.HTA/.HTB/PHP v. DotNet - was RE: [AccessD]OT: C# was no-ip.com

Wortz, Charles CWortz at tea.state.tx.us
Thu Jul 31 08:24:48 CDT 2003


Scott,

Don't be shy about giving a more meaningful subject line in your
response. <grin>

Charles Wortz
Software Development Division
Texas Education Agency
1701 N. Congress Ave
Austin, TX 78701-1494
512-463-9493
CWortz at tea.state.tx.us



-----Original Message-----
From: Marcus, Scott (GEAE, Contractor) [mailto:scott.marcus at ae.ge.com] 
Sent: Thursday 2003 Jul 31 07:48
To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
Subject: RE: [AccessD]OT: C# was no-ip.com

Bruce,

I reread my post and am offering an apology for sounding rude. The
discussion is interesting, I just wish it had a different subject line.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: William Hindman [mailto:wdhindman at bellsouth.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 8:43 AM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: Re: [AccessD]OT: C# was no-ip.com


...JC goes on vacation and Bruce decides to assume his mantle :))))

...interesting rant btw :)

William Hindman
...It's a proven fact that if you smoke a pack of cigarettes a day for
90 years, you'll live to a ripe old age. :)))

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bruce Bruen" <bbruen at bigpond.com>
To: "'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'"
<accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 6:36 PM
Subject: RE: [AccessD]OT: C# was no-ip.com


> Well,
>
> Having had the winge, I suppose I'd better propose a desired solution.
>
> IMHO, what is needed is a truly lightweight application runtime that 
> can be installed on various desktops providing the basic 
> infrastructure to enable a tuple based information set to be displayed

> in a functional format suitable for human user interfaces.  That is, a

> runtime that supports secure, structured, data-only transfer across 
> TCP/IP and which locally transforms that data into a dataset that can 
> be displayed or printed.  For the sake of the argument, lets call the 
> data transport mechanism "XML".  Instead of the runtime containing a 
> heavy load of (lets call it) "desktop database" functionality it would

> only contain some sort of coded buiness logic (lets call it p-code), a
high speed
> interpreter and a set of <bold red italic 72 point>   B A S I C
> </emphasis> UI components.  However, I note that the UI components 
> provided by HTML 3/4 do not cope well with tuple based data, they do 
> need to be extended.
>
> Application components (p-code) could be distributed on a download 
> once
> - use many basis.  Including any necessary (so-called) web services.
> The technology exists today to enable secure application loading, data
> transfer and transactional control.  We (developers) need a business
> logic level development environment to enable delivery of business
> benefit software.
>
> What I am talking about, of course, is an Access with the db part 
> stripped out and replaced with an easy to use XML based data transfer 
> bottom end.  However, as I will shortly expand upon, I don't think 
> VB/VBA/VBS/ASP are the fruit of the true vine.
>
> I have recently looked (very briefly) at the ruby language.  If it 
> lives up to all its claims, my golly gosh, it's a huge step out of the

> current fight with the technical level application development 
> problems that plague us today.  There is not one current manistream 
> development language that truly lives up to the promises of OODD.  For

> example, VB doesn't inherit; C++ does not protect or garbage collect 
> properly, Java has non-object typeing; etc.  In short, these languages

> are still leaving us with buggy applications that are difficult to 
> support in changing business environments.  Developers have to spend 
> too much time looking at technical difficulties rather than business 
> logic. Look at AccessD mail lately, if I'm not reading it at too much 
> of an angle, the vast majority of questions handled by the list are 
> technical - not business logic level issues.  Or is it that we, of 
> AccessD, are so adept at handling business logic problems that the 
> only problems we have are technical.  Somehow I think not.
>
> Hence my short query re hta.  I really thought this was a fantastic 
> step forward in net based application taming.  A client stored page 
> that ran on a level of the IE intfrastructure that removed the www 
> cr*p (the bits unnecessary to a business application) and presented a 
> clean, albeit very standard, interface.  And, while I'm on that 
> soapbox, who in their right minds needs half the UI noodledust that is

> floating around web based apps today. My <insert deity of choice>!  If

> I'm looking at a couple of hundred, or even a couple of dozen, totally
similar
> transactions a day I DO NOT SEE ALL THE CR*P JUST THE DATA.   And this
> applies whether I'm using the data as an operator or an information 
> consumer...
>
> I went to the supermarket last week. The checkouts now have decent 
> sized customer facing screens that list each scanned item as it gets 
> swiped. SUPERB!  I can now see when I'm not being charged the expected

