.NET Size of frame work? Im feeling worried!!
-
the.weavster
- Addict
- Posts: 1576
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 6:53 pm
- Location: England
I've done a couple of vb.net projects and there is no question that the IDE is very helpful in developing applications quickly.
From my understanding of it, the framework is the windows API (which if you think about it IS Windows itself) in object form.
This allows you to program in OOP in the IDE purely with objects. With intellisense it makes developing quite fast.
The problem came when the .Net development tools became available (vb.net, c# etc.), most windows installations still had the standard API, so in order to run a .net application those windows installations had to be upgraded to the framework in order for them to run.
So the long-term solution seems to be that the new windows desktops will already have the framework installed.
My problem with that is: What happens when Framework 3.0, 4.0 etc come out? Those systems will again need a giant framework install to support new versions of vb.net, c# etc.
There is also, at least in the US, no question that working for a large company often requires .Net knowledge as many of the jobs available require it.
Too often the decision as to which development tool should be used is done by people who are not actually those developing. It used to be said many years ago that "no one gets fired for choosing IBM".
I guess now those same people making those decisions think "no will second-guess me or fire me for choosing Microsoft".
I develop in VB 6 and .Net to pay the bills, but when I develop an application that I find a challenge or for the pure love of programming I now first try it with PB.
I can't wait and sincerely hope that soon I will be able to convince those people who pay me to write software to allow me to use PB.
It's hard to convince them when they haven't heard of PB. But I'm trying to change that!
From my understanding of it, the framework is the windows API (which if you think about it IS Windows itself) in object form.
This allows you to program in OOP in the IDE purely with objects. With intellisense it makes developing quite fast.
The problem came when the .Net development tools became available (vb.net, c# etc.), most windows installations still had the standard API, so in order to run a .net application those windows installations had to be upgraded to the framework in order for them to run.
So the long-term solution seems to be that the new windows desktops will already have the framework installed.
My problem with that is: What happens when Framework 3.0, 4.0 etc come out? Those systems will again need a giant framework install to support new versions of vb.net, c# etc.
There is also, at least in the US, no question that working for a large company often requires .Net knowledge as many of the jobs available require it.
Too often the decision as to which development tool should be used is done by people who are not actually those developing. It used to be said many years ago that "no one gets fired for choosing IBM".
I guess now those same people making those decisions think "no will second-guess me or fire me for choosing Microsoft".
I develop in VB 6 and .Net to pay the bills, but when I develop an application that I find a challenge or for the pure love of programming I now first try it with PB.
I can't wait and sincerely hope that soon I will be able to convince those people who pay me to write software to allow me to use PB.
It's hard to convince them when they haven't heard of PB. But I'm trying to change that!
When all is said and done, more is said than done.
Uhhhh this thread is way too long, but reading the first and second pages...
.NET is useless. It's big, bloated... I remember when a friend showed me an app he made in .NET... simple thing that could be made with PB in less than 300Kb. I did not know I had to install the .NET FW, and thus, running the app I was told I needed to install it. K, I go to M$'s site, to find the lovely FW thing is a damn 20Mb file. NO WAY I was gonna install that.... 'course I did, making my friend wait 45 minutes while I downloaded, 10 minutes while it installed and 5 while machine restarted... total? a whole hour, which, in PB, could've been a matter of seconds.
It could be good for web apps, but only that. I think they should THINK about the users without great computers and slow connections and make two separate versions... one for updating the web stuff... and other for the GUI stuff... would make life easier for both.
PB all the way!
.NET is useless. It's big, bloated... I remember when a friend showed me an app he made in .NET... simple thing that could be made with PB in less than 300Kb. I did not know I had to install the .NET FW, and thus, running the app I was told I needed to install it. K, I go to M$'s site, to find the lovely FW thing is a damn 20Mb file. NO WAY I was gonna install that.... 'course I did, making my friend wait 45 minutes while I downloaded, 10 minutes while it installed and 5 while machine restarted... total? a whole hour, which, in PB, could've been a matter of seconds.
It could be good for web apps, but only that. I think they should THINK about the users without great computers and slow connections and make two separate versions... one for updating the web stuff... and other for the GUI stuff... would make life easier for both.
PB all the way!
I'm laughing.... All the way to the bank 
You can't look at PB and .NET together - that is like comparing apples and Porches. It just isn't the same thing...
You can't look at PB and .NET together - that is like comparing apples and Porches. It just isn't the same thing...
-Mitchell
Check out kBilling for all your billing software needs!
http://www.k-billing.com
Code Signing / Authenticode Certificates (Get rid of those Unknown Publisher warnings!)
http://codesigning.ksoftware.net
Check out kBilling for all your billing software needs!
http://www.k-billing.com
Code Signing / Authenticode Certificates (Get rid of those Unknown Publisher warnings!)
http://codesigning.ksoftware.net
Not at all true. Go read this entire thread - I explain when and where .NET has it's benefits. Most current PB users won't see them but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
As far as Paint.NET goes - I have no idea what that is. If it is a crap application then I'm sure you aren't implying that .NET is the only thing you can write crap applications in!
As far as Paint.NET goes - I have no idea what that is. If it is a crap application then I'm sure you aren't implying that .NET is the only thing you can write crap applications in!
