Me, I don't know. On the one hand, I don't trust M$ with a penny. On the other hand I'm hearing many good things about it, even from open source advocates. I would like to hear the opinion of some knowlegdable people here. Here is what ( I think) I know:
Basically, .Net is an platform much like java is, but unlike java, where you have only one programming language, with .Net, you have many, like c#, asp.net, vb.net . With .Net, you can compile code to an intermediate binary representation of the program, just like java. So you would need some kind of a virtual machine to run the code.
But what if m$ makes it impossible to create such an virtual machine on non-windows platforms. Either by making it illegal to make such a thing (patent ?) or making it some how technically immpossible.
Any thoughts?

That is exactly the problem. .NET, more than anything, is just another way for M$ to tighten their grip on the industry. I don't want to sound like a paranoid M$ hater (cause I'm really not) but I think for a while now M$ has been developing a product base specifically designed to hold their market share. AD was the first major step in that direction, with .NET and Palladium following not to far afterward. I don't think that interoperability is at the top of M$ list of product features, to say the least. Any company who's network infrastructure revolves around .NET/2003 will inevitably find themselves forced into constant upgrades, service packs, licensing, bad service, and worst of all, lack of other options without totally gutting and rebuilding their network from the ground up.

slight

Does any on else has somthing to say?

I tried it for school. All I can say is

Booooooooo!!!! Hissssss!!!

To much bloat compared with previous products..

In theory it is a good idea. However, I do not trust those that hold the keys to this particular idea.

I'm using it at my job. Love it as a set of development tools. Hate it for being tied to that wretched platform. If your shop is committed to the Windows platform, have a ball with it. If it were my decision, though, I would run screaming from the entire platform.

<tangent>
Please don't take this as an endorsement of Java/J2EE. Some swear by it; I usually swear at it. In my half-joking opinion, if your project is too large to implement on LAMP, maybe you need to refactor it into two smaller projects. :-D
</tangent>

-- Jerry

Macromedia Cold Fusion baby.....

That stuff rox.

I have C# standard, and I would have to agree with PcgHost that is definitely bloated. Even the individual language packages are way too OVERdone.

Whitehat, could you clarify your self please. I don't understand you. Does cold fusion have an .NET compiler?

I'm simply saying forget about ASP, Java etc...and just use Macromedia stuff for everything. It rox.

Use Cold fusion server with SQL, and Dreamweaver MX, Fireworks, Freehand etc to run apps on your web pages not .Net

It may not be realistic, but I like to think so

Whitehat - was wondering if you can provide some direction...
Currently running RHL9 & apache 2.0 - Do I need to install anything else in order to process/run cold fusion *.cfm extensions?
Thank you,
Mark

.NET is overkill. I understand the drive, but I can't see how there's so much that it require's a language-encompassing platform

Also, I'm aware that MS, in the macro, has been slowly moving to a P-Code base, so that they may more easily port to other platforms. XP (NT 5.1) is supposedly all in P-Code, explaining the slight performance drop after Win2000.

I also don't understand why people just don't stick to a language. Or the unix concept, where programs are small and solid and interconnect.

MS should have created something more along the lines of Coldfusion... something even easier that VB to do fast prototyping in, and maybe even some sweet program design.

You know what rules? Python. Not so much the language but it's fast prototyping... If MS would try to do that stuff rather, I'd bite.

Yay ranting. Caidence.

How can an entire os be build with p-code? Don't you need raw machine code for that?

Well, there are certain languages for certain tasks. But I agree with the unix concept bit.

Cheers, SChatoor

Well, only a tiny proportion of any modern OS is written in machine code, the rest is in a high level language. This language could just as easily be compiled to P-code as to machine code (though obviously you would need an interpreter/JIT compiler for the P-code built into the OS kernel)

Alex

My opinion on .Net is up there with my opinion on closed-source, highly secretive, electronic voting systems. Sure, it may be simpler, theoretically more reliable, and so on, but if there's no way to confirm it, there's no good reason to have it. Simply put, if I'm going to trust my business's information and capabilities to an online system, there had better be something better than a MS exec and a few clueless journalists saying it's a wonderful thing.

An additional thought. If a company like MS is promoting it, and they have as many billions in the bank as they have, if such a system even hiccups (much less has bugs or virus problems), I'm going to be asking a lot of people (SEC, FTC, local congresspeople) how why MS is allowed to put my company at risk (while claiming it's fine) with those $$$ resources available to prevent such problems in the first place. In an "outside of the box" way, I consider MS's idea of .Net another potential way that MS is going to shoot it's own foot off.