Framework Issues
DDJ: So any Framework issues that you have seen fall into the category of things that are repeatable, not intermittent?
Bill V.: The thing I've seen have all been, "Okay, the Framework does it this way, so I'll have to code it like this."
Kathleen: I feel the framework does hit the mark for stability.
DDJ: I've focused on stability, but looking at the product as a whole, and you've alluded to the fact that there's so much new functionality in here. What do you recommend to people? Do you recommend that they wait for the first service pack? Do you recommend that they wait for the next release? Or, do you recommend that they move forward to 2005, as-is?
Kathleen: Move forward.
Bill V.: Move forward.
Rocky: Move forward.
Billy H.:Move forward.
DDJ: Wow. The responses came pretty quick, and were unanimous that people move forward. So even though we've spent a lot of time taking about stability issues, when taken as a whole, you feel the product is a big improvement? You feel the productivity enhancements and the new Framework are that compelling? And is that across the board? Do you make that recommendation for Web and Windows, for C# and Visual Basic?
Kathleen: I can't speak for Web, but for Windows Forms in C# or Visual Basic, I recommend moving forward to 2005.
Rocky: In my mind, it includes all of them. Magenic has been doing Web, Windows, Visual Basic, and C#, and no one is willing to go back to 2003.
Kathleen: I won't take a job that makes me go back. I will turn down work before I will develop using Visual Studio 2003.
What I think Microsoft should do for their long term plan is have a point release planned for one year after a major release like 2005. For clients that I'm working with, it would be really nice if I could say, "Look, lets just wait three months. A year after release, you're going to see an update. I understand that you don't want to feel like you're working with a Beta product." If we knew that was coming, and that was the focus of the next release, then those people who need that comfort level could wait. And then another year, or year and a half after that, we could see spectacular new features, because like you said, we do think everyone should move forward.
Rocky: This might be a bit of a tangent, but I think that historically with .NET, Microsoft has tried to synchronize the release of Visual Studio to a curve based on a new release of the .NET platform. That didn't use to be the case, especially in the VB world. COM and Windows didn't really change much, and we got VB 4, 5, and 6. I would like to see us return to that model. The focus has shifted so much to be on the framework that we've lost sight of what the dev tools can do for us. In some ways, that's too bad. Instead of Visual Studio leading the way, and saying, "Hey, we could solve this issue, or that issue." And then later the Framework could come along and incorporate the idea. Instead, it's the other way around, and the .NET platform always seems to be ahead of the tool.
DDJ: And that's what's driving a lot of this problem. I'm hearing people say, "Make Orcas the stability release," but we know that a lot of new technology is coming. We know that LINQ, WPF, WCF, and WWF are coming. We know what people will say if there's no designer experience for those. Do we really want Microsoft to focus on stability in Orcas, at the expense of support for these new Framework things? Do we want Microsoft to focus primarily on great tool support for these new paradigms, or is stability more important, even if the tools don't support those paradigms as fully as we might want?
Kathleen: Well, I could wait for things like LINQ.
Rocky: With Orcas, they're focusing, hopefully, on stability, and then only support for the new layers in WinFX. I think if they get in the habit of doing that, and this is probably a pipe dream, but then maybe we could see a release that's post-Orcas, that similarly says, "We're going to do a release of Visual Studio, and it can't change WinFX, it can just add new developer productivity."
Eclipse is an interesting model. It's independent of Java and any of the other technology that it targets. The upside is that they're able to do some things in the tool that Microsoft has locked themselves out of doing. But then to be fair, the down side is that Eclipse can't really integrate as deeply with a platform.
DDJ: We've all released software, and we all know that there's always a little bit of holding your breath for the first 24 hours after you've shipped. You hope that all your testing and work that you've done proves itself in the field, and the product works without a hitch. But we've all been part of things that have shipped that probably haven't worked as well initially as we would have hoped.
Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that anyone can ship a buggy release every once in a while. So now that it's out there, what do you, as a customer, want from your software vendor?
Kathleen: You mean in addition to a service pack that fixes these issues that we've discussed?
DDJ: Okay, so a service pack, is that what people are looking for at this point? Microsoft has said that they'll have a service pack in Q3 of this year. Is that good enough?
Kathleen: Other than just sticking their finger in a hole in the dike here and there, I think 9 months to a year is reasonable, and it's just what we'll have to live with. I want the service pack done right.
Billy H.:It depends on accessibility to the things that the service pack will contain. If I have to be on the phone with PSS to get a hotfix, then I want the service pack sooner.
Kathleen: I think the hotfixes are the fingers in the dike. If they need us to sign something saying that we understand that the hotfixes have risks, and they haven't been tested to the same level as a service pack, if that's what it takes to get them into our hands sooner, then I'm all for that.
Billy H.:And that takes the problem of blogs, where information spreads very quickly, and turns it around so that blogs help instead of hurt. That's where people can find out about a hotfix, and if the hotfix if easily available, and you don't have to call PSS to get it, then that's good. On the other hand, if you see in a blog that there's a hotfix, but you have to call PSS, then it just makes the whole fact that you even need this hotfix more frustrating.
