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

[PB]

Another point of view is that of portable apps. These are becoming very big
these days, what with large USB sticks becoming more popular. People like
being able to throw a small portable app on them, which can't be done if the
app uses .NET or relies on some other runtime interpreter. So there is hope!

[Joakim Christiansen]

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

Yeah, .NET has come to stay and it does help a lot of programmers. Myself I never use it, at least not yet. I like to actually write most of the fuctions myself and LEARN something.

[Kale]

Another point of view is that of portable apps. These are becoming very big
these days, what with large USB sticks becoming more popular. People like
being able to throw a small portable app on them, which can't be done if the
app uses .NET or relies on some other runtime interpreter. So there is hope!

You can package the .NET runtime redistributable installer with your application and if need be you can target the smaller .NET Client Profile Framework which only installs parts of the framework for client applications.

[KarLKoX]

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+.

You need a new computer then. Mine takes a few seconds.

bis repetita : http://www.infiltec.com/j-h-wrld.htm

http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtopic.php?t=34948

Btw, i never care about who is under a technology when the technology is good and for me, .NET can help us a lot as it is a very productive language, i use it @ work (with java and a others) and with virtualisation (AMD is working on opcodes for VM Languages wich optimize by itself the code), it will be more and more used, i think.

[idle]

.net is like practicing Zen and the art of going to the lavatory when your constipated. You can grunt, push, heave as much as you like but does it really help you shit faster?

[Trond]

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+.

You need a new computer then. Mine takes a few seconds.

So all computer users should buy new computers just to ease the work of the programmers? Shouldn't the programmers pay for that, since it's them who wants it?

You probably use Vista where this .NET stuff is loaded into memory, slowing down other programs.

[Mistrel]

You probably use Vista where this .NET stuff is loaded into memory, slowing down other programs.

Simply because data is in memory doesn't mean it inherently slows down other programs.

[PB]

> Simply because data is in memory doesn't mean it inherently slows down
> other programs

Of course it does! That memory is taken, meaning that other apps therefore
need to use the slow hard drive's pagefile to be loaded and run (depending
on the apps' memory requirements).

[Rescator]

.NET will never be as fast as native code, the reason is simple.. .NET runs on top of of Win32.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DotNet_vs_WinAPI.svg for a visualization.

Even though Windows will try to pre-compile/or cache the code at first use, WinAPI will always have the edge as well. .NET uses WinAPI itself.
I suspect that Microsoft is working on the sucessor for .NET and WinAPI though.
I just hope that Win32/Win64 will still be the base of those as well. (if not then we PureBasic fans are screwed

[Mistrel]

> Simply because data is in memory doesn't mean it inherently slows down
> other programs

Of course it does! That memory is taken, meaning that other apps therefore
need to use the slow hard drive's pagefile to be loaded and run (depending
on the apps' memory requirements).

You're suggesting a scenario where all the memory on the machine is in-use and the application to be run requires an additional amount of memory of reasonable size. If this is the case then either the computer is not powerful enough to fit all of the user's applications in memory or the user doesn't know how to administrate the system so any amount of memory would be a moot point.

You're also suggesting that when an application requests memory it's always given a chunk of physical memory. If the page file is already used in excess and physical memory is maxed then there are bigger problems to worry about.

In other words it's an unrealistic scenario to optimize.

Vista has the right idea by maximizing available memory by profiling the user's data so that the most frequently requested information is in physical memory at all times.

.NET will never be as fast as native code, the reason is simple.. .NET runs on top of of Win32.

Actually, the reason .NET is slower is because it's interpreted, similar to Java. However, this is not always the case:

Applications running in a managed environment such as the Microsoft framework's CLR or Java's JVM tend to require more system resources than similar applications that access machine resources more directly. Some applications, however, have been shown to perform better in .NET than in their native version.[citation needed] This could be due to the runtime optimizations made possible by such an environment, the use of relatively well-performing functions in the .NET framework, just-in-time compilation of managed code, or other aspects of the CLR.

[Rings]

.NET will never be as fast as native code, the reason is simple.. .NET runs on top of of Win32.

For now, but things can change with next OS from M$.

Actually, the reason .NET is slower is because it's interpreted, similar to Java.

totaly garbage.
.NET code will be compiled to true machine code at startup.
Thats the benefit of IL .So you notice a small delayed loading of
the exe, when the JIT-Compiler translate the NET-code into true
machinecode.
That happens also under WinCE, where the JIT-Compiler can also
compile into some ARM or Sparc specific cpu code.....

If you don't trust me, check the starting .NET - Exe with
for example OllyDebug.

[pdwyer]

You getting tired of your job as PB Moderator Rings?

You guys can have your .net and your managed code, I'm happy where I am and it's not because my eyes haven't been opened to it. It's just not what I want in a language

[Mistrel]

Please use my whole quote, Rings. I already said that.

[Rings]

Please use my whole quote, Rings. I already said that.

but your quote did not weight the JIT compiling enough.

You getting tired of your job as PB Moderator Rings?

no, i'm just fine .

[KarLKoX]

totaly garbage.
.NET code will be compiled to true machine code at startup.
Thats the benefit of IL .So you notice a small delayed loading of
the exe, when the JIT-Compiler translate the NET-code into true
machinecode.
That happens also under WinCE, where the JIT-Compiler can also
compile into some ARM or Sparc specific cpu code.....

If you don't trust me, check the starting .NET - Exe with
for example OllyDebug.

Agreed and as i said, AMD is working on cpus wich will have the capability of optimizing the code, they will have some asm mnemonic made especially for VM languages and Microsoft's R&D is working on a 100 % pure OS made with .NET (among others things) wich is called Singularity, it is not the next OS but MS said that they can pick some ideas there. (it have a brillant process manager/scheduler)


Rescator>I don't think that they are working on the successor of .NET, they had invested a lot with .NET though MS will do all they can to put it everywhere by creating standards (software/hardware) and don't forget that .NET specs are opened.