.NET Size of frame work? Im feeling worried!!

utopiomania · Post by **utopiomania** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:30 pm

Polo wrote:

Why do everyone wants to use bloated things ?

We don't. But the meaning of bloated keeps changing all the time, so you should keep up.

My latest digital camera has a 1 Gb memory card, and outputs 3.5 Mb pics, which would be
useless a few years ago due to it's requierements, but not today.

As I hinted on, you'll probably end up with the framework installed anyaways, so who cares.

Post by **Polo** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:36 pm

Framework installed maybe, but I will never use it in my apps.
I really enjoy the apps where the loading is done without waiting, which react fast, that way, you're really productive.
.NET unfortunately is the opposite of what I enjoy, you can't deny that

My latest digital camera has a 1 Gb memory card, and outputs 3.5 Mb pics, which would be
useless a few years ago due to it's requierements, but not today.

But then, we're talking about size for quality.
.NET is size for quality ? I'm laughing

Edwin Knoppert · Post by **Edwin Knoppert** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:36 pm

Not fast meaning, not slow but normal
If the app shows itself slow, i assume it was poorly written or loading a .NET is to slow.
And sure, it might require a fast PC, but i prefer a better environment over speed since PC-speed is increased yearly.

Going from win31 to win95 had the same trouble.
I'm no longer willing to concern myself with slow PC's.
And i mean for the gui part, i find calculations always should appear fast.

Trond · Post by **Trond** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:46 pm

Edwin Knoppert wrote:If the app shows itself slow, i assume it was poorly written or loading a .NET is to slow.

Loading a .NET is too slow and there is nothing to do about but not use .NET.

utopiomania · Post by **utopiomania** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:55 pm

Trond wrote:

Loading a .NET is too slow and there is nothing to do about but not use .NET.

People cannot not use the .NET. And it won't be too slow on the cheap PC's people carry out from a supermarket to
theire cars trunk two months's from now.

Besides, Bill Gates seems to have a pretty good grip on in what direction things are moving, so take a bow and give up,
will you

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:03 pm

utopiomania wrote:Bill Gates seems to have a pretty good grip on in what direction things are moving

Backwards?
The only people who has grip on things are companies like Valve, who wrote the most amazing game engine ever done. It was FAST! on slow pc's, and incredibly beautifull on them too. But it managed to be very very beautifull on high-end machines too.

In the direction they are moving: slower, slower and slower. For what need? The only need is now someone can go write apps who normally require a little background information easly. But is that good? No.

fweil · Post by **fweil** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:12 pm

Except that it's no more BillGates, but M.. CEO Balmer!

Nik · Post by **Nik** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:16 pm

Bill Gates still is the Chief Program Manager that means he is the Boss of all thnings concerning Development he also owns mor than 50% of Microsoft so Balmmer is his Boss but he is able to fire him out whenever he likes.
He just likes to be Developer and like to care less about the Management.
bye

blueznl · Post by **blueznl** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:16 pm

it's all irrelevant, everyone is going to vista next, or m$ is going to include .net as an essential update for all windows (xp) users

so either way, we WILL have .net on our machines, and there's no way around it, so in a way it's fine if applications are based on .net, as people will have that framework, if not now certainly in two years

but then again, i am seriously considering leaving m$ for what it is, and only run winxp on my machine for games, whilst totally converting to linux for everything else

not that it's *better* :-/

but at least it's *cheaper*

Post by **Polo** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:17 pm

fweil wrote:Except that it's no more BillGates, but M.. CEO Balmer!

And who's this one ?
Anyway it's really amazing some persons like this stuff

ricardo · Post by **ricardo** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:50 pm

Without considering web development, just talking about desktop apps... which is the advantage (or some of them) about .NET?

Trond · Post by **Trond** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:22 pm

ricardo wrote:Without considering web development, just talking about desktop apps... which is the advantage (or some of them) about .NET?

.NET net applications are very fast to write.

Shannara · Post by **Shannara** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:27 pm

Exactly. It is a great prototype framework (but thats all) for desktop apps. The cons? instantly decompilable. There are obstructors (sp?) but they are inheritantly useless, they are slow, they have a huge runtime library, let's see .. what else ...

dmoc · Post by **dmoc** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:17 pm

I choose Ruby over .net, but that's just me being contrary :P

Brice Manuel · Post by **Brice Manuel** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:47 pm

which is the advantage (or some of them) about .NET?

Unnecessary bloat, unsecure code, slower code.

What is amazing is watching the programming communities and seeing how many script kiddies are turning out thirdparty IDEs using .NET Its hilarious, 23MB runtimes for a dang text editor, ROFLMAO. This is a preview of the utter nonsense we will have to deal with over the coming years and the sheep mentality of inexperienced users who readily accept whatever they are told because they are so gullible.