PureBasic Forums - English

.net reminds me of UCSD P-SYSTEM.

>The common language run-time (being a virtual machine + run-time library) is still required

I was trying to put it in a different perspective.
If the RT was indeed 20MB like VB6 RT but bigger i would find it ackward indeed.
The NET FWK is that large because of it's (useful) features, in a way there is no difference indeed.

It's rather silly to think you'll need to install the FWK yourself and need to distribute it with each app.
I would recommend not to do so and only point to the FWK install.
It's a one time install.

With the advent of vista, most, like myself, will undoubtedly consider .net as part of the os and thus issues of installation disappear. For now though, with so many win 98 machines still running, which, as I can testify, creak and groan under the weight of the framework, I prefer to stick with what I can guarantee will run on a client's machine without any extra fuss.

My problem is that my applications generally target those who's knowledge of computers does not really extend far beyond the power button, and so issues of installation are always foremost in my mind! Anything that complicates the issue is a big no-no at this time!

As I say though, the power of .net is there for all to see and with so many languages now targetting the framework (40+ at the moment, or so I read somewhere) it is an inevitable step.

I agree, just wanted to say that sometimes a user needs to get pushed over the threshold and finally buy a newer Windows.
Of course we shouldn't force people but a hint..
All non-nt Windows suck anyway.

XP was the first Windows i actually bought for at home.
Because i liked it + registration is required

I don't mind to buy software but as long i can do things with free software i will, like using open office, good enough for me.

I must admit to adding too much to Mr. Gate's coffers over the years! But they do produce some of the best software around - and some of the worst!

All non-nt Windows suck anyway.

Agreed. I think I've only ever had 2 crashes on XP in two years. Win 98 on the other hand... Bloody thing used to crash more times than Eddie the Eagle!

People speak about run-time but don't seem to understand it's a collection of assemblies (dll's).

hope you dont refer to me.. i might have called it a runtime, so people that wouldnt WANT to understand that the .net framework is the subsitute for win32 api. Its portable, efficient, its quite complete in its builtup, its easier to find your way around in..


Besides, IF you dont like .net and still want to develop .net app's there is always the choise of Salamander, Thinstall, Xenocode and more wich are able to built up a virtual filesystem of the NEEDED .net assemblies, so you end up with a single runnable-on-all-32bit windows file, that doesnt require .net framework to be installed...

however companies like ATI wich ships .net framework by large to their users, and other larger companies, (and the linux parts, MONO and DotGNU wich both also are supported by large companies, like Novell), i think its only a matter of time.

for once, microsoft was nice to share the internal setup of the .net framework, the CLA and more so people was able to develop other .net languages, and whole frameworks.

(btw Xenocode is by far the cheapest with about 300$ i think)

I would not use .NET at this time for 'simplistic' applications.
Maybe even bigger apps would not be my goal to do with .NET.
Because v2 is not found on most PC's and will take more than a year to consider it 'normally available'.
This is the most important thing to me to write any .NET windows app.
I can still do it with other compilers and have most of the requirements (code) already written.
.NET is more complete but what percentage would i use?
Maybe in a year or 2...

.NET will most likely be slower compared to things like handling byte arrays and other pointer specific things.
To obtain a pointer to a variable is completely cumbersome and is also an object.. which must be disposed and so.
They try to keep these programmings styles away from you but so far i'm not convinced they are able to do so (with substitute functions like a stringbuilder for example).

If you go for .NET it's the best if you go for managed code.
This makes future os .NET variants better possible.
I have strongly the feeling .NET can never be that quick on certain aspects like dataparsing.
Of course, this is usually not done or rare to use, i do those kind of functions though.
MS always focusses on database stuff, .NET works excellent regarding these.
It's logical they do so.

As said, at this time we don't have a need to write Windows based .NET apps.
We use ASP.NET and that's a bliss!

Drivers using .NET, i think i might consider them extremely lazy!!
I think drivers should be the last to be written in .NET.

And sorry.. but let's not forget the new tools to program in .NET
The VB lookalike IDE's work very well, as long you have a fast development PC.
People programming for hobby do especially like PureBasic, fine, i'm stressing this subject a little but more with respect to professional programmers.
Later on you'll discover the potential and hopefully some multi-os support (like mono)

Well, currently I'm using PureBasic for quick 'n dirty programming. But the OOP of C# makes it very easy to develop all kind of software. Even games/engines are doable with managed DirectX. The .Net2.0 framework maybe is not that available today, but every usefull and great application that uses .Net will help spread the framework. And since .Net makes things very easy (development-wise), more apps build with .Net will arise. I like PureBasic very much and for me it's the best procedural language out there. But OOP can really speed up your development and C# simply is a very good language when it comes down to that (I cannot decide wheter I like PureBasic more than C# or not).