PureBasic Forums - English

I feel like many companies ask their coders to learn .NET

ricardo wrote:I feel like many companies ask their coders to learn .NET

For business needs & apps .NET is probably a lifesaver. But, more of a hindrance in anything aimed at home users.

I don't see the problem myself? .NET is no more bloated to me (using a broadband connection to DL the runtimes) than the VB runtimes were a few years back when I switched to the PC. Also (Depending on how you actually compile your code) I don't find .NET less secure either.

I think there is an awful lot of scaremongering going on (Just like there was in the past) for nothing.

and this "Script kiddies" tag attached to .NET coders seems a bit odd too! I would hardly call "Rob Hutchinson" a script kiddie (The guy who did Protean IDE for Blitz BTW) He is one of the most talented programmers I have EVER had the pleasure of knowing/working with. I would pay good money for a pill that would have made my crossing over from the Amiga to the PC as profitable (in knowledge as well as monetary) as easily as he seemed to adapt! That guy is fluent with C++/ASM/Basic of many flavours/PHP (List goes on) and he absolutely loves .NET!

If it is good enough for Rob (and he was one of the biggest Amiga zealots of em all!) it is good enough for anyone.

now, I admit, this is just my own opinion based from information of a trusted friend... which I fully appreciate may not reflect the opinions of others.

.NET is no more bloated to me (using a broadband connection to DL the runtimes) than the VB runtimes were a few years back when I switched to the PC.

I have used VB since 1.0 for DOS. Its runtimes were never 23MB until .NET hit. Heck, Liberty Basic 3 & 4 each have bigger runtimes than VB6. I pretty much shut up about LB's bloat once .NET hit.

Broadband connections are nice (I love my 3Mb connection), but few have them. The average home user is stuck with dialup and often with line qualities causing around 33kbs. This is unlikely to change anytime soon.

I have yet to see anyone ever justify the need for 23MB runtimes for apps that could just as easily be done on VB/VC++ 6 and not need the bloated runtimes.

I am sorry, I like to be able to look myself in the mirror when I shave every day. I could never do that if I made my EUs have to download 23MB runtimes for programs that did not really need them. The "bloat because you can" theory of programming is something I have never got into and never will. I have too much respect for my EUs to do something like that.

I am a firm believer that a programmer should use the right tool for the right job. I guess if the only way a programmer can make a text editor is to use 23MB runtimes, and that is the best he can do, there is nothing wrong with that. I guess there are some people who would use a backhoe to dig the hole to plant an Iris bulb, myself I would use a hand trowel, as thats the right tool for the job.

Luckily we have PureBasic so we don't have to worry about using bloated languages. I like my tiny & fast EXEs.

Brice, I'm not saying you don't have a point about the runtimes size... yeah, 23mb is large I guess... but like the original VB runtimes (which were large from what I remember) You only have to download em once! it's not like you have to download em every time you download a .NET program .

actual exe size is small. but alas (I don't care what OS you insert here) most programs today are pretty huge.

Yeah, back in the day I could code pretty much any application with a much smaller footprint than PB on the PC manages today... I remember playing around writing stuff for the PPC when it became the "MUST HAVE" CPU on the Amiga. EXE size was perhaps anything from 2 to 8 times as large, but speed increases were worth it.

Progress comes with a price sometimes. But I am one of these people who won't slate something without absolute proof... not just rely on heresay and speculation. as .NET becomes integrated with the OS, like the VB runtimes did, the EU won't care... as long as the software does what it says on the tin!

LuCiFeR[SD] wrote:as .NET becomes integrated with the OS, like the VB runtimes did, the EU won't care... as long as the software does what it says on the tin!

Indeed

Brice Manuel wrote: Broadband connections are nice (I love my 3Mb connection), but few have them. The average home user is stuck with dialup and often with line qualities causing around 33kbs. This is unlikely to change anytime soon.

But there is another problem:

MS don't let you distribute the runtimes. So, you need to ask some average user to go to MS site and do by itself the job???... noooo, thats crazy i think.

Maybe in 2 or 3 years, when everyone have Vista can be different, but for now, the .NET runtimes are a con, not only becaise the size.

Joakim Christiansen wrote:

LuCiFeR[SD] wrote:as .NET becomes integrated with the OS, like the VB runtimes did, the EU won't care... as long as the software does what it says on the tin!

Indeed

Not ALL VB runtimes where integrated with the OS.

The quesion i was never able to answer:

Why did MS need this big runtimes when many other compilers (PureBasic) don't?

I know the technicall explanation... what i don't undertand is why they choose doing things in that way.

One thing that is a fact: Today a VB6 coder is seeing more lika a hobbyst that like a professional coder. I mean, VB6 has not good reception. At the end, their product was not that good.

MS don't let you distribute the runtimes. So, you need to ask some average user to go to MS site and do by itself the job???... noooo, thats crazy i think.

Not quite right. Like DX, VB, etc, there is a "redistributable" version of the .NET runtimes that developers are allowed to distribute with their programs. This isn't exactly feasible for online distribution, but there is nothing stopping developers from including the redistributable runtimes on CD/DVD versions of their software.

but like the original VB runtimes (which were large from what I remember)

VB6's runtime (msvbvm60.dll) is 1.356 MB and VB5's runtime (msvbvm50.dll) was 1.324 MB. I never had to distribute any other runtimes with VB programs I made and I made a lot. (However, if you didn't know what you were doing and relied on custom controls for API stuff or were working on DBs, then you would need to distribute other runtimes.)

There is a big difference between 1.3MB & 23MB ;c)

You only have to download em once! it's not like you have to download em every time you download a .NET program

Agreed, but still bad for people who have to download them. I am not knocking the UK or other countries, but it appears that broadband is very common in countries that are geographically small. The USA is geographically large and a large number of our people live in rural areas. DSL is normally only good if you live within 15,000 feet of a digital switching station. Cable is nice, but many, many folks in rural areas do not have cable and can only get cable installed if they pay thousands of dollars for the cable company to lay miles of cable to service their house, which even if done would not handle broadband cable. Dial Up is the main form of connection in the US and like I said before, the line quality in rural areas is usually around 33k. If BPL (Broadband over Power Line) ever takes off here, then broadband would be available to anybody on an electric grid, but this is a long way from happening and our electrical grids are overloaded as it is.

Vista will ease this issue, but it will still be a good five years after Vista is released for Vista to be considered a "standard" as far as OSes used in the home. Heck, 98 is still the dominant version of Windows in home use and that came out in the fall of '97.

But I am one of these people who won't slate something without absolute proof... not just rely on heresay and speculation.

My opinions on .NET are based solely on personal experience. If I were still working at GTE (Telecom industry here in the US), or HP, or other nongaming companies I have worked for, a .NET version of VB would be my tool of choice. But now, targeting home users, .NET really does not offer any advantages. My VB.NET & VC++.NET boxes are in the closet. I keep VB6 installed as I am still under contract to support some existing software I have written, But with PB being so powerful and capable, I no longer keep VC++/Delphi 6 installed and would not use VB6 for any new projects. PB more than meets my current needs.

the EU won't care... as long as the software does what it says on the tin!

I agree

One thing that is a fact: Today a VB6 coder is seeing more lika a hobbyst that like a professional coder. I mean, VB6 has not good reception. At the end, their product was not that good.

If you were working for a business or doing contract work for businesses, you would likely see more jobs wanting VB programmers than VC++. VC++ killed Borland's C++ long ago as the #1 language used in game development, but for development of apps and such for businesses, VB is still widely used and often moreso than VC++.

Brice Manuel wrote:

but like the original VB runtimes (which were large from what I remember)

VB6's runtime (msvbvm60.dll) is 1.356 MB and VB5's runtime (msvbvm50.dll) was 1.324 MB. I never had to distribute any other runtimes with VB programs I made and I made a lot. (However, if you didn't know what you were doing and relied on custom controls for API stuff or were working on DBs, then you would need to distribute other runtimes.)

Well, if you open VB6 IDE and use controls, etc. the most sure scenario is that you will have to distribute other runtimes.
If you have to use API calls to avoid that, then is no reason to use VB6

Brice Manuel wrote:

One thing that is a fact: Today a VB6 coder is seeing more lika a hobbyst that like a professional coder. I mean, VB6 has not good reception. At the end, their product was not that good.

If you were working for a business or doing contract work for businesses, you would likely see more jobs wanting VB programmers than VC++. VC++ killed Borland's C++ long ago as the #1 language used in game development, but for development of apps and such for businesses, VB is still widely used and often moreso than VC++.

I live from my code.

At least for Shareware i think that VB is not the best choice and don't have good reception. Look at RentACoder and i don't see much people seeing for VB coders.

I work for the State of Alaska, yes yes a government employee. The required (standard) language for the job? C#. This is for 100% in-house applications and websites .. and that is 100% good. Fast development, debugging and deployment, without having to worry about criminals decompiling the code easily. That is my #1 beef with .NET, and another reason why people who use .NET are considered Script Kiddies .. that is what they are because that is what all managed langauges/code in .NET is.

Am I a "script kiddy"? At work, yes. At home, hell no. I pride myself to be able to actually program. But if being a "Script kiddy" is required to have a job in the real world, then so be it.

>I think there is an awful lot of scaremongering going on (Just like there was in the past) for nothing.
Good you jumped in, this is actually what i wanted to say.

It disturbes me that dotnet is seen as a VB run-time!
That would make the winapi a run-time as well.
The difference is that it isn't installed yet.

The problem with VB6 is that the run-time where that small you had to include them in each installation.
Nowadays you might think of not distributing this part at all.
The end-user must upgrade.
Internet is more in as that was before.
And hopefully, billy might include it into a service pack, not sure though.