> From: Daniel McGrath 
> Tony, out of curiosity, have you looked at UO.NET's replacement: U2
> Toolkit for .NET?

Not recently bud. Once I settle on a toolkit that works well, my
research in that specific area slows down. How much research do we
continue to do on cars after we've made a purchase? Do we keep house
hunting after we move into a new home? It's appropriate to be informed
about what's happening in our industry, but I have dozens of
platforms, frameworks, toolkits, and related versions that I need to
keep up with - that still means time needs to be allocated for
hundreds of permutations of all of these blasted software packages
that are all supposed to "save us time". Like everyone else here, I
need to use whatever "free time" I have to hone my skills with the
latest versions of the tools I already use, rather than continue to
look into replacements. Despite professional curiosity, at some point
we need to stop playing with tools and just hunker down to write real

I'd like to say that at some point I'll cycle back around for another
look at the U2 toolkit, but remember that for my purposes of writing
applications that are the same across all MV platforms,  a
platform-specific tool is generally off of my radar. Sure, it would be
nice to save my clients money using free tools, but I have U2 clients
that have been running a single license of mv.NET for years. The tiny
cost of the tool is trivial in the big picture. People need to think
hard about exactly how much "free" costs them, or how adverse they are
to buying a low-cost license for something that will last years.

And that's just the cost of the tool. When a U2 site posts a job ad
for someone to do UI work or web services, they might say "must know
U2 Toolkit for .NET". If they have a tool that anyone in the MV
industry can use, the scope of candidates broadens to include U2
developers And everyone else. .NET developers have already broadened
their scope to the outside world. Once they/we have made that jump,
there's no reason anymore to limit one's self to a single MV platform
and related tools. A company that is going in this direction should
think hard about branching out and then snapping right back again to
platform-specific tools. Sure, you're going to find someone who does
U2-only work with .NET, but why limit your scope to U2-only people?
The non-end-user developers that I know who use mv.NET aren't
interested in limiting themselves to one platform anymore.  It doesn't
make sense to not have access to that pool of talent just because you
want to use a "free" tool.

And no, the DBMS vendors shouldn't feel threatened by this - we're
enhancing applications for everyone, not "the competition". It's the
end-users that win here as well as their up-line channel. So Rocket
Software and Tiger Logic and Ladybridge and everyone else should be
encouraging their developer channel to use mv.NET rather than somehow
feeling threatened by it.

(More than I expected to write on that one, sorry.)

Tony Gravagno   
Nebula Research and Development         
TG@ remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com         
Nebula R&D sells mv.NET worldwide       
and provides related development services       

U2-Users mailing list

Reply via email to