Whoever said it would? The question is not whether .NET will die but rather can .NET offer a viable alternative to server side JAVA. At the moment, I doubt it, and MShaft will have to be very careful about using its monopoly power, but with the sort of cash reserves they have they may be able to significantly reduce developmnt tool pricing to woo some J2EE developers to the dark side.
The demand for that is picking up and I cant stress the lack of trained/experienced programmers on that platform. Many of us IT proffs madly jumped into JAVA because it was so easy and nice and guess what, so did everyone else! Now there is no one on the other side and the demand for that is growing.
I've made the jump into the .NET world myself and find it quite easy. Infact IMO, MS has made VB.net so much like JAVA merely to make it easier for us folks to transition into the MS world.
52% of all software developers use Visual Basic today but that 43% of them are planning to reduce their usage of the language
next year. However, a third of VB users are planning to migrate directly to VB.Net.
The North American Development Survey Volume 1, 2003, completed in April, found that 39% of the 43% of developers decreasing
their VB usage intend to increase their use of C#. Java use is also increasing amongst developers reducing their Visual Basic usage
with 31% indicating that they plan to increase their usage of the platform-agnostic programming language.
I wish one thikng would happen. I wish people would push the fn uninstall button for Netscape 4.x browsers. They are the DONE!
Microsoft bought out most universites, now AOL. What is next? The United States Government?
According to reputable research (though it rather surprised me), Linux has about 5% of the Desktop market globally, China is reported to be standardising on Linux, The Macintosh has perhaps 4% of the global market. If you program for Windows IE only you have decided to exclude approaching 10% of your potential audience. Are they customers you don't need?
Netscape is not very lenient in HTML like ie. if u have forgotten to close a table tag ns 4 wont show up. ns 4 wont support css and dhtml but still is a good one.I dont knwo why u saying building some thing in ns 4 is very complicated. one of the challenges of a web designer/developer is wat -cross browser compatabilty and making a web site accessible for all.
Originally posted by Eric Pascarello:
I will not get rid of it, I use it for testing, but Netscape 4.x does not support any of the new features that webpages contain. If I were to code to support it, it is like building a skyscaper out of tooth picks. If a person uss that browesrer to browse the web then thy either have a slow connection and do not want to wait 2 hours to get a real browser or they are afraid of change. Netscape 4.x is the worse thing that is happening o web development today.
I see Netscape 4.x as Windows 3.1
Yes, I can code for Netscape...but less then 3% of people use it. Why bother for those 3%? I want to know why the ^$&^%&^% people are using that browser? It lacks in DOM, CSS, etc. It should have a self destruct button.
Why should you see my site from the back seat of a pinto when you can be in a corvette?
I should get Bear into this conversation
one of the challenges of a web designer/developer is wat -cross browser compatabilty and making a web site accessible for all.
Very noble! but there are plenty of other challenges to web production. This is one challenge we could all do without. Educate and upgrade!
Even with the latest compliant browsers there are still problems (CSS box model for one).
[ June 12, 2003: Message edited by: Richard Hawkes ]
I don't think .NET will die, mainly because it is very easy to use, very fast to develop with, and Microsoft have a huge userbase of people who like to have an all Microsoft shop.
But I think that .NET may have a drop in market share because of Microsoft's ever increasing licensing costs for operating systems and software, compared with the Java.
Michael Ernest: I'd rather write device drivers than program in .NET.
Is this because of philisopical reasons (in which case, I tend to agree with you), or have you tried .NET and found something bad?
chinedu efoagui: well ,.Net is here to stay
No, .NET is here until Microsoft decide otherwise. And what they call .NET today might not be anything like what they call .NET tomorrow. Microsoft have a long history of completely changing a product, causing people to pay large upgrade fees and spend considerable time in learning how to use the new ways of doing old concepts.
Eric Pascarello: try to use Netscape 4 with a DHTML menu, try to use it with form features (disable), there are millions of reasons why it should die.
I can accept these as arguments for why Netscape 4 should die.
Eric Pascarello: Why is no one using early browsers of IE?
But this is not a reason for Netscape to die. Just because one piece of software is no longer used is not a reason for another to be end-of-lifed. To answer your question: many people only upgrade their browsers because of bugs in the software (or glaring security issues with IE).
Eric Pascarello: why did everyone upgrade from old windows?
Microsoft themselves have commented (and complained) that a great number of users have not upgraded. Although Windows 95 is no longer supported, all the patches for it are still available on Microsoft's servers because of the huge number of users who have not upgraded. This is one of the reasons for the "license 6" way of doing things - Microsoft hope that more people will go onto support agreements and then use the regular updates that are promissed, rather than being left out in the cold the next time a bug fix or security flaw is found.
Eric: Yes, I can code for Netscape...but less then 3% of people use it.
Netscape 4 might even be lower than that, if the statistics at Browser News are accurate.
But what are you going to code for? Just the latest version of IE? In which case you are limiting yourself to 59% of the market (if I can use limiting with such a large number ).
"Yes, I can code for Netscape...but less then 3% of people use it. Why bother for those 3%? I want to know why the ^$&^%&^% people are using that browser? It lacks in DOM, CSS, etc. It should have a self destruct button. "
Because they can, because they can't be bothered to change, because that is what is installed on their computer.
Blaming the user and saying they should upgrade may make make you feel good but doesn't change the fact that millions of people may not be able to view your web pages as you intended.
At some point in the future the user base of Netscape 4 will shrink to a vanishingly small %age, but that has not happened yet. Try dealing with the world as it is not with how you would like to be and how it may be in the future.
For me the art of a good web page is not that it should look perfect for every browser, but that it should look acceptable in any browser.