-Mitchell
Check out kBilling for all your billing software needs!
http://www.k-billing.com
Code Signing / Authenticode Certificates (Get rid of those Unknown Publisher warnings!)
http://codesigning.ksoftware.net
Check out kBilling for all your billing software needs!
http://www.k-billing.com
Code Signing / Authenticode Certificates (Get rid of those Unknown Publisher warnings!)
http://codesigning.ksoftware.net
I agree, .NET has its benefits, but it's way TOO big for such ones. I'm talking about download size, time, installation time AND a reboot required after that: Tedious and annoying, overall if it happens to you the same thing that happened to meNot at all true. Go read this entire thread - I explain when and where .NET has it's benefits. Most current PB users won't see them but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
. Not to mention some kind of slow-ness in the GUI system (due to the new WinAPI)... guess M$ developers are only thinking in app power rather than accessibility...Of course not, but the .NET name adds it some kind of representation of the programming language. It's like saying, TetrisPB, get the idea? I'm not saying .NET is crap... it has its good things, but it's way too big for them. (Paint.NET ran WAY slower than GIMP... and we know GIMP is kinda slow 'cause it uses its own GTK engine and stuff... well you can imagine)As far as Paint.NET goes - I have no idea what that is. If it is a crap application then I'm sure you aren't implying that .NET is the only thing you can write crap applications in!
y'all just silly.
-Mitchell
Check out kBilling for all your billing software needs!
http://www.k-billing.com
Code Signing / Authenticode Certificates (Get rid of those Unknown Publisher warnings!)
http://codesigning.ksoftware.net
Check out kBilling for all your billing software needs!
http://www.k-billing.com
Code Signing / Authenticode Certificates (Get rid of those Unknown Publisher warnings!)
http://codesigning.ksoftware.net
Sorry to say this (im HAPPY to say this i mean), Infobytes, thats another great thing of .net. It's not only for the windows platform
Developers already got ready long time ago with projects like MONO. Actually i think there is a MONO for MAC already.
So switching to linux doesnt avoid .net.
Wich is great!
Also the fact that ATI supplies .net with their CATALYST drivers (only for control panel though) is a great thing..
well. see .net as the better win32api. The windows api is badly built up, .net is a major step forward in building a better API. And it IS better.
Who says major company app's has to be very very fast? Speed isnt really a big issue. They want their things faster, that is an issue.
do notice that all .net languages, if they follow the standard rules, can use normal dll's and COM too. So if you need some heavy math, you can always do them in purebasic
What i like about purebasic is the level longer down. I mean you can have an amazing control with it. A control that is either extremely hard to do or not possible in other languages. Purebasic is just right away with inline assembly, easy memory manipulation etc..
Developers already got ready long time ago with projects like MONO. Actually i think there is a MONO for MAC already.
So switching to linux doesnt avoid .net.
Wich is great!
Also the fact that ATI supplies .net with their CATALYST drivers (only for control panel though) is a great thing..
well. see .net as the better win32api. The windows api is badly built up, .net is a major step forward in building a better API. And it IS better.
Who says major company app's has to be very very fast? Speed isnt really a big issue. They want their things faster, that is an issue.
do notice that all .net languages, if they follow the standard rules, can use normal dll's and COM too. So if you need some heavy math, you can always do them in purebasic
What i like about purebasic is the level longer down. I mean you can have an amazing control with it. A control that is either extremely hard to do or not possible in other languages. Purebasic is just right away with inline assembly, easy memory manipulation etc..
More info:
Microsoft has chosed to submit the formal documents that describes syntax and semantics of C#, the CIL, the .net assembly format, core .net namespaces and mecanics of the .net runtime engine tp the Ecma International, as an official standard.
This means, to the surprise of many developers according to my book, that .net assemblies (libs, executables etc) can be developed and executed under NON microsoft os'es such as Mac OS X, MANY linux dists, BeOS, FreeBSD and MORE!
2 opensource .net distributions:
Mono, mono-project.com
various linux dists, windows, macosx.
Portable.net , dotgnu.org
win32, aix, BeOS, mac os x, solaris, all major linux distributions and more.
both of these 2 opensource distributions provides an ECMA complicant C# compiler, .net runtime engine, code samples, documentation and many tools functionally comparable to the ones shipping with ms .net framework SDK.
Portable.net also ships with a VB.net, java and C compiler.
what does this mean? when the time comes. Wich it probably will, and purebasic needs to be able to use .net etc, all the info the pb team will need will be official documents.
Microsoft has chosed to submit the formal documents that describes syntax and semantics of C#, the CIL, the .net assembly format, core .net namespaces and mecanics of the .net runtime engine tp the Ecma International, as an official standard.
This means, to the surprise of many developers according to my book, that .net assemblies (libs, executables etc) can be developed and executed under NON microsoft os'es such as Mac OS X, MANY linux dists, BeOS, FreeBSD and MORE!
2 opensource .net distributions:
Mono, mono-project.com
various linux dists, windows, macosx.
Portable.net , dotgnu.org
win32, aix, BeOS, mac os x, solaris, all major linux distributions and more.
both of these 2 opensource distributions provides an ECMA complicant C# compiler, .net runtime engine, code samples, documentation and many tools functionally comparable to the ones shipping with ms .net framework SDK.
Portable.net also ships with a VB.net, java and C compiler.
what does this mean? when the time comes. Wich it probably will, and purebasic needs to be able to use .net etc, all the info the pb team will need will be official documents.
I think .Net is a very cool concept. Just imagine most .Net apps can be ported to Linux easily with Mono! Plus .Net apps are not significant slower than WinAPI programms. And all the people that are crying about the size of the .Net framework: you've to download DivX for most vids out in the net, you need JRE for Java applications (which is more than just a few MB, too!). You need drivers for your graphic cards, you need DirectX for Windows games (or Cedega if you're using Linux). Crying about 20 megs of .Net framwork is just riddiculous these days :roll: