Languages/Applications/Platforms that should go away

  • Here's a starter list of languages/applications/platforms which should go away. Feel free to add to the list.

    <CENTER>Item to Discard</CENTER> <CENTER>Substitute Solution</CENTER>
    Pascal/Fortran/Cobol/Delphi/VB/VB.NET/C/C++/Java C#/.NET
    Javascript Hopefully one day there will be a replacement.
    Novell Groupwise/Lotus Notes Outlook
    Frontpage Notepad
    Windows 3.11/Windows 95/Windows 98/Windows ME Windows XP Professional

    P.S. You would be surprised how many people still use Windows 3.11 and rave about the flexibility of File Manager.

  • I'd like to know why you've chosen the single greatest virus vector on
    the planet for your preferred "collaboration" platform. You're not one
    of those nasty trojan writers, are you? Or an idiot?

  • I note that all of your alternatives are Microsoft. You're not a double agent, are you?

    IMO, notepad is in the wrong column. Every version of it has been broken in a
    different way. Fehrinstance, the XP version, while it finally has
    search&replace (an age-old problem), refuses to show a status bar when wordwrap is on,
    doesn't actually put anything in the status bar (as far as I can
    tell), and puts in extraneous newlines when copy&pasting with
    wordwrap on.

     I'd replace Notepad with Fireworks and add a "Notepad -> SciTE" row.

    Also, I don't really see why C should go away, and I've never
    understood why dotNET is such an ideal replacement. I am (naturally,
    IMO) suspicious of languages not designed by open standard. Anyway,
    medium-low level
    languages will always be necessary for writing the utility programs and
    suchlike for new platforms and architectures. At least to write the
    high-level's compiler in, anyway.

    My actual additions:

    .doc -> .rtf

    .gif -> .png

    Internet Explorer -> any other browser

  • @Stan Rogers said:

    You're not one of those nasty trojan writers, are you? Or an idiot?

    Ouch Stan. That hurt my feelings. I'm telling on you. Katja...

  • Hey, I wuz just askin'.

  • OK, I admit it. Outlook does kinda suck. The only email app I ever really fell in love with was Eudora back in my Mac days. It was such a simple, yet effective email client. Those were the days...

    Anyways, the reason I recommended Outlook as a solution is because I don't see as many Sys Admins struggling over how to make it work. And I don't see developers trying to "extend" its functionality every chance they get (unlike Groupwise/Lotus Notes).

    Email apps should do just that. Send and receive email. Why do we have to overcomplicate things and make every application the ultimate solution to every problem that ever was?

  • <FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #efefef">I've become a big fan of JavaScript as of late ... Read this intersting article from Douglas Crockford:</FONT>

    <FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #efefef">JScript.NET looks promising ... </FONT>

  • You still don't get it -- email IS the extension in Notes. When an
    organisation is using Notes well, there is very little email at all.
    There is little need for it. Except when communicating with outsiders
    who live in their email clients, that is.

    As far as struggling, well, there's not a whole lot to making the Notes
    infrastructure work. You install it as a service, create users and
    watch it go. Coming to Notes/Domino from another platform, admins often
    go crazy looking for all of the work they used to do because they
    refuse to believe that that's really all there is to it. (Okay, since
    the terminology is different, they have trouble using Administrator
    Help as well.) Yes, you can tweak things, but you don't usually have
    to. It's not that admins have nothing to do, ever -- but one admin per
    thousand users is more than you really need when you're not busy
    migrating things.

    I can't speak to Groupwise -- I've never been exposed to it.

  • Ok, let's say that Lotus Notes is this wonderful application come to solve all the world's problems. It might be the greatest thing since Javascript, but ask yourself this...who's actually using it?

    Rewind back to the era of 1996-1998. Lotus Notes developers are being hired left and right for ridiculous amounts of money. Lotus Notes is where it's at. You aren't somebody unless you've worked with Lotus Notes. I remember this era well. It sucked because I had no Lotus Notes experience. I was ostracized from the community. That was back in 1996-1998.

    Fast forward to 2005. Who uses Lotus Notes now? Seriously. Outlook is so prevalent in the market, it just dominates. There's really no reason for a company to add an oddball "collaborative" software tool to their existing environment. It just doesn't make good business sense. Maybe it made sense back in 1996-1998 (pre-Y2K) but now? Does it make sense now?

  • LOTS of people/orgs are using it. (As I stated elsewhere 1468 of the
    2000 biggest corporations use it.) There are not as many dev jobs as
    there were during the run-up to Y2K, but you can say that about a lot
    of platforms. You need fewer devs and admins on the platform than on
    just about any other to do the same thing. Oh, and thanks to the
    outsourcing/offshoring trend, most of the jobs out there are as
    contractors/consultants -- and many are no longer in the US. All of my
    clients are American right now -- and that's because my price is about
    half what an American Notes developer would cost. Could it be that it's
    been priced out of the American market? I can't say for sure, but there
    is a whacking big difference between $60K Canadian and $90K US (which
    is/was a reasonable-to-low expectation for someone with my experience
    in the American market).

