To .NET or not to .NET

[Wilbert]

Please people, stick to discussing facts. If not I will close this thread.

@Dolemite
you do not act like a modorator is supposed to, instead of being factual and neutral you are spreading a lot fud. Your dislike to Microsoft totally blinds you to see actual facts. Most of your assumptions can just too easy be proved wrong. In many of your statements there is some kind of truth, it's just not right how you present them, many are totally wrong.
You can't say someone is spreading fud, without telling which statements you don't agree with and why. I suggest you do so when continuing with the discussion.

[stax76]

You can't say someone is spreading fud, without telling which statements you don't agree with and why. I suggest you do so when continuing with the discussion.


Neo Neko said things like bytecode is only needed because of cross platform which basically is wrong, I provided links to many benefits of MSIL and the meta data, there is even many more things. Neo Neko did not reply to this post.

Here is another example, I mean it's just to obvious:


But the chance that .net programs will ever run under mono is still slim to none. Because no matter how open the .net spec is in order to run MS Windows .net programs under mono you need more than mono. You need to completely replace and replicate closed or secret APIs to many many microsoft software such as DirectX, ActiveX, and the Windows API itself. Because on it's own .net can't do much of anything unlike Java.


when it's possible to run complex technologies like COM+ (DirectX for example) under Linux, why then shouldn't run large .NET applications, the .NET libs are getting better, less native calls are gonna be required. How many apps require special API's like DirectX? Implementing the classes like managed DirectX which are .NET wrappers is trivial in many cases like the managed DirectShow, this API is very basic and can easily be mapped to a equivalent like GStreamer, things like customizing filter graphs are not exposed by this API and only special multimedia applications use such stuff. Native stuff .NET wrapps does Mono wrapp as well with a equivalent. When you decompile a assembly you get everything except local variable names so you can see how it works, reverse engineering Win32 is probably 1000 times harder and the Wine team do a encredible job, I believe you can even run things like AviSynth in Wine. Managed apps shouldn't use native calls and already little to nothing are really required. If a clueless programmer hardcodes path seperators instead of using the .NET entities (yes .NET has everything for portability) than it's gonna be a crappy application anyway.


.Net brings little or nothing new or innovative to the table other than alot of hype and missinformation.


.NET has more than enough innovation, progress and benefits, things like attributes and reflection are reasons why .NET shines, such features lead to another and much better program architecture and besides that enable you to do things that are painfully or not possible without. This concept is used in .NET all over the place and in every serious .NET program

[lexor]

Originally posted by Doom9
@lexor: but I need the PC framework, not the compact framework (CF is for PDAs) ;)

Supported Operating Systems: Windows 2000, Windows 2000 Service Pack 2, Windows 2000 Service Pack 3, Windows 2000 Service Pack 4, Windows NT, Windows Server 2003, Windows XP

seems like for PC's to me. I doubt Server 2003 exists for PDA's.

[Doom9]

you have to develop .NET CF applications on a PC, but they run on a PDA, or a PDA emulator on the PC. Trust me, I've been using the .NET CF for my thesis so I know it quite well ;)

[jcsston]

Originally posted by Dolemite
.NET has more than enough innovation, progress and benefits, things like attributes and reflection are reasons why .NET shines, such features lead to another and much better program architecture and besides that enable you to do things that are painfully or not possible without. This concept is used in .NET all over the place and in every serious .NET program
Reflection isn't something new.
Java had it back in 1998 http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/ALT/Reflection/
Java also has attributes.

MS Attributes were introduced in MS VS.NET and can be used in native C++ as well as .NET.

I've developed a number of .NET applications, both personal and professional. It's not a bad framework in itself, it could be considered a rewritten version of Java ;). (even the class names are eerily similarly named).
The power to reuse code written in any language is not a breakthrough feature. It's more of a step up from C, COM, ActiveX, and COM+.

If a clueless programmer hardcodes path seperators instead of using the .NET entities (yes .NET has everything for portability) than it's gonna be a crappy application anyway.
.NET has everything for portability but, it's not cross-platform? :confused: