Thanks for the reply Tony, I can't speak for anyone but Rocket, but we definitely don't feel threatened and encourage everyone to write great applications and share the story, regardless of what technology you use to connect U2 to your front-end.
Did I mention share the story? :) Cheers, Dan -----Original Message----- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:52 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] [UV] UniObjects.Net vs Thrid-party Products > 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 code. 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.) T Tony Gravagno Nebula Research and Development TG@ remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com Nebula R&D sells mv.NET worldwide and provides related development services http://Nebula-RnD.com/blog http://Twitter.com/TonyGravagno _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
