Whidbey slips – so what?

Good comment by Scott Hanselman on why Whidbey & Yukon RTM slipping to 2005 is not the end of the world ...

I like the quote: "Good, Fast, Cheap. You may choose two."

Comments (15)

  1. - says:

    I believe fast in that quote refers to performance, not time to market.

  2. Frans Bouma says:

    "So what?"

    Please, explain to me why it is not important to have updates to .NET and VS.NET for over a year to come? Why it is not important to have a completely unusable ASP.NET editor in VS.NET 2003.

    You DO understand that MS releases updates to .NET and VS.NET by updating the tools with a new version I hope? You are also aware of the fact that f.e. the ASP.NET editor crap is officially recognized as not being fixable in VS.NET so a new VS.NET version is required?

    "So what?" is pretty lame in this context if you ask me. And every time I read someone saying that it doesn’t matter, I get the feeling that person isn’t doing real life development every day.

    As for .NET 2.0: I’m waiting for IXmlSerializable to be implementable. I’m waiting for generics so I can shrink the big framework I wrote in the past year to a smaller framework with more flexibility. And a lot of more stuff.

    For people who drag some sqlconnection on a form and babble a bit about how great it is to create some useless 2-tier application with some drag-n-drop, it doesn’t matter if they have to wait 6 more months. For people who have to do real development, .NET 2.0 is a great thing to have and often it would be a real timesaver if it would be here already.

    Don’t forget, we’re stuck with VS.NET and .NET 1.1 and all of its bugs for over a year to come. You don’t have to care. For people who do .NET development 6 days a week, it IS important.

  3. FrankPr says:


    Yes, I understand that VS.NET 2003 is not perfect, and that there are people out there (incl. you) waiting eagerly for the next version. (Obvoiusly you are not among the people who complain about MS’s product cycles being too fast 🙂 OTOH, we want to ship quality, not as fast as possible (this time ;-). As for "completely unusable", I’ve heard otherwise from most customers, so this is your very personal (and pointed) opinion. Most of the developers out there haven’t even started migrating to .NET. (And it’s not because of inferior quality of the current version.)

    We’ll have "community drops" and betas pretty soon, so you can start playing with this seriously. And, btw., no tool ever is perfect, so I’m sure it won’t take too long after Whidbey RTM that some folks complain that only the next version ("Orcas") will do what they need…

    "So what" means we don’t do miracles, so use what’s there, and take v.current to the limits (and beyond)…


  4. I agree with Frans – I wouldn’t mind waiting for Whidbey if they released a service pack to fix some of the asp.net editing issues with VS 2003! You can work around them, its just extremely annoying.. 🙁

  5. Jason Bentley says:

    No, you are wrong about the quote. The original quote, I believe, is: "I can do it fast, I can do it cheap, I can do it well. Choose two." It refers to an old Hollywood maxim directors used to make movies. They wanted good movies made quickly and cheaply. Hey, who doesn’t? Bouma, I don’t intend to start a flaming idiot’s guide to trolling here, but….. I know that the IDE isn’t perfect, but you are blowing it way out of proportion, aren’t you? I mean, I use it day in and day out at home and work and nearly everytime in-between and I don’t experience THAT many problems. And, I don’t see any problems that I simply cannot bear to live with until Whidbey. If it is something you cannot bear until Whidbey, notepad is an excellent alternative. I have never witnessed a bug in notepad.

  6. Mising the point. The only "feature" some of us are looking for is correctness of generated code. Is that really trivial, unimportant, or something most customers don’t care about? I think I’ll drop over the day I can write a simple page usign ASP.NET and have it validate. Those of you who think this is some trivial nice to have feature clearly do not work in the e-commerce field. And notepad is not going to fix the problem. The second you type <asp:Textbox id="TryViewSource" runat="server"></asp:TextBox> into it, you’ve just introduced crappy 3.02 style HTML into the browser.

