| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
PC Magazine Awards Microsoft for Innovation in Software | |
|
||
| Time: 12:10 EST/17:10 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Adrian Latinak | ||
|
Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT) today announced it was honored for innovation in software at PC Magazine's 18th Annual Technical Excellence Awards presented at COMDEX Fall 2001 in Las Vegas. Visual Studio(R) .NET, Microsoft's comprehensive tool for creating XML Web services and applications, was singled out in the development tools category for its technical superiority. The award represents yet another milestone on the road to the release of Microsoft(R) Visual Studio .NET. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 158 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:27:07 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 1845 (207.173.73.201) at 11/13/2001 1:48:18 PM |
| Although I'm not sure I see the wisdom in giving an award to a prerelease product, VisualStudio.NET is a great product. I've used it since beta 1 and am very pleased. |
| #2 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 11/13/2001 8:12:00 PM |
|
#7 - Both your ignorance, and your willingness to flaunt it, really appall me.
.NET is a LOT more than Java + XML. I'm willing to bet you've never look at a piece of .NET code in your life. Why do I say you're ignorant? Well, first you think VS.NET and .NET the same thing. Are C++ and Visual C++ the same thing? Are Codewarrior and the Windows API the same thing? Of course not. Visual Studio is an IDE (Integrated Development Environment). .NET is many things, including a platform, and API, a standard(s), and a new methodology for programming and resource access. Second, you group completely unrelated things together. (COM, Registery, etc.) While COM uses the register as a directory to allow for applications to easily find COM libraries, the Registry also does many other things that have nothing to do with COM. COM itself is awesome stuff, and it's proven itself over it's entire evolution from OLE all the way to COM+. The benefits of COM are simply too many to list. Does it have flaws? Yup. But does it suck? No, not at all and no educated person would suggest that. You mentioned they are "the only game in town for Windows." That couldn't be farther from the truth. .NET is a STANDARD. (CLR/CLS are ECMA, as well as C#.) It also relies entirely on industry standards like XML and SOAP. This means ANYBODY can develop IDEs and applications using .NET on ANY platform. There are many companies already working on .NET IDEs and competing products, for both Windows and other platforms. (SunONE, IBM WebSphere based web services, and that open one... m-something?) Development on Windows has been, for the most part, a pleasure for anybody with half a brain. COM based development especially. You say you've been programming for 8 years? Man... I feel really damn sorry for your clients. Go read a book or something man. Or start learning what .NET really is at www.gotdotnet.com. By the way, Visual Studio.NET is an awesome product. I'm using Beta 2 (and I've had every release installed since it was first made available on MSDN) except RC1... for various reasons. Nothing out there even comes close. |
| #3 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 11/13/2001 10:23:21 PM |
|
#9 - perhaps you shouldn't make such ignorant comments like "They just improved Java and added XML." Maybe then I wouldn't mistake you for being ignorant.
As to your points... 1.) That's great. Then you really have no excuse then huh? 2.) Yes, and it was stupid of you to suggest it. You said "Although I love VS.NET I wouldn't call it innovation. They just improved Java and added XML." What the hell do you think people are going to think? Even if the Java/XML comment was true, it still applies to .NET, not Visual Studio.NET. 3.) Yes, dll hell sucks. COM binary compatibility has nothing to do with the registry. The registry merely stores the GUID (and various other meta data) which are supposed to only point to binaries that are interface compatible with every previous version of that GUID. I've never had any problems developing COM components that adhere to that fine. It's called DESIGN. Yes, having to intermingle a lot of code with HTML does suck. Can you show me an alternative other than ASP.NET? There have always been ways around that problem, at least to a point... and for the most part, ASP has been an excellent platform to develop web applications on. No truly OO language? Well, is C++ all of a sudden not truly OO? ATL? Hello? Most of the COM I've written has been in C++ using ATL. Aside from COM, there is MFC (ya, it sucks, I know) for the Windows API. What, do you think VB is the only language you can write Windows apps with? LOL. 4.) Um... ok. I mentioned several alternatives to both .NET and Visual Studio.NET. None of them are as good as their Microsoft equivalents. I guess that's one argument you could make... the competition sucks. But no competition? Hardly. 5.) Religious? Perhaps. All choices have a certain amount of illogical bias. But Microsoft isn't calling COM legacy as far as I know. Please provide a reference for that statement. COM has a good role in .NET as far as interop goes, and it's still and excellent solution for those cases where Web Services or Remoting won't do the job. In fact, COM+ drives a good chunk of Microsoft's implementation of .NET in Windows. Why then would they call it legacy as you claim? I do think, however, that COM - over the next 5 years - will be phased out. Just like all technologies eventually do. Does this mean COM isn't good? Of course not. It means the new stuff is better. 6.) Good for you. So do I. 7.) What the hell is an ObjectSpace? When did I suggest I was using them... whatever the hell they are? Do you have additional info? I'm always interesting in learning new things... :-p |
| #4 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 11/14/2001 3:08:39 AM |
|
#11
3) C++ is considered by most to be OO. Yes, it lacks a unified object hierarchy, but so does Java. The only languages you mentioned that have a true object hierarchy is SmallTalk... and C# sorta. (Sorta because primitives are not actually objects until you treat them as such, which then causes them to be boxed. Much better than how Smalltalk handles things, imho.) 5) Yes, there is a lot of controversy, which is precisely why I challenged your previous declaration that COM is now legacy. The evidence points to the contrary, at least for now. As far as your views, I agree with a lot of them. In fact, I think I agree with all of them... gasp. 7.) Ah yes, I've heard of this... I didn't realize it was called "ObjectSpaces." It's not listed anywhere on MSDN, nor is it mentioned anywhere on any web article I could find. Do you have any links I could look at? I assume these are like EJB in a sense? I will surely check out the newsgroup you mentioned... looks like interesting stuff. At any rate, I apologize for calling you ignorant. I was obviously mistaken. I still think you're wrong in your first comments, and I was partially justified in my reaction (there are a lot of trolls around here... it's easy to miss judge), but I've been impressed with your replies. You should get an account so it's easier to identify the author in future threads. :-) |
| #5 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 11/14/2001 11:12:52 AM |
|
#13 - ya, you're wrong. :-)
MFC is bloated and slow. And just because MFC is unmanaged doesn't make it automatically faster than managed .NET code. In fact, there are many cases where managed code is actually faster! At any rate, if you want a sign that MFC sucks, think about this for a second. Find me *one* Microsoft application that uses it. Just one. If MFC was so cool, wouldn't Microsoft use there own stuff? ;-) |
| #6 By 1845 (65.0.207.79) at 11/14/2001 11:45:32 AM |
| A good deal of VisualStudio.NET is written in C# using winforms controls. As for FrontPage, I haven't heard anything about that one way or the other. |
| #7 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 11/14/2001 2:38:00 PM |
|
#17 - damn it... hehe, ok. Thanks for the heads up. Alas, I was unable to attend the PDC. :-(
#15 - Microsoft has never released an application written with MFC. VC++ 6 is written in straight C++, no MFC libraries were used. (Just check the CD... the only MFC stuff you will find there is the SDK.) Frontpage was also written in C++, with no MFC libraries used. I'm not sure about Visual Studio.NET... I supposed it's possible that it was written in C#. ASP.NET is completely written in C#, I know that. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 158 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:27:07 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
