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

srod · Post by **srod** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 6:10 pm

From what I've seen, .net apps run significantly slower than win 32 ones.

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 6:24 pm

@srod: not from what i have seen.

@sebe: Yeah. its a bit childish ...

Sebe · Post by **Sebe** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:01 pm

@srod: not from what i have seen.

I didn't see any differences that would be worth mentioning (speed wise). Would be interesting to do some benchmarks between C# and PureBasic. Since C# is almost as fast as C++ this could be a real close one

srod · Post by **srod** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:24 pm

You're probably right. It's just that our school has run a colossal network based admin program for years, which used to run fine. As soon as the software was rewritten for .net, however, things simply haven't been the same. It's always crashing, takes forever to return a simple query.

Then again the entire network (server and all!) was upgraded at the same time we switched over to .net. That probably didn't help!

Sebe · Post by **Sebe** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:39 pm

As soon as the software was rewritten for .net, however, things simply haven't been the same.

Well, I would say that's rather a problem with the programer than with .Net :roll:

srod · Post by **srod** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:23 pm

Not sure about that as the original software (written by the same company) ran fine. Although, it is true to say that they shipped the .net version very fast, perhaps too fast!

josku_x · Post by **josku_x** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:39 pm

WOW, this thread is huge!

I didn't read everything, but I think I got the point.
However, I just wanted to comment, that you should use PB, it even doesn't need runtimes

.

But I think, Fred would lose about 60% users if he would make PB need a 600MB+ runtime. Most 56k users won't even bother to look if the file exist on the web.

So, just use PB, your worries will go away

.
I can tell you, I have the Visual Studio 6 (which has the smaller runtime), I hate to code with it, but I needed it because I had to use it with my earlier projects when I was a MSDNAA.. I still have the license and I use it to check out VB codes in codeproject, and try to translate them to PB hopelessly

Sebe · Post by **Sebe** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 9:06 pm

But I think, Fred would lose about 60% users if he would make PB need a 600MB+ runtime.

Well, maybe that's why the .Net runtime is not 600MB?

josku_x · Post by **josku_x** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 9:11 pm

How much then? It was maybe better if I would read the whole thread. But anyway, Fred would lose atleast 40% because of a 100MB+ runtime. And I am sure the .NET framework installer is bigger than 100mb.

srod · Post by **srod** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 9:23 pm

The .net runtime is currently 23 mb (ish!) which I still consider to be gargantuan! Of course, with the pending arrival (2020 or so!) of vista, we won't need to concern ourselves with whether the runtime is installed on the client machine or not as it will be an integral part of the op. system.

I'm not dissing .net outright, as I think it offers a hell of a lot, particularly with ASP.NET, but, for me at least, the time is not right. I will stick with win 32 a little longer as I still prefer to 'dirty my hands' so to speak.

I'll wait until .net is more established.

Sebe · Post by **Sebe** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 9:45 pm

The .net runtime is currently 23 mb (ish!) which I still consider to be gargantuan!

What about you graphic card drivers? DirectX? etc...? .Net framework is not small I admit. But I think it's far from being gargantuan

srod · Post by **srod** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:08 pm

Sebe wrote:What about you graphic card drivers? DirectX? etc...? .Net framework is not small I admit. But I think it's far from being gargantuan

Ah, but my apps don't have to check on graphics drivers before they run! Granted, I don't write heavy duty graphical apps and so any old graphics card will do! Same with DirectX in that we're dealing with a rather specialised area here. With .net, you require the entire runtime before you can even open a message box!

Still, no different to relying on the win 32 I suppose!

Edwin Knoppert · Post by **Edwin Knoppert** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:32 pm

People speak about run-time but don't seem to understand it's a collection of assemblies (dll's).
.NET is not a run-time to actually run simplistic window applications (like VB6).
The whole OLEDB (ADO.NET) and MS Sqlserver support was added as well.
The .NET framework (not run-time) is incredibly complete.
About everything you ever needed via the Windows API is now described and embedded in this FWK.

About the remark about VS, i can imagne you have troubles since it's a memory eater.
Get yourself a new PC, i use VWD on a daily bases now and it's fast enough for me during development.
And i'm the first who yells about speed!!!
(We are talking development IDE speed here)

What i'm trying to say, the VWD user support is 200%, navigation through the system object is awesome, if you have a fast pc for development and you learn how these new VS tools actually help you develop, you'll never go back.

Tooltips, the listbox stuff, the object explorer with search ability(super).
To me it's a serious gain in development speed.
VB.NET or C#.net should not be different but i'm not much interested in win32 apps at this time.

The express versions are free and that's a major plus, once you get to know these tools.

Imo several people just got stuck on the system object's information overload + the slow speed of the IDE on some PC's.

Edwin Knoppert · Post by **Edwin Knoppert** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:38 pm

O btw, i was never a c man, i tried a few times using Borland cBuilder but i hate it.
I could have lived with ansi c compiler..

However due new 'policy', well strategy is a better word, we forced ourselves to keep working in c#.
I can assure you that c# is a breeze against a borland cbuilder!!

To be clear, if i ever would need a bytepointer and handling i'm screw'd, i seen code and using some of it you will not like.
But that's equally s**t with VB.NET as c#
SOmetimes i resort to plain dll's but then, i have a lot of code written outside .net which would take to long and complex to rewrite.

srod · Post by **srod** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:43 am

People speak about run-time but don't seem to understand it's a collection of assemblies (dll's).
.NET is not a run-time to actually run simplistic window applications (like VB6).

The common language run-time (being a virtual machine + run-time library) is still required in its entirety to run even the simplest "Hello world!" program, and that in itself is probably enough to put many people off! Granted, the framework offers an unbelievable range of functionality and depth, but such programs I develop to leverage such functionality become little more than 'scripts'. Kind of like developing applications in MS Access which is always a bit 'dry'.

I know that eventually I'll have to shift across to .net as it's here to stay, and I'll probably be singing it's praises by the time that day arrives, but for now I prefer to keep away from the extra layers which .net brings, at least until I get my hands on vista and the like!