PureBasic Forums - English

O btw, i might never program in VB.NET and won't require to distribute the FW.
Since i like ASP.NET and want to write thin-client stuff only.
ASP.NET is supurb because of the framework.

And i don't mean it's controls perse.
I use only a few real dot net techniques with the controls.
Like a datagrid with paging and sorting.

Mainly i program as it where ordinary html with javascript.
The serverside does the hard part of course.
Database and so.

Have you guys ever seen something other than
the .NET runtime for the Win32 world ?
Did you regognice that the .NET Runtime for
WindowsCE is included (from version 4) within the ROMs
so that there is no Need for any runtime ?
Did you ever noticed that you can code and run your
appz within the .NET for Win32/Win64 and WindowsCE
(Including ARM and Mips Cpu's ) ?
( MONO , the .NET runtime for linux and MacOS is another story)

We are releasing our new Product (here at work)
now these days after only 6 months of developing time.
Thats fast, coz we spend a lot of time learning new
features and language specials.
Our customer's did'nt argue any time about a runtime,
they got a cd and install .
For the Win32 environment they install the framework
only one time.
Our Main-Executable is now about 400kb, instead
of 2,3 MB as native Win32-Exe, Drivers(in form of a DLL)
are also cut in quarter of size.
That is because a lot of stuff is build in the framework itself.
Did you ever have touched those Collection-Classes
(kind of LinkedLists , but more Enterprise alike)
that are more powerfull than
those in the STL from C++ ?
All those stuff like Encryption,Streaming
(which work also over the http-protocoll) is build in
the framework.DX9 is easy build in
(but i never touched that, coz i 'm a Appz'er )

Type-Conversion can easy been done like this: i think the common problem that some ppl have
with .NET is that it comes from M$ and that most of them
did'nt code long enough with it.
Edwin did the right argue if he claims that the framework
is the Win-Api of the next generation.
And guys, if you want to be in employment next time it is a
big advantage if you familar with the system/Api of
your customers.
Last not least:
If you are only a Hobbycoder, ignore these post

Rings wrote:If you are only a Hobbycoder, ignore these post

Ignored

Oh and i love this link:


http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/ ... n32map.asp

ricardo wrote: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.

Because they're simply not caring. They don't NEED to make it good, because they have so much of the market. The ROI becomes higher if they let a few cheap the idiots make the compiler and let tons of expensive geniouses do the marketing than vice versa.

Let me tell you.
I believe all .NET stuff is not really good compiled stuff.
I even heard decompiling is pretty easy.

You might gain better results by using additional dll's

Trond wrote:The whole .Net thing is just ridiculous. Confusius says: Those who cancel button click \ will not be fouled by Microsoft's trick.

Hmmm... Well, maybe - but you (and I) can't close our eyes! More and more developers are using the .Net platform for ASP/Web applications. If you look at all new applications we have installed on our servers the last year, I'll think about 85% are using .Net.

That's the reality and we have to live with it even if we don't like it!

I'll guess many of the application developers use it because it's "easy", it's "standard", they get many of the standard features "for free" and the developing time is reduced - a lot.

Forgive them - they don't know what they are doing... :roll:

techjunkie wrote: I'll guess many of the application developers use it because it's "easy", it's "standard", they get many of the standard features "for free" and the developing time it's reduced - a lot.

Definently!
It IS easier.
When rings say, that if one are a hobbyist, he shouldnt read what he wrote. Sorry i couldnt help it!
I read it. He is right, maybe. But, if someone out there sold a dll that did all this (i know this isnt really possible, however at least do the same things. like pop3, encryption and all the stuff you say), and was more optimized, you wouldnt do it. You would look at it and say: wow! 25 mbyte. No im not using that.

However .net comes in a nice package, AND IT IS FROM MICROSOFT, so you simply say "then it must be good. its the future!"..

When the transfer to linux begins in the future, you are as good as trash

>Forgive them - they don't know what they are doing...
Hehe

--------------------------------------

Dotnet in a nice package..
I think so as well, the beta Framework(!) install's without any problem.
Billy has managed at least two install's never failed me (yet):
1) Dotnet frameworks
2) MDAC's (database)

Both are free and supurb (thanks to that)

As said, do not say VS = dotnet FW, you can simply notify the user it's (new) dependency.. the FW.
You might deliver it on cd but i would also simply point them to internet links.
"Update your computer!"

.NET is something you guys love to hate. I don't know why there are such strong feelings on the subject or why anyone would label .NET applications "junk". Would you do the same if you found out something was written in VB6? What about an old version of Delphi? Why not let the application stand on it's own merits and not worry about what language the developer(s) used. Not giving an application a chance because you don't like the development language is pretty silly. You can write slow, nasty code in any language (including PB)!

To touch on the same, tired points :

What's wrong with requiring a runtime to be installed? VB did it years ago and that 2 megs was a heck of a lot larger to users of the day than the .NET framework is now. Regardless, there are several of tools that bundle the required .NET framework libraries with your EXE to remove the need for the user to install .NET.

What's wrong with interpreted languages? Ruby, PHP, Perl, and many more are excellent languages and interpreted. Most can't even stand alone like .NET can. Saying such languages are junk is silly.

Decompilation? So what? If it is really that important to you there are tools that can make the output just as useless as decompiling any other EXE.

As far as .NET being useless and it being suicide for business. It's not and it isn't. I promise.

.NET simply isn't for most of the people on this forum. .NET is for "enterprise" developers (pardon the buzzword usage). It's for developing high level, complex and *maintainable* applications quickly. It works.

Use the best tool for the job. Sometimes that is PB, sometimes it is .NET, sometimes it is better to hire a Romanian programmer for $3US an hour to do it for you.

*grin*

>What's wrong with interpreted languages? Ruby, PHP, Perl, and many more are excellent languages and interpreted. Most can't even stand alone like .NET can. Saying such languages are junk is silly.

>Decompilation? So what? If it is really that important to you there are tools that can make the output just as useless as decompiling any other EXE.

I disagree on both.
interpreted often results in slower code.
But in .NET the slower code might not have any impact on the doings itself like:
A simple interpreted loop calling .NET functions might not have any impact on speed.
The .NET call is probably more optimized then mine.

Decompilation, that's your opinion, i don't want to spread code, an exe is nearly irretrievable to 99.99999% of us.
Iow, the more complex, the little they will be able to use it.

"interpreted often results in slower code." - So what? Does PHP being slightly slower than a compiled CGI written in C make PHP a horrible language? Take these types of opinions and apply them to a language that's Open Source and suddenly everyone stops complaining

Again, use the best tool for the job. If raw speed in all areas is the most important factor to you then don't use .NET. Most applications sit idle %99 of the time waiting for user input - those programs will suffer little from any (if only perceived) .NET performance issues. There are tons of benchmarks out there showing that the managed code isn't always slower, and when it is, it isn't by a whole heck of a lot.

Decompilation - well, if you aren't willing to take the steps to prevent it then I'm not sure you can blame the shortcoming on the language.

Karbon, im currently trying to learn C++.
Im not skipping purebasic at all, however C++ is used for so much, and many examples etc are in that language.

I was just wondering: the visual c++ compiler, it does allow NOT to use .net right? so it will run on any machine?

And; what do i need exactly to program using .net..? I mean, what do you use? The real visual studio.net or is the newest free beta ok? i guess the final wont be free..

thefool wrote:Karbon, im currently trying to learn C++.
Im not skipping purebasic at all, however C++ is used for so much, and many examples etc are in that language.

I was just wondering: the visual c++ compiler, it does allow NOT to use .net right? so it will run on any machine?

I think there is both a C++ and a C++.NET - I can't say for sure as I don't use either

And; what do i need exactly to program using .net..? I mean, what do you use? The real visual studio.net or is the newest free beta ok? i guess the final wont be free..

I use Visual Studio 2003 (the full version). The .NET 1.1 framework is just now on enough computers to make it usable - I'm not gambling my business on .NET 2.0 for a while (or unless MS makes it a required update). I have the 2005 beta but I haven't used it, and don't really plan to in the desktop arena for a long while.

>Again, use the best tool for the job.

Hmm, may we not hope for a more solid tool?
Why should we ignore those parts, i juste vented my opinion and you did as well.
So we'll never agree on certain parts.

Using alternatives with dotnet results in a more restrictive platform.
I can't run my dll's on a PDA, dotnet should run fine (afaik)
So.. the idea is that i can do all in dotnet in the end.

>Decompilation - well, if you aren't willing to take the steps to prevent it then I'm not sure you can blame the shortcoming on the language.
I really don't understand why you critic my thoughts on this.

It's really nonsense to create code which can be decompiled, it's pure lazyness from ms, similar to the run-time sizes remarks, they simply don't seem to care.
Well run-times.. i find it no longer such an issue with dotnet that is.
But protection, why on earth should i be forced to use a tool to pack the code i have.
It might be well it will never be safe and remains hackable.
An exe is not hackable since it's plain code to read but in such a format only a few might be able to understand.
The same applies to pseudocode.. encrypt it in such a way at least the original code can not be generated.

I like dotnet but there are aspects where we should expect more from.