    Which brings us to the one real bugaboo in the whole picture: IBM/Lotus
    doesn't make enough noise about what they're doing. For one thing,
    they've decided not to address individual products in their marketing
    and reporting -- everything is by division. I'd like to see the kind of
    chatter that Microsoft creates. I mean, we had the .NET Show on
    broadcast television, for Pete's sake. IBM hasn't shown a willingness
    to generate that level of excitement with any of their products, and
    dammit, they should. Mindshare counts for a lot in this world. I'm sure
    that if you were more aware of what Notes is/does you would have a
    different opinion. Not that you'd love it to death, necessarily, but
    you might see it as a target for your favorite platform to approach.

  • Stan, I have to admit you make some very convincing arguments.

    I think my pain comes from being denied so many positions during the 1996-1998 era simply because I didn't have any Lotus Notes experience.

    So now I'm venting in this forum.

  • Someone here deserves to be pounded on the nose for claiming Delphi should be discarded... [:@]

    Every language serves it's purpose, if you like it or not. And guess what? You might like .NET but it does require lots of companies to upgrade their hardware to support it. And if they already have a working system then they're not going to replace it before it's broken.

    Besides, .NET still doesn't make up for what it promised. It's supposed to be a platform-independant system but the only full support for .NET is still on Windows only. Sure, there's Mono and some other implementation but I wonder if they will ever become popular.

    And Windows XP could go too for all I care for. You could use Windows 2003 instead, which is newer. Or wait for the next Windows version, for which you need a more powerful system than you have now.

    But just think about why the average person will be using a computer... At home, mostly for games so buy an X-Box or playstation instead. Maybe some webbrowsing, for which you can easily use an old computer. And companies in general will use it for simple administrative systems or for writing standardized letters. But these tasks too don't require that much functionality either. Do you really need to Pentium XIX with Windows 2010 and 50 TB of RAM and 100 gazillion megabytes of diskspace in the future if all you want to do is send a simple newsletter to your customers?

    You can compare computers with cars. You can buy the fastest one available, or the one with the most room, but in general you just want a car that you can easily use for your daily travel. Sure, it would be nice to have the latest red Ferrari but you can almost never enjoy the real features it offers. (Here in the Netherlands, when you speed twice the maximum speed limit, you not only lose your driver's licence but you'll also lose your car!) So you have a fast car, but going at it's maximum speed is barely possible...

    The same with computers. You can have the most powerful one available but it just means you won't use most of the things it offers if you use it for regular tasks...

  • That was a mistype. Delphi should never have been included in that list.

    I don't know how that happened... [;)]

  • @CPound said:

    That was a mistype. Delphi should never have been included in that list.

    I don't know how that happened... Wink

  • @CPound said:

    That was a mistype. Delphi should never have been included in that list.

    I don't know how that happened... Wink

    You're just saying what she wants to hear [*-)]

  • @aapopfriets said:

    You're just saying what she wants to hear [*-)]


  • Pascal/Fortran/Cobol/Delphi/VB/VB.NET/C/C++/Java

    A language snob? Come on, there are reasons for every language, there's room for them all. (As an aside all of those on your list, aside from Java are available in a CLR version - so mix and match and stop with the language penis waving)

  • What do you have against J# (the CLR version of Java)?

  • I don't have anything against J#.

    <FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #efefef">But by the same token, </FONT>I don't see it's purpose other than it being a Microsoft marketing ploy...

    I don't know of a single developer who (professionally) uses J# as a language.

  • @Stan Rogers said:

    What do you have against J# (the CLR version of Java)?

    Actually, that language can never be called Java officially, which is why MicroSoft is calling it J# instead of Java#... Sun has all the rights on the name "Java" and only Sun can decide which compilers qualify to be named true Java compilers. I think there are only two real Java compilers these days. One from Sun and one from Borland. Any other Java compiler uses the name J, J++ or some coffee-like name except Java. If they don't, they get sued by Sun. (And probably lose.)

    Another question is of course, what's the use of a Java-like language that won't compile to it's intended platform: the Java Virtual Machine? All that J# really is, is just another crappy language to lure people to the horrible .NET platform. And if you think your Java code will be 100% compatible with J# then forget it... That will not happen.


    The whole .NET think is a big soap-bubble that is about to explode. Probably when version 2.0 comes out, with all it's new compatibility issues. Like those issues between 1.0 and 1.1, which caused a lot of unexpected fun for some people...

    You start your project in a compiler for 1.0 and once it's finished, you upgrade to 1.1 and guess what? Your code might not compile because some classes have had their functionality changed and parameters have been altered... Now, 1.1 is on the market for a while now but soon 2.0 will be marketted. And you can expect that you'll have to update your code again just to get it compiled to the 2.0 platform... At least Java seems to keep existing objects unmodified forever...

Log in to reply

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.