There are a fair number of us that feed the flames around here, I am not excluding myself nor trying to point a finger. Its just hard to see folks going on and on sometimes.
not that they are "All Bad" but that there is a trend here to get started on stuff like this and keep going and going on and on.... forgetting that in the end it was really a minor thing.
like ok I hope they do something like XYZ and it could be a real winner, and then leave it at that.
some of the threads have micro analyzed the heck out of small things with very little real info.
that is a toxic thing we need to not be doing.
Sure. My thread actually accept the fate of MS seal the deal as second IBM. That is not the end of MS as we all know IBM is still living large.
Personally, I wish MS keeping the dream of Personal Computing alive. That's how I grow up with MS. I did not grow up with IBM. And when the fate is sealed, it would be me looking for the next company that pursuit the dream of Personal Computing, regardless that is still MS or not.
What I am saying is that all this second guessing / backseat driving / trying to see the future has very little to do with what MS will or will not be like in 5 years. Heck if I had the vision to know this kind of stuff id be rich on the stock market.
some folks are upset that ms has not made a great invention.
other folks are saying that ms needs to go to direct competition with google and apple.
and so on....
truth is that great inventions are hard to make and will happen when they happen.
chasing the leader is not a real winning strategy unless you just want to be an also-ran-in the pack.
and a company can be great and have a good future by just keeping a good line....
sure Microsoft is far from perfect. yes they have done things I have not liked.
but overall I think they are not that bad.
sure I want them to do better. sometimes I wish I could step in and bang some heads at times.
but that's not going to happen and I have to just live my life and be ready to go where the work is.
They said they want to allow more developers into the Xbox program but no word so far on what is keeping them from doing it.
@figuerres: I agree and disagree. It's nice to not need a 200+MB download just to run a simple console app. Yes, it comes with Windows now, but if my simple console app wants to use the latest stuff, the user would have to update the framework.
It would be nice to not have duplicate libraries everywhere, but it is very nice to "install" an app simply by copying over some files. Space is cheap, so why not use it?
yes, it's a mixed bag and there are pluses and minuses for each way of doing things.
space wise it's cheap but I'd like to not be *too* wastefull.
and I do like the idea of an app's install being an xcopy when possible, but also keeping it as small as we can.
if you have an app that has 50K of local code and calls on 100megs of .net I would rather use the full framework install than have a 100 meg installer for that 50K app.
that's the thing is how often each way works out as the better bargain overall.
Maybe I'm weird, but I'm already annoyed when I have to go through the cycle of "Type classname, notice red squiggly line, look up nuget package name, install nuget package, add using, continue typing" whenever I want to use something. I'm not looking forward to doing that every time I want to use a class from a namespace I haven't used yet.
I think it's really funny in some ways ....
back when .net first started the ideas was to have a runtime that had all the bits and you could have all kinds of applications use that runtime and that runtime only needs to be installed one time. Great idea! and versioning so that you can have updated assemblies and not have name conflicts also good ...
but then some developers began to complain about the size of the framework...
and then others said that they only needed just a few classes and can they please just install what they use.
so we are back to the idea that each program can install a bunch of files and who cares the users have huge drives, we can fill up a few gigs of duplicate files on every hard drive now...
and I think back to how the old Amgia OS saw things, every dll was loaded one time into memory and any program could share that code, every dll was re-entrant and re-locatable by design. if the designers of WIndows had followed the way the Amiga OS worked in this area the system would use a lot less ram and we would not be wanting to make 500 copies of the same code.
when .net started the downloading of the .net installer was sometimes an issue but today I really do not see it that way, and recent versions of windows get .net pre-installed anyway.
I guess for some server applications and for embedded the granular install has merit.
the last thing is the whole idea of being able to ship updates faster and in smaller packages.
Hmmm there is a place there for a Star Wars reference there kind of....
or Peter Frampton's lyric about swimming in a circle ....