Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




Do you program in Dotnet?

Do you or your company program in dotnet?
If not - then why not?

What of your products are programmed in dotnet?

dotnet man
Friday, March 26, 2004

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Our.NetStrategy.html

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/PleaseLinker.html

Joel Spolsky
Fog Creek Software
Friday, March 26, 2004

So how far along are you on the 4 point plan at the end of ".Net Strategy"?

Jim Rankin
Friday, March 26, 2004

We're still waiting for the .net runtime to have 75% penetration.

It looks like it could easily be another 5 years -- the needle's barely moving.

Joel Spolsky
Fog Creek Software
Friday, March 26, 2004

How does one generally measure these things? Obviously you only want to measure actively used machines; does Microsoft provide these figures to their dev partners?

Nigel
Friday, March 26, 2004

What method do you use to determine the penetration percentage?

S
Friday, March 26, 2004

He could look at his website access logs, for one thing. The .NET runtime version, if any, of all machines that request a page is noted there. Not too useful for people selling software to little old ladies but might be good enough as a yardstick for FogBugz.

Chris Nahr
Friday, March 26, 2004

Isn't waiting for .NET penetration kind of like the chicken vs. egg question? Everybody is waiting for more market penetration to create applications that target .NET because the download is too large, but there's no .NET penetration because they're no applications that target it.

Does this mean we're all going to have to wait until Longhorn ships (2005, 2006? who knows!?!) before .NET is ubiquitous, and even then it will take years before Longhorn is adopted by 75%+ of the population.

Josh E.
Friday, March 26, 2004

Note that looking at your logs is _not_ a good way to determine the percentage of users who use MSIE as their browser.  Due to badly-programmed web pages, many people who use other browsers have their software report themselves as MSIE.  Furthermore, I've seen many people say they cannot be bothered to make their web sites work in non-IE browsers as virtually none of their visitors use anything other than IE.  Well, of course your visitors only use IE if your site only works with IE... the other visitors give up right away and do not come back.

Chris Thompson
Friday, March 26, 2004

It is a chicken-and-egg problem. But I don't think Mr. Spolsky could do very much to speed things along himself. .NET is Microsoft's platform so it's their responsibility to spread it around.

Dan Maas
Friday, March 26, 2004

Yeah using his website access logs is a way I thought he could do it but for reasons pointed out by CT not very accurate. Specially since if he looked at JoelonSoftware stats, he might find that the penetration % is much greater than what it is in reality because people that go to joelonsoftware are typically in the software business and typically have the latest and greatest software tools installed.

Looking at the google stats would give you a more realistic view but I don't see the "CLR installed" stat in the google zeitgeist.

So any other ways?

S
Friday, March 26, 2004

> Isn't waiting for .NET penetration kind of like
> the chicken vs. egg question?

It is. And I am pretty sure that it is on Joels' to-do list right before learning Indian (if I can correctly recall the example he gave) because it's a superior language.

Alexander Chalucov (www.alexlechuck.com)
Friday, March 26, 2004

> Isn't waiting for .NET penetration kind of like the chicken
> vs. egg question?

Isn't ".NET penetration" synonymous with XP and 2003 Server penetration?  I could be wrong, but Joel's said, iirc, that he doesn't use .Net because it's one extra step for people to have to go through when installing CityDesk (the Linker article may have changed this).  I assume this is not only Joel's strategy.

So, if MS puts .Net in its OS by default, and a lot of people use the OS, then hasn't it penetrated the market without companies having to take the first step?

Andrew Burton
Saturday, March 27, 2004

I have realised that I misquoted Joel (shoould not quote from memory, anyway):

> Regrettably, I don't have time to get into religious
> discussions right now and I usually find them quite boring.
> I don't care if Japanese is a better language than English.
> It just doesn't matter. Let me finish describing our strategy.

It is from http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Our.NetStrategy.html

So the language is Japanese which of course does not matter for the example. The mistake was not intentional. Also, as the person who caught my mistake said, "I thought you might yourself want to correct the impression that you don't know there is no such language.". Sorry about the confusion.

http://www.alexlechuck.com
Saturday, March 27, 2004

We've done a gut check of the improvement in the quality of the overall experience when we program in C# vs the loss in experience when the user is forced to do a one time download of the runtime.  Basically there is no way we could not switch to C#.

Richard Kuo
Saturday, March 27, 2004

"Note that looking at your logs is _not_ a good way to determine the percentage of users who use MSIE as their browser."

Eh? The subject were .NET users, not MSIE users. As long as the browser shows the .NET version identification it doesn't matter which one you use.

Chris Nahr
Saturday, March 27, 2004

Strange that nothing has changed from April  2002 when the dotnet article was written to March 2004 when this thread was written.

dotnet man
Saturday, March 27, 2004

I have a possibly stupid question, 'cause I'm no longer in the business of delivering apps.
Why not deliver the runtime along with the product and stop monitoring the penetration percentage?
It would also help in selecting a relatively-stable runtime version vis-a-vis having to settle for all the versions "out there".
Maybe there's some licensing involved but the details can be worked out as MS is interested in having other people spread its environments.
If I'm right, the above discussion is kinda unnecessary. Where am I wrong?

Coward with a name
Saturday, March 27, 2004

"Why not deliver the runtime along with the product and stop monitoring the penetration percentage?"

Because a decent percentage of software is delivered via download, and a decent percentage of people still use 56k dialup.  The time it takes for the end user to download the thing is probably the main issue at this point.  App + runtime = 1.5 to 2 hours for most smallish applications.

Aaron F Stanton
Saturday, March 27, 2004

It still boggles me that Microsoft hasn't 1) Included the most recent framework in every CD they shipped after VS.NET 2002 shipped and made it part of the "typical" install 2) Made the framework a non-optional part of XP SP1 and 3) Bribed OEMs to preinstall the framework.

With any luck, though, the 1.1 Framework is a non-optional part of XP SP2; there's got to be some reason why the XP SP2 full install is bigger than XP...

Dave Rothgery
Saturday, March 27, 2004

"Eh? The subject were .NET users, not MSIE users. As long as the browser shows the .NET version identification it doesn't matter which one you use."

Only IE shows the versions of .NET installed. Other browsers don't. And additionally, you can't actually know if the browser that's claiming to be IE is really IE, because it may be using User-Agent masking.

You can get a vague approximation using web logs, but not with serious accuracy.

Brad Wilson (dotnetguy.techieswithcats.com)
Saturday, March 27, 2004

--
1) Included the most recent framework in every CD they shipped after VS.NET 2002 shipped and made it part of the "typical" install
--
Would you like to install each iteration of the .NET framework when you install a Microsoft product? Maybe if they make the install silent and quick, but I don't see that happening from what I've read in JoS.

--
2) Made the framework a non-optional part of XP SP1
--
If the XP Service Packs become too big in size, nobody will download it and apply it, and thus MS will be accused of neglecting the OS security even if the patch is available for free.

--
and 3) Bribed OEMs to preinstall the framework.
--
They should :)

Anonymouche
Saturday, March 27, 2004

I know of way too many large companies that have just recently or not-at-all upgraded to windows 2000. 

Including .NET on XP SP2 wouldn't solve any problems.

We developers tend to have a rather myopic view.


Saturday, March 27, 2004

***
1) Included the most recent framework in every CD they shipped after VS.NET 2002 shipped and made it part of the "typical" install
--
Would you like to install each iteration of the .NET framework when you install a Microsoft product? Maybe if they make the install silent and quick, but I don't see that happening from what I've read in JoS.
***

It should check to see if that version is already installed first, but yes, I would. 20 MB of hard drive space, or space on CD is nothing. The minute or so it takes to install a new version of the framework is insignificant. And it's one of the easiest things Microsoft could do to get the framework out there and on everyone's desktop.

***
2) Made the framework a non-optional part of XP SP1
--
If the XP Service Packs become too big in size, nobody will download it and apply it, and thus MS will be accused of neglecting the OS security even if the patch is available for free.
***

Again, adding 20 MB to a 100MB+ service pack isn't a big deal. And it's important that it's non-optional, and so included in the retail version of XP (current retail copies of XP include SP1).

Dave Rothgery
Saturday, March 27, 2004

***
I know of way too many large companies that have just recently or not-at-all upgraded to windows 2000. 

Including .NET on XP SP2 wouldn't solve any problems.

We developers tend to have a rather myopic view.
***

It doesn't solve any problems _now_. But it means that anyone rolling out the latest OS after XP SP2 would have the framework, which means the time when its safe to assume everyone has the framework isn't as far into the future.

Dave Rothgery
Saturday, March 27, 2004

"""anyone rolling out the latest OS after XP SP2 would have the framework"""

Super!  Just 3 or 4 more years!


Saturday, March 27, 2004

The service pack is only 100+ mb if you download the stand alone.

The typical install of XP sp1 is under 30mb I think. Which means distributing the .NET runtime would basically double it in size.

Sum Dum Gai
Sunday, March 28, 2004

While that may be true for XP SP1, that's not going to be true for XP SP2, because the entire OS has been re-compiled.

Brad Wilson (dotnetguy.techieswithcats.com)
Sunday, March 28, 2004

Ooh, is that why it is nearly 300MB? Did they recompile it all for those buffer overflow compiler checks and stuff or something?

One other thing the XPSP2RC1 didn't install the .Net framework BUT there is a file in the compressed package named dotnetfx.cab. What is that for if it doesn't install the .Net framework? (I installed on a blank XP to test this)

Chris Ormerod
Monday, March 29, 2004

Waiting until your (prospective) customers actually *use* the platform before you target it sounds .. let me put it as 'not-stupid' (as opposed to targeting a platform your customer's *don't* use).

But seeing that dot-net is looking like a win32-only platform, why would you *ever* want to use it? Distributing real machine code will always be faster and having more potential customers.

I understood the Java idea: if Java got more widespread than Windows it would be a good target. But now it seems that it has failed (in that aspect). So, my question is, why dot-net at all?

Jonas B.
Monday, March 29, 2004

I think MS could fix the problem by imitating AOL - send EVERYONE a CD with the Framework on it, and put them in magazines, and at check-outs in office supply and electronics stores, and...

OK, that would be irritating, but it would work.  And its not like they don't have the money to spend on it.

-e
Monday, March 29, 2004

I think that the adoption of dotnet is early on based on the value proposition it brings. dotnet is going to have to enable capabilities that people want. Pagemaker used to come with a "windows 286 runtime" that people had to install. people put it up because pagemaker gave them a capability they wanted. more recently look at web browsers we went from 0 to everywhere because people needed to get that application in order to get on the web.

If your app isn't giving compelling value, my guess is that the "inconvenience" of downloading dotnet is the least of the problems.

dotnet is going to succeed or fail on the ability of it to make the hard things easy.  If developers are able to deliver richer and more complete solutions over writing for win32 its a hit. if your app gets to market in 9 months instead of 18 its a hit. does it enable you to clear your feature backlogue in current apps its a hit. if your app is able to overcome the impedance of integrating a back office app with your web app its a hit.

mikester
Monday, March 29, 2004

Interesting idea, -e.  If they did that, and bundled in a killer game or two (which required .NET to run), that could actually work.

Kyralessa
Tuesday, March 30, 2004

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home