  7. FrankPr says:

    So the real issue most of those who complain have seems to be not Whidbey slipping, but "will there be a fix for the ASP.NET editor bug(s) very soon?" – right?

    I can’t answer that (nobody can, currently), but I think Frans Bouma has a blog entry on that in his blog (http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma/archive/2003/05/15/7051.aspx) which explains some of the difficulties in fixing this. Beyond that, you should ask your local developer support (http://support.microsoft.com/) if they know s.th., or urge them to handle this problem with high priority. We listen to you…

  8. Jeff says:

    I’ve been told by MS people flat out the editor will not be fixed before Whidbey. Period. So there you have it.

    Frans… actually, even the drag-and-drop crowd can greatly benefit from Whidbey with all of that declarative programming stuff in the next release. Anything that makes the platform more accessible is good for all of us, especially if it’s a jumping off point for them to get into more advanced stuff. The .NET community needs more qualified people, and the way I see it, the more people who get involved the more experienced people we’ll eventually have.

  9. Cadmium says:

    Frans is right, the asp.net is virtually useless. It usually costs me more time and effort than it saves, and if you work in a real production environment it can really mangle your html. That’s not good when you have designers that spend days writing and formatting web pages. Working around the designer can take up time that having a visual IDE is supposed to save. And even though I know to avoid the designer mode, keeping junior developers who don’t have any html skills from using it is a pain. Even if they avoid it, we have to remember to set option to not open the document in design mode (which, despite being broken, is enabled by default, go figure).

    I think it’s pretty much a lie that it can’t be fixed. I’m reasonably sure that whidby started out as a fork of vs2003’s code, and if it’s fixed there, those fixes can certainly be rolled back into vs2003 via service pack, even if it means upgrading a few other components that they didn’t initially intend.

    So no, Frans isn’t blowing it out of proportion, it should have been fixed months ago. And since Microsoft has said it won’t be fixed, then get a tool in my hands that isn’t broken. Hell, I’ll even pay for it.

  10. Cadmium says:

    That first line should read "asp.net designer". Monday mornings 🙂

  11. ed says:

    > I like the quote: "Good, Fast, Cheap. You may choose two."

    so is it going to be good and cheap then? How cheap?

  12. FrankPr says:


    First of all, you should not call s.o. a liar if you know next to nothing about his/her real motivation. Or can you point to an authorized quote from s.o. from the product team saying that they could fix the designer issue, but won’t? Do you really think MS is deliberately selling you inferior software for … what reason, actually? (Oh, I can hear the Black Helicopters … 😉

    Secondly, the Whidbey designer does not have to inherit the VS 2003 code – they could build this on s.th. else (Web Matrix? who knows? just speculating …)

    Third, there is no official statement saying that this won’t be fixed. (Please prove me wrong if you have a KB article or s.th. stating otherwise.) So there’s a small possibility for a pre-Whidbey service pack. Even if the probability seems low.

    And finally, let me repeat that sweeping statements like "the ASP.NET designer is virtually useless" do not reflect the true state of the issue, since thousands of developers out there create projects very successfully using this "piece of broken software". You might be frustrated, but not everybody shares this feeling.

    May the source be with you.


  13. You have been Taken Out! Thanks for the post.

  14. Chad Thiele says:

    I feel like a broken record.

    Why is it I am waiting for a new version of VS to fix a bug? Why is this bugfix a ‘feature’ of the new VS? That’s not the worst of it, that bug was in VS.NET 2002! Why wasn’t it identified and fixed for VS.NET 2003? I can live with the web controls outputting old html for another year. That designer bug is very annoying, and does make it "virtually useless". Why can I say that? Because you have to avoid it, which makes it a part of the IDE that is not used. You cannot convince me that there are thousands of developers who are conscious to the fact that the designer mangles their html, and still choose to use it.

  15. FrankPr says:

    Has any of those who complain ever reported the designer issue as a bug to PSS? Got a service request (SR) number? I would like to have a look at our internal case database and track this. Thanks.

Skip to main content