Just me or has the world gone crazy for .Net and others

For everything that's not in any way related to PureBasic. General chat etc...
SFSxOI
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2970
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 5:24 pm
Location: Where ya would never look.....

Just me or has the world gone crazy for .Net and others

Post by SFSxOI »

Is it just me or has the world gone crazy for .Net, C# and all the other newer stuff like MS's Azure and stuff like that? Are we falling behind with PureBasic or has the rest of the world not caught on yet?
Last edited by SFSxOI on Sat Nov 08, 2008 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kale
PureBasic Expert
PureBasic Expert
Posts: 3000
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 6:03 pm
Location: Lincoln, UK
Contact:

Post by Kale »

He he, people bad mouth .NET off until they actually use it then they usually fall in love with it. Basically .NET is a huge (and i do mean HUGE) library of stuff which helps with almost every programming task you could think of. I doesn't really matter what .NET language you use, you get the same functionality in all of them and i think thats the draw. You get more done faster than other languages. Plus you can get official tools to check your code for style, design, localization, performance, and security. So you can write good solid portable code that other .NET devs immediately understand.
--Kale

Image
PB
PureBasic Expert
PureBasic Expert
Posts: 7581
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 5:24 pm

Post by PB »

But all that comes with a major drawback: bloat. I've often gone to download
a really good tool that is "only" 200 KB in size, but then found out I need to
install .NET just to run it... wasting another 20 or 30 MB of space. No thanks.
I compile using 5.31 (x86) on Win 7 Ultimate (64-bit).
"PureBasic won't be object oriented, period" - Fred.
User avatar
Paul
PureBasic Expert
PureBasic Expert
Posts: 1285
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 4:34 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Paul »

Of course if you want to run a nice compact 23kb app written in PB...

You must install a few Gigs of something called Windows!

Now that's bloat :)


(makes 20-30 MB seem not so bad)
Image Image
Tipperton
Addict
Addict
Posts: 1286
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2003 7:55 pm

Post by Tipperton »

Doesn't Vista already have .NET installed?

Which means if you're running Vista, you could still download that 200K utility or app and run it without having to install the 20 to 30 MB .NET libraries.
Kale
PureBasic Expert
PureBasic Expert
Posts: 3000
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 6:03 pm
Location: Lincoln, UK
Contact:

Post by Kale »

PB wrote:But all that comes with a major drawback: bloat. I've often gone to download
a really good tool that is "only" 200 KB in size, but then found out I need to
install .NET just to run it... wasting another 20 or 30 MB of space. No thanks.
As many people find nowadays this is a moot point. Most computers today have atleast .NET 2.0 already installed.

If you've downloaded a service pack for your OS, you have it. (which is th default update setting for 95% of people)
If you run Vista, you have it.
If you play recent PC games, you have it.
etc...

Plus 30Mb is nothing in today's world with 250Gb+ standard drives being the norm. Even for downloads, 30Mb is nothing for broadband especially that once you've downloaded it you never have to do so again. Plus the size is nothing compared to the rich library available. There really isn't any reason to hate it. .NET is the best thing Microsoft has ever come up with. IMHO it trumps every other piece of software they have ever written.

Microsoft has embraced .NET fully and with WPF, WCF, WF, CardSpace fully utilised in .NET3.5 and the next Windows OS you can not be a real windows developer without at least learning about it.

Win32 will not last forever, and if you don't get on the bandwagon now you will be left behind.

Or, you could install Linux. :wink:
--Kale

Image
milan1612
Addict
Addict
Posts: 894
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:15 am
Location: Nuremberg, Germany
Contact:

Post by milan1612 »

Kale wrote:Microsoft has embraced .NET fully and with WPF, WCF, WF, CardSpace fully utilised in .NET3.5 and the next Windows OS you can not be a real windows developer without at least learning about it.
Ever seen a WPF application running on Windows XP? Laggy as hell, looks awefull and feels like shit to use :?
Windows 7 & PureBasic 4.4
Kale
PureBasic Expert
PureBasic Expert
Posts: 3000
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 6:03 pm
Location: Lincoln, UK
Contact:

Post by Kale »

milan1612 wrote:
Kale wrote:Microsoft has embraced .NET fully and with WPF, WCF, WF, CardSpace fully utilised in .NET3.5 and the next Windows OS you can not be a real windows developer without at least learning about it.
Ever seen a WPF application running on Windows XP? Laggy as hell, looks awefull and feels like shit to use :?
Yep, i know i've coded my own, but it's the way forward and will improve.
--Kale

Image
User avatar
Guimauve
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 2:51 am
Location: Canada

Post by Guimauve »

Paul wrote:(makes 20-30 MB seem not so bad)
Only if you have an High speed internet connection. For me, 1 day are needed to complet a 30 MB download.

Regards
Guimauve
User avatar
the.weavster
Addict
Addict
Posts: 1577
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 6:53 pm
Location: England

Post by the.weavster »

Kale wrote:Win32 will not last forever, and if you don't get on the bandwagon now you will be left behind.
I agree, I'm not getting this objection to .NET
Kale wrote:Or, you could install Linux. :wink:
Just downloaded Ubuntu 8.10 - it's fantastic.
Trond
Always Here
Always Here
Posts: 7446
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 6:45 pm
Location: Norway

Post by Trond »

Kale wrote:He he, people bad mouth .NET off until they actually use it then they usually fall in love with it. Basically .NET is a huge (and i do mean HUGE) library of stuff which helps with almost every programming task you could think of. I doesn't really matter what .NET language you use, you get the same functionality in all of them and i think thats the draw. You get more done faster than other languages. Plus you can get official tools to check your code for style, design, localization, performance, and security. So you can write good solid portable code that other .NET devs immediately understand.
Creating a new project in Visual C# 2003: 3 minutes for the first time, then the next times 30 seconds, on an Athlon XP 2400+. :shock:

The API is wonderful, truly fantastic - except that you can't actually use it. You just sit there waiting!
Kale
PureBasic Expert
PureBasic Expert
Posts: 3000
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 6:03 pm
Location: Lincoln, UK
Contact:

Post by Kale »

Trond wrote:Creating a new project in Visual C# 2003: 3 minutes for the first time, then the next times 30 seconds, on an Athlon XP 2400+. :shock:
You need a new computer then. Mine takes a few seconds.
--Kale

Image
User avatar
djes
Addict
Addict
Posts: 1806
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Pas-de-Calais, France

Post by djes »

Kale wrote:
Trond wrote:Creating a new project in Visual C# 2003: 3 minutes for the first time, then the next times 30 seconds, on an Athlon XP 2400+. :shock:
You need a new computer then. Mine takes a few seconds.

bis repetita : http://www.infiltec.com/j-h-wrld.htm
:lol:
PB
PureBasic Expert
PureBasic Expert
Posts: 7581
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 5:24 pm

Post by PB »

> As many people find nowadays this is a moot point

Sadly, I must concede that's the way things have headed.
I compile using 5.31 (x86) on Win 7 Ultimate (64-bit).
"PureBasic won't be object oriented, period" - Fred.
User avatar
netmaestro
PureBasic Bullfrog
PureBasic Bullfrog
Posts: 8451
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:42 am
Location: Fort Nelson, BC, Canada

Post by netmaestro »

@Kale: Good sensible synopsis, agreed on all points.
BERESHEIT
Post Reply