|
|
Hello everyone,
I was wondering if you would consider installing the .NET framework if an application requires it or if on the other hand you would hesitate from using the application because of that.
Always assuming the application serves your purpose and is not a buggy piece of crap.
Cheers
personally I don't care much what people use or don't want to use, I'm using the tools that I think are best
for developers it is though... would be a pity if you developed a application which requires the .NET framework but nobody wants to install it.
.NET Framework is bliss for programmers, but a pain for the users.
Large download package, slow startup times, huge memory overhead and slow exection (in some cases) are still reality for VM-driven environments no matter what the JIT fanatics say. It might change with Windows Longhorn though, but that doesn't appear until 2006 or so...
I wonder if it's some kind of universal law: quot;The pleasure of the programmer is inversely proportional to the pleasure of the users.quot; You can use Assembler to program lightning-fast apps with small executable size and memory usage, but it's really painful beyond all comprehension.
On the other hand, ASM apps are bound to overwrite the boot sector sooner or later, and the user might not appreciate that very much
The user would also like to have the app as soon as possible, whereas the programmer would like to spend years with it to tune it into absolute perfection.
Originally posted by nikthebak
....
On the other hand, ASM apps are bound to overwrite the boot sector sooner or later, and the user might not appreciate that very much
Not at all. Especially not under Win, because low level disk operations will not execute. What you think why there is no more boot viruses?
Assembler is not so hard, but support for such programming is not good, not spread. Nobody cares about code size, about speed, about spending MB's of memory for every primitive porgramm.
I recall some testing conducted by c't that showed that no programming language had significant advantages over another.. native or non native. C(++) isn't automatically faster. Today, unless you need to program something close to your hardware where you'd have to do a lot of marshalling to use the native APIs, speed really doesn't matter.
Especially in the digital TV area we have two good examples of programs using non native languages that are almost a must have: ProjectX and CutterMaran. And if you want to use either of them, you just have to download a runtime. There are still people having programs with certain C++ or VB programs I host as well.. they also rely on runtimes (just smaller ones.. but also harder to find). I hope MS dares to include the runtime in SP2, that would certainly help boost circulation.
Dolemite (or other), why does the damn thing add a separate login to my XP machine and without asking? No wonder people are paranoid about it although I'm sure it is nothing. Still, at the least, it is very bad manners.
framework so I did. But I found some information how to automatically login into windows at startup so I don't see this login page in Windows XP anymore.
Heres how to do it:
marksxp/WindowsXP/welskip.php
Originally posted by DDogg
Dolemite (or other), why does the damn thing add a separate login to my XP machine and without asking? No wonder people are paranoid about it although I'm sure it is nothing. Still, at the least, it is very bad manners.
Look here: marksxp/WindowsXP/aspdot.php
: takes over your computer, does some unusual and unexplainable stuff to it, integrates itself with the operating system.
And does all that to support some extra framework, built on top of .net framework, and needed by IIS web server. You didn't want any of that but who cares.
I feel so safe installing Sun's java, for example...
Large download package, slow startup times, huge memory overhead and slow exection (in some cases) are still reality for VM-driven environments no matter what the JIT fanatics say. It might change with Windows Longhorn though, but that doesn't appear until 2006 or so...
large download packages is actually a pro argument because compresses IL is significantly smaller than pretty much everything else. Large memory overhead is true of course, the only thing you can do is buy ram. A normal .NET application takes probably 20 - 30 MB. Startup time could be improved with ngen.exe which does AOF (ahead of time) compilation (WinForms are compiled that way) but you will always notice a difference between highly optimized native code, especially the JIT is noticeable although it's rather fast. More important however are the programming skills, a good C# coder can write faster code than a bad C++ coder. My Firefox (C++) often starts very slow (as usual it's because hard drive access I think). The menu also could be faster, there are worlds between the highly optimized Microsoft code. Performance critical things like applications that should start really fast because they are likely to be started several times a day should rather be done with native code imho
to use an aplication is a rather large barrier for me. It would keep me from casual downloading and testing. In other words it would have to be a program I found near essential before I got it. Java OTOH I install on every new system. But that is just me.
Originally posted by ppera2
Not at all. Especially not under Win, because low level disk operations will not execute. What you think why there is no more boot viruses?
