.NET Size of frame work? Im feeling worried!!

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 1:25 pm

thanks for your answers.

Karbon · Post by **Karbon** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 1:34 pm

Edwin Knoppert wrote:>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.

Do you develop applications using .NET? If not, how can you speak to it being solid or not?

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.

Well, sort of. I had a good conversation with the C# product manager from Microsoft at the Shareware Industry Conference this year. .NET is really a major plan for the future when the interpreter wil be able to optimize code on-the-fly. In that scenario the managed code is going to be faster than the compiled stuff. Regardless, the performance issues for most applications are absolutely negligible.

I really don't understand why you critic my thoughts on this.

Because you act like .NET is the only language to use the interpreted model. PHP, Java, Perl, Ruby, the list goes well beyond those. All good languages. You can't have the fact that it's interpreted as a distractor - especially when there are tools available to prevent the decompilation you speak of should you need such a thing. For most people in the real world it just isn't a big deal - the obfuscators will do a good enough job of making a total rip off of your code impossible, and there are additional steps beyond obfuscation available too.

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.

I have MP3s bigger than the .NET framework. I see it as a pure laziness issue on the part of users. I agree MS needs to better support it's developers, but only be making sure everyone has the .NET framework. Users shouldn't have to install it, I totally agree with you. However, that does not take away from it's usability.

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.

All possible if you would do a little research

Email me if you'd really like to know what tools to use.

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

Of course it could be better! Nothing is perfect, but it isn't evil, nor is it useless. Again, use the best tool for the job. After months and months of research and trial, I determined .NET to be the best tool for some of my jobs. Your mileage may vary

Karbon · Post by **Karbon** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 1:36 pm

I think Rings said it best... If you're a hobby programmer, or someone that doesn't develop "business" software you can safely ignore all these posts

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 1:40 pm

what is the real difference? I mean, if i go program a shareware app, isnt it hobby programming? You dont think i would like it to be easy to manage it in the future?

Purebasic can do this too, however it requires a bit more thinking about how you put comments, and how you put things in procedures.

Have you translated Kbilling to .net ?

Karbon · Post by **Karbon** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 1:56 pm

No, Shareware is just a marketing model - one that most software companies use now. Shareware means (to most) try-before-you-buy. Generally it is also associated with small software companies but even the largest are doing trial versions of their software these days, so it really knows no bounds.

A hobby programmer, in my opinion, is someone that doesn't make a living developing software. I'm both a hobby programmer and a "professional" I guess. I do make a living developing software, but it is my hobby as well!

I'm in the middle of developing kBilling 2 and I am using .NET for it. Right now the plan is to keep the existing version as a "standard" version and sell kB2 as a "pro" version.

I don't want to put off the impression that I don't like PureBasic. It is a wonderful language that enabled me to re-create my software company as a desktop software provider and I will be eternally grateful for that. However, for projects of kBilling's size I really needed a more extensible platform where I could use other components and a good object oriented model to keep everything straight. I evaluated everything and settled on .NET for my business software because (IMHO) it is the best balance of easy and powerful. It makes managing large projects possible, if not easy, for individuals and small teams. Easy things are easy and hard things are possible - and that is the cornerstone of a good language in my opinion.

I'll still be using PureBasic for years to come for utilities and any application where speed is of utmost importance.

[Shameless Plug]

If you are making money using shareware (or want to try to), join up with a bunch of us at www.asp-shareware.org. The ASP is a non-profit organization created to help the little guy compete in the ever-growing shareware market. I sit on the Board of Directors there and it is a great organization for small programming shops - there is a lot of help to be had from their newsgroups and their resources.

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 2:21 pm

Ok. I think pb should be made object oriented, but again thats just my opinion..

Karbon wrote: If you are making money using shareware (or want to try to), join up with a bunch of us at www.asp-shareware.org. The ASP is a non-profit organization created to help the little guy compete in the ever-growing shareware market. I sit on the Board of Directors there and it is a great organization for small programming shops - there is a lot of help to be had from their newsgroups and their resources.

Seems nice

edit: Btw do you use c# for it?

Karbon · Post by **Karbon** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 2:26 pm

I'm a structured programmer that finally "saw the light" of OOP. It isn't one-size-fits-all by any means but it is a great way to manage large sets of relational data.

PB should stay like it is IMHO, at least at the basic level. Trying to make PB fit into every scenario is like trying to make .NET do the same - it just won't work. PB has it's niche and it needs to hold on to it!

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 2:34 pm

ok.. i would just like a very small amount of oo

just basic things..

Karbon · Post by **Karbon** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 3:39 pm

To answer your new question, no, I've done the existing work in VB.NET. It's all the same at the byte code end so I'll likely stay with it. The syntax is very verbose but I'm used to BASIC like stuff, so it's easier for me.

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 4:17 pm

Karbon wrote:To answer your new question, no, I've done the existing work in VB.NET. It's all the same at the byte code end so I'll likely stay with it. The syntax is very verbose but I'm used to BASIC like stuff, so it's easier for me.

True in the end its all the same [except c++, as it can run as real compiled too, not using .net libs]..

Btw you said something about a tool, that could bind the required .net libs to the exe so it could run without the framework installed.. Can you give a name?

edit: and not thinstall. 5000$ per app or 10 000$ pr desktop is a bit too much. Besides it has been cracked i guess. Otherwise more people would use it. And every big app gets cracked..

Karbon · Post by **Karbon** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 5:35 pm

www.remotesoft.com but email him for single developer license prices (it's a lot less than the site advertises).

I have a license for Thinstall from before Jon lost his bloody mind with the feed. It's a great package if you can afford the insane price. I'm moving away from it since he discontinued my developer license.

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 5:38 pm

Okay.. Yes the price is insane!!
damn you could have a professional programmer develop a custom protection tool for that price..

Salamander .NET Linker/Mini-Deployment Tool
(5 developers)

450$, a much more sane price. However i dont need a tool very much im just playing around

but i was wondering if thinstall was the only too.

Karbon · Post by **Karbon** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 5:42 pm

The guy behind Remote Soft is a pretty nice guy. He certainly knows his stuff. He took me to school quite a few times about all things .NET while I was working out a discount for ASP members!

His tools work, too. It does add size to the executable, but the for kind of software I'm developing an extra 3-4 megs just doesn't matter.

His protector and obfuscator are the best on the market (Edwin, get these if you're worried about decompilation).

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 5:44 pm

Okay..and his prices are in the normal level

however doesnt these needed protections really draw off speed? I mean, if they have to work they have to disallow memory dumping with methods as only deprotecting small areas of the program at a time etc.

Karbon · Post by **Karbon** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 5:50 pm

As far as I know there isn't any significant speed tradeoff. At least no more so than you'd find with protection software for straight binaries. I could be wrong, but email RemoteSoft and ask - he was more than willing to talk to me when I emailed him.