> price. BUT SOME IDIOT OF A MARKETER got SOME EVEN BIGGER IDIOT OF A 
> DEVELOPER to use 85% of the screen to show me, randomly, either a 
> pretty picture of a landscape, an advertisement for something that I'm

> not going back into the store to buy, or a PICTURE OF THE ITEM THAT 
> HAS JUST BEEN SCANNED.  I just cannot comprehend the mentality that 
> decided that I need a picture of some (digitally enhanced) carrots 
> rather than the name of the item, its unit price, the units scanned 
> and the total price. ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE ARE SOME REAL 3-D EXTREMELY

> CARROT LIKE OBJECTS ON THE BENCH IN FRONT OF ME.  I HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN 
> WHAT CARROTS LOOK LIKE BETWEEN THE GROCERY SECTION AND THE CHECKOUT.  
> I just cant understand how they can come up with these timewasting, 
> moneywasting, ABSOLUTELY USELESS pieces of, for want of a better word,

> functionality.
>
> My bank, after two years of market surveying customers, finally did 
> what they were asked and replaced a java based bill payment system 
> that took 5 web pages and had every damn bell and whistle that the 
> stupid programmer could think of - including animations for God's sake

> - with a simple 2 page (entry and confirmation) app that now lets us 
> pay bills in 15 seconds not 2 minutes. The new page has labels, 
> textboxes and combo boxes, two buttons and that's all.  It looks 10 
> times neater, runs 10 times faster and guess what - it provides 100% 
> of the functionality required and 0% of the "functionality" not 
> required.  The ONLY image on the page is the bank's logo, which I will

> excuse.  There are NO spinners, tabs, dancing buttons, or technicolour

> dreamcoat iconic
> (moronic) buttons asking me whether I want to get done over again
today.
>
> I don't know how much of the supermarket chain's network bandwidth is 
> being used up by the pictorical polution but I'd wager it's a 
> significant amount.
>
> When the hypertext paradigm was first expounded, there were only 4 or 
> 5 or so widgets.  If we expand that set just a bit more to give us 
> some easy to use row handling widgets, for example a self-populating 
> multicolumn list that knew which row had just been clicked, or (bliss)

> a self-populating treeview............................
>
> Bruce
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Jim 
> Lawrence
> (AccessD)
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 July 2003 3:40 PM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: RE: [AccessD]OT: C# was no-ip.com
>
>
> Hi Bruce:
>
> You have made some excellent points. I am current working in an Oracle

> product office. The DB is Oracle but the client end is distributed, to

> intranet users through an installed component called jinitiator. This 
> component must be first installed on each station before the users can

> access the database interface. The middle-tier is of course Java.
>
> In order for any user to access functionality beyond 
> DHTML/XML/CSS/JavaScript etc. other components must be installed at 
> the client's station. This is the position that Java now has and .Net 
> framework is working towards.
>
> <observation mode on>
> The next versions of Windows will most assuredly have .Net Frame well 
> installed... a very tricky position to be in seeing the current 
> sensitivity of competing businesses and governments, all of which will

> scream 'blue murder'. MS may be placed in the uncomfortable position 
> of delivering and assuring compatibility of a host of competitors 
> products, on to it's new desktops. <observation mode off>
>
> A product like PHP/Perl/ColdFusion etc. can provide no more 
> functionality to a user than can be delivered through the common 
> Brower interface. (Interesting aside; Perl can be installed on 
> virtually any computer and can give the functionality of a super 
> 'Free' multi-user, multi-tasking DOS on steroids. It's binary and all 
> the bell and whistles are about 50MB; small by today's standards. I 
> have it running on my Windows98 station and it is great
> fun.)
>
> Jim
> PS I am not a anti-MS person. I personally think .Net is great but I 
> have to be pragmatic.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Bruce Bruen
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 9:33 PM
> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
> Subject: RE: [AccessD]OT: C# was no-ip.com
>
>
> IMHO Probably the biggest PITA about pHP is its major strength - 
> inline coding.  There are two views held, one that PHP is a scriptiong

> language that appears in an HTML file and the other that PHP is a 
> script that has HTML constants in it.  I think both views are valid.
>
> That said, and to get back to the point, the strength of ASP.net is 
> the separation of the code and the HTML/XML/XHTML/etc.  At least 
> within the IDE.  At the end of the day the product produced by the 
> script is a single instance of an http transmittable document.  
> Therein lies the lack of concern whether PHP is OO or not - if 98% of 
> the output is achieveable through non-OO coding and 98% of the output 
> is a single instance, and very temporal, document then why impose 
> object mentality on it.
>
> Sure and enough, the server side handling of data and particularly 
> data updates would benefit from a reusable object language - but there

> you have PEAR, which I am reliably informed is very OO.
>
> Drew sometime commented that he uses dll objects extensively in 
> building web based front ends to dbs.  Foine and dandy - the PHP 
> proponents would rather use scripted PHP/PEAR components to achieve 
> the same result.
>
> Finally, don't forget PHP produces HTML documents - viewable on 
> browsers whether or not the client has PHP.  I have a fear that a 
> large part of .net is going to require 5 terrabytes of M$ componentry 
> installed on the client side in order to view the built pages.  I was 
> extrememly P**SS*D off to find out that the office web controls 
> require so much crap loaded on the client side that they may as well 
> just use the application locally.
>
> B
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Haslett, 
> Andrew
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 July 2003 1:40 PM
> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
> Subject: RE: [AccessD]OT: C# was no-ip.com
>
>
> Sure, its implementing a couple of OO concepts, but its still a Hybrid

> language.
>
> It doesn't support the four 'biggies' of pure OO languages like Java 
> and the .Net breed and cannot be considered a pure OO language.
>
> That said, a large majority of web coders don't know or will never use

> OO principals in their applications and wiwo viewsll stick to 
> procedural programming, so it won't matter!
>
> Cheers,
> Andrew
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Lawrence (AccessD) [mailto:accessd at shaw.ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 July 2003 12:57 PM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: RE: [AccessD]OT: C# was no-ip.com
>
>
> Andrew:
>
> You are partly right but the current version is Object-Oriented. See 
> the
> article: http://www.devx.com/webdev/Article/10007 written by the
actual
> developers of PHP.
>
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Haslett, 
> Andrew
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 7:49 PM
> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
> Subject: RE: [AccessD]OT: C# was no-ip.com
>
>
> PHP is not object orientated..
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arthur Fuller [mailto:artful at rogers.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 July 2003 1:42 AM
> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
> Subject: RE: [AccessD]OT: C# was no-ip.com
>
>
> I'm pretty sure that is an accurate percentage. Why? Because far and 
> away the most popular web server on the market is Apache. No one else 
> is even close. Add to that the Linux factor (almost all large sites 
> use Linux not IIS), the ease of combining php and Linux (and MySQL, 
> for data-driven sites), and the cost factor, and it all adds up to a 
> formidable combination. Notice that Dreamweaver MX added support for
> php+mySQL in the latest rev. Php is easy to learn and is object
> oriented. There are free on-line courses and stuff available, too.
>
> Not that I have any current clients who use this combination. Most are

> small businesses and are afraid to go Linux, or even to combine Oses. 
> But at home I have one Linux-dedicated box and another Win2K Advanced 
> Server that houses an instance of both MySQL and SQL 2K, so I can run 
> .NET from one workstation and Apache/php/mySQL from another.
>
> A.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Jim 
> Lawrence
> (AccessD)
> Sent: July 29, 2003 1:18 AM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: RE: [AccessD]OT: C# was no-ip.com
>
>
> Hi All:
>
> I have seen a recent claim, have no way to validate it but the 
> assertion goes as follows: PHP as a server based web language now has 
> almost forty percent of the general market...
>
> This claim seems outrageous but that would leave PHP holding the 
> largest single market share of that genre of products.
>
> Jim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Marcus, 
> Scott (GEAE, Contractor)
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 10:00 AM
> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
> Subject: RE: [AccessD]OT: C# was no-ip.com
>
>
> John,
>
> Thanks for your optimism on .Net. All I ever here are negative things 
> about MS products (which I make my living with). It is a good point 
> you make about being on the leading edge. I think the same way. I just

> get discouraged cause very few tend to agree with that statement. It 
> seems that most think that software development will eventually be all

> off shore. I say that moving off shore totally won't happen (small 
> business needs physical presence). JM2C
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jcolby at colbyconsulting.com [mailto:jcolby at colbyconsulting.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 12:49 PM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: RE: [AccessD]OT: C# was no-ip.com
>
>
> Scott,
>
> >My only doubts about .Net is that I'm not seeing very many job 
> >postings
>
> >for
> .Net developers (but allot more than Access development).
>
> I am seeing more and more .net openings, at least more and more "ya 
> need the kitchen sink and oh, by the way, ya need .net too" ads.  I 
> get the feeling that not many companies really understand it yet - 
> momentum. However my feelings are that MS has spent a TON of money on 
> developing the concept, and are pushing .net big time.  If they put 
> their muscle behind it, it won't be long till it's a "requirement" to 
> get a job and I want to be on the leading edge of this one.  PLUS, the

