Page 2 of 10
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:32 am
by Trond
utopiomania wrote:I installed a free paint program recently (paint.NET) which required the framework to be installed, but
so what ? The whole thing was a 20 meg download or so, and besides I don't think you can avoid it (.NET)
so I don't have any issues with this. You don't need a 600 meg runtime. If you buy a new printer you
probably get it installed if you like it or not.
Did you probably notice that Paint.NET was horribly slow?
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:41 am
by Polo
Why would someone actually USE this crap .NET stuff ?
I'm sure with it you can design an app in 5 minutes, like the publicity say.
But have you ever run a .NET program ? On my computer, they are just unstable and slowwwww (I've got P41.5ghtz). And if 1.5ghtz is slow for a .NET app like the Paint.NET or stuffs like that, I should go back to my AMD K6-2 333mhtz, with it, the windows provided paint worked like a charm
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 6:03 pm
by Edwin Knoppert
A design-flaw?
There are certain aspects similar to a VB6 app (pseudocode) etc. where you will never gain speed from.
However, GUI related stuff is not required to be fast.
Calculations are, as said, i can imagne a .NET application will not be a runner.
But i'm pretty sure the FW internals are fast.
If the programmer is misusing the FW, which is hard to prevent, you'll gean no speed.
Resorting to a more low-level dll might help but actually you are saying you want to be restricted to a certain kind of programming.
.NET does pointers but it's not trivial at all, while an ordinary compiler s.
So it's obvious you'll skip the hard part and do the classy things, which is highly unoptimized unless you are really good and not lazy.
Yes, overall speaking we may expect slower apps, this depends on the developer hoe much effort he's willing to do.
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 6:07 pm
by Edwin Knoppert
>Why would someone actually USE this crap .NET stuff ?
Have you read my replies?
It's a learning curve but a replacement to the winapi, and thus.. large!
The most ideal of VS are the coding tips, this will make you productive.
You seem to care for a 12k app done with a for you understandable language.
I guess you find the learning to much and therefore you just point a finger on it's size.
Companies don't care for your compiler.
They care for progress, this can also mean team-effort, and therefore restricting you to a specific language, but not at first.
It's a cost issue.
To me i don't care much for these cost, i'm a programmer, but i want to deliver..
And o yes, i'm quit handy with programming tools like PB or PowerBASIC.
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 6:10 pm
by ricardo
So, if i understand, Vista will replace winAPI with this .NET stuff?
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 6:12 pm
by Polo
I'm not sure if I understand, but if they replace the API with .NET, almost all applications we use won't work anymore :roll:
I don't think Microsoft is that stupid, sorry.
And you can do the same things you do with .NEt without it, and it results in smaller exe. So, the question remains, why would someone use this.
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 6:13 pm
by Polo
ricardo wrote:So, if i understand, Vista will replace winAPI with this .NET stuff?
They were also supposed to replace the file system and some other stuffs, weren't they ?
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 6:18 pm
by ricardo
PureBasic.NET ?
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 6:19 pm
by Polo
ricardo wrote:PureBasic.NET ?
Well, isn't "Pure" in contradiction with ".NET" ?
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:08 pm
by Edwin Knoppert
A replacement is something different as being replaced..
I never said winapi will be removed.
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:11 pm
by utopiomania
Trond wrote:
Did you probably notice that Paint.NET was horribly slow?
No I didn't, and my 'Hello World!' using sharp develop for the .NET was a 3Kb exe. I must say this look ok to me
even though I use PB now. :roll:
Code: Select all
class HelloWorld
{
public static void Main()
{
System.Console.WriteLine("Hello World!");
}
}
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:11 pm
by Polo
Edwin Knoppert wrote:A replacement is something different as being replaced..
I never said winapi will be removed.
Then .NET is useless
We can do the same, well, no, better/faster/smaller with the API, why would we use .NET
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:15 pm
by Polo
utopiomania wrote:Trond wrote:
Did you probably notice that Paint.NET was horribly slow?
No I didn't, and my 'Hello World!' using sharp develop for the .NET was a 3Kb exe. I must say this look ok to me
even though I use PB now. :roll:
Code: Select all
class HelloWorld
{
public static void Main()
{
System.Console.WriteLine("Hello World!");
}
}
3kb + 20mb runtimes.
With PB, it is 3kb + nothing.
Why do everyone wants to use bloated things ?
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:15 pm
by thefool
its easier! I mean, you can send an email easly it is built in. A lot of stuff is. Its much more high level.
However, if the higher level needs so many mbytes, and is so much slower, i would rather do it manually! Then i also feel [and i DO], that i have more control over what is happening.
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:25 pm
by Trond
Edwin Knoppert wrote:However, GUI related stuff is not required to be fast.
There is only thing that's required to be fast, and that's the GUI.
It doesn't matter if an application finds 40000 primes per second, the user wants to SEE that the application finds 40000 primes per second. And even if the users see that an application finds only 10000 primes per second that is much more impressive than an application the user cannot see that finds 40000 primes per second.