I'm not praising Netscape 4 as a good browser, just a good benchmark of compatibility. If it will run on that old junk it will probably run on anything, and my ambition is that my code will run for almost everyone. One day I'll delete it but not for a while.
Feel free to code for i.e. 5 and above, but don't be surprised if some people complain that your site doesn't work for them and as a result do not visit your pages.
Blaming the user and saying they should upgrade may make make you feel good but doesn't change the fact that millions of people may not be able to view your web pages as you intended
As web developers our duty is not to educate the user to upgrade the browser. So many users of my web site still using Netscape 4.0. They saying they dont want to upgrade so its our duty to make a web site accessible for all category also people with disabilities.A web site that works with speech browsers. That is why gov is insiting that federal and gov sites should
Educate and upgrade!
be according to section 508.
Saying i will code only for ie 5 and above nothing else doesnt make any sense to me.
Before two years so many clients want their website with splash screen[flash]. That time even if we say hey that wont work with all browsers and also take lot of time they wont listen. When the users start rejecting that web site owners came to realise that.
When i went for a training at sun, all their pcs have Netscape 4.0 Browser.
Look at my soliataire game. In order for that game to work in Netscap 4, I would of had to slap, 33+ Layer tags on to that page, Would have to see that it was that browser using document,layer tags. You had to dynamically place the images when the page loads so it would work. I would have to get rid of the onclick and use a tag around the images. I would not be able to change the images as easy.
People can use it. It is just going to be a rough ride. Most young programmers have banned that from the list of browsers they are testing for. That means that that browser will be dead in the next couple of years. Most people upgrade. It is the few that don't that make it a pain! LOL
Most young programmers have banned that from the list of browsers they are testing for
Young prgrammers? so just wondering which category i will be. If its under 20 i wont fit in that . If its under 30 then i will fit in that...
There is nothing like young and old, mainly depends for which category of users are going to use ur website. For example for a game site who will be ur potential users mainly young medium [old] who have a fast connection. rt?
Let us say a "young" programmer developing a web site abt old age problems aiming for a category of people using old pcs with slow connection. would i say i m a young programmer and my style is this and i wont care for people with eye problems???/ just a thought.
[ June 13, 2003: Message edited by: sunitha raghu ]
As web developers our duty is not to educate the user to upgrade the browser.
I disagree; its important to try. A matter of opinion certainly but I'm 100% with these guys on this issue:
Up to date browsers increase the likelyhood of a more accessable Internet for everyone IMHO.
Whether you should take care of slow-to-upgrade users or not depends on whether you really need them to see your site or not. If I were developing a website selling drugs to elderly people, I would make sure that my site works with all the browsers even if I have to reduce some hi-fi features.
The only game that takes about 1-2 minutes to load is my Soliataire 13 game. All of the others load in seconds.
Young programmers in my minds are my age (23) and lower. I know kids that are not even 15 and know more languages then I would ever would tempt. And they know them well.
I like Netscape 4 back in the past. It made me learn how to do things in a global aspect, it taught me a lot of junk that I can answer tons of questions about, but people have to waste hours (=money) in making that 3% have the same functionality. The big 3 today is IE 5.5+, Netscape 7 and Mozilla.
It used to be Netscape 4+ but then came new versions of DOM and CSS which made coding a lot easier.
I disagree. Trying to force everyone to use the same (or latest) browser / OS / connection type/speed is not only impossible, but can be irresponsible.
There are many developing countries that take what they can get. So if a user (or community group) in one of these countries gets given a PC with a 14.4k modem (or worse) and Netscape 4, how much time do you think they should have to spend upgrading in order to reach your site?
There are a great many people who believe that the computer is a commodity/tool. They do not want to spend any work on it. They bought a radio 20 years ago to listen to radio stations, and it still works. They bought a computer 5 years ago and some developer is telling them that it is obsolete?
As a side note: There have been a couple of companies start up in Australia (dont know how successful) that were catering to these clients. Their pitch was that the computer should be treated the same way as a car: it needs regular servicing. And they had technicians come on site at regular intervals to service the computer (perform software upgrades and sometimes hardware upgrades).
I am lucky that I live in an area of Sydney, Australia where broadband is available, and it has now become affordable. But it is not available in the area my mother lives in (and she is in the city of Melbourne) or my sister (60km north of Melbourne) or one of my friends (250km south of Sydney). They are all stuck with 56k. Trying to tell them "sorry you cannot visit my site, get a faster connection" is not realistic: they would have to move house!
I disagree. Trying to force everyone to use the same (or latest) browser ...
Not the same browser, just one that's standards compliant.
The WaSP project doesn't advocate denying access to non-standards browsers (quite right), they advocate educating people about the benefits of upgrading and of creating truly accessible design-hack-free websites. A site designed to those specs will be more accessible (to everyone) while a non-standards browser will just see a less pretty, less sophisticated version of the site (with CSS disabled for NN4 for instance).
Designing accessible websites is a lot easier for standards compliant browsers, which should encourage designers to be more responsible with their designs and coding.
So, educate and upgrade!!
Hey in a couple of years in the US, all of the old Televisions will not work when all of major networks change over to the other format....People will need to upgrade....
Life is an upgrade, we all have security flaws and errors, upgrade and make your life safer and easier.
By the way, I surf the net on a 56k modem on one computer and do all of my programming and most of my surfing/game playing on a computer with a 24.6K connection. So do not tell me speed matters with a browser...
For example, a friend of mine just upgraded his MS Email client. Lost all his email records, he had no backup.Unfortunatly this type of experience is not particularly unusual.
Most people would rather not try to fix anything unless it is truly broken.