; they have central control over the
fragmentation - unlike something distributed like open source

~~~
michael_dorfman
It appears that the "central" control is not as centralized as one might
think-- in other words, different teams appear to be working (and contributing
to the framework) without full knowledge of what other teams are doing, at the
risk of dissipating a coherent vision.

~~~
chaostheory
well unlike open source MS can tell their teams to stop working ala Internet
Explorer 6

~~~
michael_dorfman
True-- but that takes oversight and communication.

Contra the article earlier today, where someone thought he had vanquished The
Mythical Man-Month-- the reality is still n(n-1)/2, and there's no silver
bullet for that one.