> .net framework is truly impressive in the capability it gives me "out 
> of the box".
>
> >You must have read the same article as me (actually editors 
> >comments). I'm
> leaning VB.Net first and then adding C# to my skills. Seems silly to 
> me that C# pulls in more money.
>
> Yea, it is silly considering the reality of the new .net environment. 
> I'm betting that it won't be long before managers start to listen to 
> M$ saying that any language is equally capable and stop paying more 
> for C#. There are still a very small handful of indirection 
> capabilities that C# has that VB doesn't, and if you need them then 
> fine, go there. Otherwise VB is probably faster to get something up 
> and running in.
>
> And finally, no, my framework has no equivalents in .net for the 
> simple reason that my framework is about making form development in 
> Access easier (even more RAD).  Since .net is so very different from 
> Access, much of what I do simply doesn't even make sense in .net.  For

> example, I have a function in my framework that keeps a record 
> selector combo synced to the form
> (bound) and the form synced to the combo.  It turns out that in .net 
> if you set the form (or a data grid) and a combo to the same dataset, 
> selecting a record in the combo will just cause the two things to stay

> in sync (be on the same record).  AFAICT, that is because the combo 
> actually sets a "current record" property in the dataset object.
>
> Another example, in my framework I want to prevent the user from 
> moving into a subform if the main form goes to the new record.  .Net 
> doesn't even HAVE subforms.
>
> Things like that.
>
> I am in the process of rewriting something that would "make sense" to 
> port - my Sysvars.  Assuming that I leave my error handlers in place, 
> that port is really fairly straightforward.  However I don't really 
> have much hope of "just porting" my framework.  In the end though, 
> there is enough work to be done making .net as "database friendly" as 
> Access that I am sure I will have plenty of similar projects.
>
> John W. Colby
> www.colbyconsulting.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Marcus, 
> Scott (GEAE, Contractor)
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 12:03 PM
> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
> Subject: RE: [AccessD]OT: C# was no-ip.com
>
>
> John,
>
> You must have read the same article as me (actually editors comments).

> I'm leaning VB.Net first and then adding C# to my skills. Seems silly 
> to me that C# pulls in more money. Like you, that is why I'm going to 
> learn it also. Have you seen any silly job postings like "C# developer

> with 5 years experience..."?
>
> Have you found that your Access framework already has equivalents in 
> .Net framework?
>
> I'm not far enough into .Net to have an opinion yet. I can say that if

> it is similar to how Java works, I won't like it. I hear that C# is 
> very close to Java.
>
> What I've learned in VB.Net so far seems pretty straight forward.
>
> My only doubts about .Net is that I'm not seeing very many job 
> postings for .Net developers (but allot more than Access development).
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jcolby at colbyconsulting.com [mailto:jcolby at colbyconsulting.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 11:47 AM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: RE: [AccessD]OT: C# was no-ip.com
>
>
> Scott,
>
> Not yet, though I think I will end up there.  I'm thinking that 
> learning VB.Net and more importantly the .net framework FIRST will be 
> most useful to me.  The framework is massive and being comfortable 
> with that is a requirement regardless of the language you then use for

> your programming.
>
> Once that is done I will probably move to C# for the simple reason 
> that the polls indicate C# programmers get better money.  I did a 
> controller project down in Mexico in a custom 'C' language so it isn't

> totally foreign.
>
> Again though, the whole point of the .Net concept is that the 
> framework really provides about 90% of the functionality and it is 
> used EXACTLY the same regardless of the language you use.  The 
> language itself is really a thin veneer over the top of the framework.

> Even things like variables are framework objects so that any .net 
> language can literally pass their variables back and forth without the

> silly problems like you see with VB and C not treating strings the 
> same way.
>
> John W. Colby
> www.colbyconsulting.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com 
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com 
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com 
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com 
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com 
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com 
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
> IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ ********************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may 
> contain information protected by law from disclosure. If you have 
> received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately 
> and delete this email from your system. No warranty is given that this

> email or files, if attached to this email, are free from computer 
> viruses or other defects. They are provided on the basis the user 
> assumes all responsibility for loss, damage or consequence resulting 
> directly or indirectly from their use, whether caused by the 
> negligence of the sender or not. 
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com 
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
> IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ ********************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may 
> contain information protected by law from disclosure. If you have 
> received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately 
> and delete this email from your system. No warranty is given that this

> email or files, if attached to this email, are free from computer 
> viruses or other defects. They are provided on the basis the user 
> assumes all responsibility for loss, damage or consequence resulting 
> directly or indirectly from their use, whether caused by the 
> negligence of the sender or not. 
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com 
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com 
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com 
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com


_______________________________________________
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
_______________________________________________
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com


More information about the AccessD mailing list