Assembler is not so hard, but support for such programming is not good, not spread. Nobody cares about code size, about speed, about spending MB's of memory for every primitive porgramm.
I fully agree. ASM coding, for win32 is not hard, no matter what people say, and you've got small memory overhead.
But it seems no one cares about that now anyway.....
About .NET, i won't install it to run another app. I'd rather get an alternative app that doesn't use that crap.
I installed it when I wanted to give Dolemite's DVX a try.
As far as I can tell it has not caused a problems at all. The only pain was the 'Log-In' window at start-up but a cure for this was soon found - as ronnylov already posted.
My earlier reservations and fears seem to be totally unfounded... I'm quite happy.Cheers
Originally posted by ppera2 Assembler is not so hard, but support for such programming is not good, not spread. Nobody cares about code size, about speed, about spending MB's of memory for every primitive porgramm.
In some respects, Assembly is very easy. It's the most straight forward. And, it's almost automatically faster, smaller, and tighter than any other programming. However, modern CPUs are not designed for hand assembly but are optimized for compilers. Likewise, the Windows environment is not assembly friendly.
When I took a C programming class, I was a bit surprised that the professor had absolutely zero concern for the speed of execution of our programs. Given the speed of modern computers and the small size of student projects, speed wasn't an issue in and of itself, but I would still expect a professor to be concerned with program preformance and efficiency because on bigger projects, speed is still an issue and probably will always be.
I wont install quot;dot netquot; because I see it as just another quot;flash in the panquot;, as a programmer I will not limit my apps to only run on quot;dot netquot;, at least at this stage, as the user base is so small. Many many of my customers still run win95 machines (I write industrial apps), so amybe if it is still around in another 10 years
it will be around in ten years, .NET is the evolution of windows programming. First there were a C style API, then came COM+ and then .NET. The WinAPI is a mix of a C style API and COM+, the older parts are C style and the newer parts COM+. The primary API of the next windows version is .NET, the only reason why there will be still Win32 is backward compatibility. Because of this all mainstream languages were .NET enabled (VB, C++ and Delphi are .NET enabled now). Once a API is introduced it cannot be removed afterwards. Only thing can happen is that a additional and better API get's introduced. Linux is pretty much the same, it's called, Corba/Bonoba/KParts and Mono or DotGNU. You can go on with your tools as long as wish of course or as your business requires it.
I installed .NET long ago and have had few problems with it since.
I can understand the annoyance of having a new user created, but it is a valid security need. Just look at a unix \etc\passwd file and be thankful you only have 1 extra user. Still, it would be nice if the extra user could be handled more gracefully and hidden from the regular users.
to use an aplication is a rather large barrier for me. It would keep me from casual downloading and testing. In other words it would have to be a program I found near essential before I got it. Java OTOH I install on every new system. But that is just me.
I hate concur here and say that Java is my first option as well.
The reason I chose .NET instead is that it can be accessed from any language so I can mix managed and unmanaged code. In other words, I don't have to worry about the overheads and all so much since I only access some of their libraries and not so much the runtime itself (garbage collection etc). Java lacks the easy linking with C/C++.
I think it is a bliss to be able to have the speed of C++ and flexibility/easiness of Object-Oriented APIs provided by .NET libs. In my example, VQ Studio would not suffer a performance decrease but I could add tens of features related to the user interface in hours instead of days as with the Win32 API. I know some people love Win32 but I'm an OO person myself.
In conclusion, I would have to say that people should be a little more open minded in a way:
- Yes managed code adds overhead but you can mix it with unmanaged code to minimise it to insignificant levels
- .NET is not so evil, it's just a number of COM interfaces wrapped in IDL. Nowadays there are competitors anyway (Mono amp; dotGNU) so that should keep MS on their toes
- It will be part of Windows anyways soon (and I do think it's included with SP2 although I am not sure)
It will be part of Windows anyways soon (and I do think it's included with SP2 although I am not sure)
Actually, I thought that .NET 1.0 was already included with XP SP1 which means most people running XP already have .NET wether they like it or not.
Also, if you are running Windows Server 2003 then you have .NET 1.1 |
|
Post at 2011-4-15 16:07
| This Author's Posts Only
