No doubt you have seen those commercials about Microsoft’s new product called .NET. These ads are annoyingly similar to drug ads. They are purposely vague about the product and portray whatever they’re selling to look like it’s the best thing since aspirin or free music on the Internet.
So what the heck is .NET? It is not a software package you buy like Microsoft Office. .NET is what people in the computer biz call architecture?or the way pieces of software work together. Microsoft had to come up with .NET because its old architecture, called Windows DNA, isn’t keeping up with the times.
Microsoft rolled out Windows DNA, or Distributed interNet application Architecture, during the mid-’90s; but a lot has happened since then, namely the Internet boom. The client-server nature of Web applications, where the client (such as your Web browser) connects to the server (such as the Yahoo portal) temporarily to fetch data then disconnects, didn’t sit well with Windows DNA. Also, the way Windows DNA manages components (such as all those DLL files you see during software installation) had many shortcomings. Another problem with Windows DNA is the uneven support for programming languages. This made each language, such as C++ and Visual Basic, better for one task than another. The .NET architecture addresses all these issues specifically.
Architecture is usually transparent (i.e., invisible) to the consumer and is important only to software developers, but Microsoft is hyping it in mass media just as pharmaceutical companies do with drugs for very similar reasons?they want the consumers to demand it.
Drug companies don’t mention the specifics of their products for legal reasons. If they tell you what the drugs do, they also have to tell you all the side effects. Microsoft just doesn’t want to try explaining .NET and end up confusing you. To be honest, I think most techies would have a hard time explaining it too. You’ll probably get a totally different description than the one above. Regardless, both pharmaceutical companies and Microsoft hope you end up asking your supplier?in the case of drugs, your physician; and software, your friendly I.T. professional?and eventually pressuring them to give you the new product, whether it’s the best choice for you or not.
My recent interview for a programmer position is a good illustration of the phenomenon. This sports marketing firm plans to deliver a crucial software product within three months, and it plans to use the .NET framework. It’s fairly risky to deploy a product using unproven technology, and most companies would probably test .NET developing internal applications first. But the main reason this company decided to use .NET is the appeal to potential investors. They can boast they’re using the latest big thing, which the investors have heard about on television. Never mind that it would be that much tougher to hire developers, learn about the new technology, and find workarounds for newly discovered bugs in .NET.
For sure, you’ll be hearing about .NET for a while. Microsoft is committed to it and is betting the farm on it. Most developers who have been using Microsoft technology say .NET is a big improvement. But of course, Microsoft bashers will always tell you exactly otherwise, citing Microsoft’s poor track record and its evil intentions to monopolize the software industry.