This series exists to build support around the idea of a ubiquitous .NET client application development model. This is not intended to be a final solution, but a starting point for discussion, awareness, and a sign of demand. Show your support by voting for this idea here:
Welcome to the series: The Bridge to .NET Ubiquity. In this series, we aim to tackle what we believe to be the biggest problem and challenge facing Microsoft and its .NET developers today: the lack of a ubiquitous .NET client application development model offering.
We hope to demonstrate this problem in full by describing both its technical and business challenges, as well as its failed strategies. To start this discussion, we will first look into the requirements that entail a ubiquitous .NET client application model. From there, we will tour the different known .NET client application models available today and demonstrate how not a single one fulfill all the desired requirements for this goal. We will then explore the different “bridges” that have been formed towards ubiquity and see how they have failed or are currently failing or painfully lacking. We then end with a possible desired solution for a ubiquitous .NET client application model, and demonstrate how this can be built by Microsoft to solve the business and technical challenges it currently faces. This proposed solution is not a final vision, but is meant to provide a starting point for awareness, direction, and dialogue for this most important (and overdue) goal of establishing a ubiquitous .NET application model.
Who Are You? Who is the “We?”
But first, who is the “we” when we speak of “we?” Or more like “who are you?” This blog is (currently) written by a single individual, Michael DeMond. I go by the nickname of Mike-EEE and have been a .NET developer since 2001. There is nothing special about me, other than to say that I have chosen to spend my years coding rather than wasting it on words blogging or trying to bring attention to myself. Until now, that is. I am simply an opinionated developer who has finally felt the need to put these opinions in a more organized, central medium than random arguments and discussions by way of internet posts and forums.
When I began to write these posts, I did in fact write them from a singular first-person perspective. But, as I wrote, it didn’t feel right for some reason and I ended up switching to using plural pronouns and “we.” It felt more natural to use the plural pronoun “we,” and when I thought of this, a couple reasons came to mind. First, this blog’s roots are found in a failed (and poorly-marketed) petition from back in 2011. In much the same vein, this series (and its host blog/site) has the same goal as that petition but in a new (and hopefully better-marketed) form: to secure votes around an idea. So, I feel when I speak, I speak for the people I represent on a particular subject or vote topic. Based on some votes that I have already posted, I know that I not only speak solely for myself, so that also factors in my mindset here.
Additionally, I have also found that I lean towards using “we” as a “you and me, dear reader” throughout these posts. So, the feeling of “we” feels more natural within the context and spirit that this site and blog was created. To mitigate any sense or risk of misrepresentation, I have explained its use here and will link to this explanation accordingly when the word “we” first appears within a post.
With that out of the way, “we” get back to our series here. This series is intended to explore (and suggest) the notion of a ubiquitous .NET client application model. In our next post, we will begin our exploration by listing the desired qualities that make up such a model. Please subscribe to our RSS (or Facebook / Twitter) to get notified when this and other future posts are available. See you there!
Show Your Support
If you like the idea of a ubiquitous .NET client application development model, please take the time and let Microsoft know by voting for this idea on UserVoice: