To .NET or not to .NET

[everwicked]

Hello everyone,

I was wondering if you would consider installing the .NET framework if an application requires it or if on the other hand you would hesitate from using the application because of that.

Always assuming the application serves your purpose and is not a buggy piece of crap.

Cheers

[stax76]

personally I don't care much what people use or don't want to use, I'm using the tools that I think are best

[stephanV]

for developers it is though... would be a pity if you developed a application which requires the .NET framework but nobody wants to install it.

[nikthebak]

.NET Framework is bliss for programmers, but a pain for the users.

Large download package, slow startup times, huge memory overhead and slow exection (in some cases) are still reality for VM-driven environments no matter what the JIT fanatics say. It might change with Windows Longhorn though, but that doesn't appear until 2006 or so...

I wonder if it's some kind of universal law: "The pleasure of the programmer is inversely proportional to the pleasure of the users." You can use Assembler to program lightning-fast apps with small executable size and memory usage, but it's really painful beyond all comprehension.

On the other hand, ASM apps are bound to overwrite the boot sector sooner or later, and the user might not appreciate that very much :)

The user would also like to have the app as soon as possible, whereas the programmer would like to spend years with it to tune it into absolute perfection.

[ppera2]

Originally posted by nikthebak
....
On the other hand, ASM apps are bound to overwrite the boot sector sooner or later, and the user might not appreciate that very much :)


Not at all. Especially not under Win, because low level disk operations will not execute. What you think why there is no more boot viruses?

Assembler is not so hard, but support for such programming is not good, not spread. Nobody cares about code size, about speed, about spending MB's of memory for every primitive porgramm.

[Doom9]

I recall some testing conducted by c't that showed that no programming language had significant advantages over another.. native or non native. C(++) isn't automatically faster. Today, unless you need to program something close to your hardware where you'd have to do a lot of marshalling to use the native APIs, speed really doesn't matter.

Especially in the digital TV area we have two good examples of programs using non native languages that are almost a must have: ProjectX and CutterMaran. And if you want to use either of them, you just have to download a runtime. There are still people having programs with certain C++ or VB programs I host as well.. they also rely on runtimes (just smaller ones.. but also harder to find). I hope MS dares to include the runtime in SP2, that would certainly help boost circulation.

[DDogg]

Dolemite (or other), why does the damn thing add a separate login to my XP machine and without asking? No wonder people are paranoid about it although I'm sure it is nothing. Still, at the least, it is very bad manners.

[ronnylov]

I got it after runnig windows update and uninstalled it because of the added user account. Later when I wanted to install Vegas Video 5 I had to install .net framework so I did. But I found some information how to automatically login into windows at startup so I don't see this login page in Windows XP anymore.

Heres how to do it:
http://www.mvps.org/marksxp/WindowsXP/welskip.php

[ronnylov]

Originally posted by DDogg
Dolemite (or other), why does the damn thing add a separate login to my XP machine and without asking? No wonder people are paranoid about it although I'm sure it is nothing. Still, at the least, it is very bad manners.

Look here: http://www.mvps.org/marksxp/WindowsXP/aspdot.php

[sysKin]

Originally posted by ronnylov
Look here: http://www.mvps.org/marksxp/WindowsXP/aspdot.php
Ah, this is exactly what I hate about .net: takes over your computer, does some unusual and unexplainable stuff to it, integrates itself with the operating system.

And does all that to support some extra framework, built on top of .net framework, and needed by IIS web server. You didn't want any of that but who cares.

I feel so safe installing Sun's java, for example...

[stax76]

Large download package, slow startup times, huge memory overhead and slow exection (in some cases) are still reality for VM-driven environments no matter what the JIT fanatics say. It might change with Windows Longhorn though, but that doesn't appear until 2006 or so...


large download packages is actually a pro argument because compresses IL is significantly smaller than pretty much everything else. Large memory overhead is true of course, the only thing you can do is buy ram. A normal .NET application takes probably 20 - 30 MB. Startup time could be improved with ngen.exe which does AOF (ahead of time) compilation (WinForms are compiled that way) but you will always notice a difference between highly optimized native code, especially the JIT is noticeable although it's rather fast. More important however are the programming skills, a good C# coder can write faster code than a bad C++ coder. My Firefox (C++) often starts very slow (as usual it's because hard drive access I think). The menu also could be faster, there are worlds between the highly optimized Microsoft code. Performance critical things like applications that should start really fast because they are likely to be started several times a day should rather be done with native code imho

[Neo Neko]

Installing .net to use an aplication is a rather large barrier for me. It would keep me from casual downloading and testing. In other words it would have to be a program I found near essential before I got it. Java OTOH I install on every new system. But that is just me.

[P0l1m0rph1c]

Originally posted by ppera2
Not at all. Especially not under Win, because low level disk operations will not execute. What you think why there is no more boot viruses?

Assembler is not so hard, but support for such programming is not good, not spread. Nobody cares about code size, about speed, about spending MB's of memory for every primitive porgramm.

I fully agree. ASM coding, for win32 is not hard, no matter what people say, and you've got small memory overhead.

But it seems no one cares about that now anyway.....

About .NET, i won't install it to run another app. I'd rather get an alternative app that doesn't use that crap.

[SeeMoreDigital]

I installed it when I wanted to give Dolemite's DVX a try.

As far as I can tell it has not caused a problems at all. The only pain was the 'Log-In' window at start-up but a cure for this was soon found - as ronnylov already posted.

My earlier reservations and fears seem to be totally unfounded... I'm quite happy.


Cheers

[Doobie]

Originally posted by ppera2 Assembler is not so hard, but support for such programming is not good, not spread. Nobody cares about code size, about speed, about spending MB's of memory for every primitive porgramm.

In some respects, Assembly is very easy. It's the most straight forward. And, it's almost automatically faster, smaller, and tighter than any other programming. However, modern CPUs are not designed for hand assembly but are optimized for compilers. Likewise, the Windows environment is not assembly friendly.

When I took a C programming class, I was a bit surprised that the professor had absolutely zero concern for the speed of execution of our programs. Given the speed of modern computers and the small size of student projects, speed wasn't an issue in and of itself, but I would still expect a professor to be concerned with program preformance and efficiency because on bigger projects, speed is still an issue and probably will always be.

[Pyscrow]

I wont install "dot net" because I see it as just another "flash in the pan", as a programmer I will not limit my apps to only run on "dot net", at least at this stage, as the user base is so small. Many many of my customers still run win95 machines (I write industrial apps), so amybe if it is still around in another 10 years:p

[stax76]

it will be around in ten years, .NET is the evolution of windows programming. First there were a C style API, then came COM+ and then .NET. The WinAPI is a mix of a C style API and COM+, the older parts are C style and the newer parts COM+. The primary API of the next windows version is .NET, the only reason why there will be still Win32 is backward compatibility. Because of this all mainstream languages were .NET enabled (VB, C++ and Delphi are .NET enabled now). Once a API is introduced it cannot be removed afterwards. Only thing can happen is that a additional and better API get's introduced. Linux is pretty much the same, it's called, Corba/Bonoba/KParts and Mono or DotGNU. You can go on with your tools as long as wish of course or as your business requires it.

[wmansir]

I installed .NET long ago and have had few problems with it since.

I can understand the annoyance of having a new user created, but it is a valid security need. Just look at a unix \etc\passwd file and be thankful you only have 1 extra user. Still, it would be nice if the extra user could be handled more gracefully and hidden from the regular users.

[everwicked]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Installing .net to use an aplication is a rather large barrier for me. It would keep me from casual downloading and testing. In other words it would have to be a program I found near essential before I got it. Java OTOH I install on every new system. But that is just me.

I hate concur here and say that Java is my first option as well.

The reason I chose .NET instead is that it can be accessed from any language so I can mix managed and unmanaged code. In other words, I don't have to worry about the overheads and all so much since I only access some of their libraries and not so much the runtime itself (garbage collection etc). Java lacks the easy linking with C/C++.

I think it is a bliss to be able to have the speed of C++ and flexibility/easiness of Object-Oriented APIs provided by .NET libs. In my example, VQ Studio would not suffer a performance decrease but I could add tens of features related to the user interface in hours instead of days as with the Win32 API. I know some people love Win32 but I'm an OO person myself.

In conclusion, I would have to say that people should be a little more open minded in a way:
- Yes managed code adds overhead but you can mix it with unmanaged code to minimise it to insignificant levels
- .NET is not so evil, it's just a number of COM interfaces wrapped in IDL. Nowadays there are competitors anyway (Mono & dotGNU) so that should keep MS on their toes
- It will be part of Windows anyways soon (and I do think it's included with SP2 although I am not sure)

[Emp3r0r]

It will be part of Windows anyways soon (and I do think it's included with SP2 although I am not sure)Actually, I thought that .NET 1.0 was already included with XP SP1 which means most people running XP already have .NET wether they like it or not.

Also, if you are running Windows Server 2003 then you have .NET 1.1

[Tuesday]

Not entirely understanding what it was for, other than being required to use the latest version of a certain mp3 tag editor i had been using for a while i foolishly installed .net.

I can't say its been a huge problem, other than that every single .net program i run wants me to re-install my webcam the first time i run them after startup :S which i find very strange

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Emp3r0r
Actually, I thought that .NET 1.0 was already included with XP SP1 which means most people running XP already have .NET wether they like it or not.

SP2 we will have to see. But it is definatly not installed with Service Pack 1.

Originally posted by Tuesday
Not entirely understanding what it was for, other than being required to use the latest version of a certain mp3 tag editor i had been using for a while i foolishly installed .net.

I can't say its been a huge problem, other than that every single .net program i run wants me to re-install my webcam the first time i run them after startup :S which i find very strange

In case you did not know Microsoft hates Java. They did their damnedest to destroy it on the Microsoft Windows platform. And keep their users ignorant or otherwise disgruntled with Java till Microsoft corporate officers could get their head around what this "Java" thing was. Almost 10 years of Microsoft software opression later Microsoft Java is released. Only they call it dot net. They claim like Sun's Java that it will allow you to write code once and use it on any platform. But here's the real kicker! Unlike Sun; Microsoft is only going to support Microsoft Windows platforms. So in escence Microsoft is lying through their toothy smiles again. MS business practice number one. Hide your forked tounge behind a huge knowing grin. The saving grace for Microsoft is that the .net specification is rather open. An IEEE standard IIRC that they established. The damning thing for MS is that they themselves don't follow their open specification and break it in small but cripling ways for their competitors. MS business practice number two. Claim openness, promise interoperability, then make sure to sabatoge it however you can for your competitors. So even though projects like Mono exist and are at 1.0 don't expect dot net programs written on/for MS Windows to run smoothly or at all. Or ever for that matter. Our only hope is the fact that anyone can write anything better than Microsoft. There are especially tallented people in the opensource and Mono communities who might just be able to clear every hurdle Microsoft has or will place in their path. But Microsoft has contingiencies for just that event! They have all sorts of copyrights and many more fradulent pattents that they can use to threaten those who dare pose competition or worse yet actual innovation against them. So Mono is on rather thin ice as things stand. The last thing Microsoft want's is someone to rescue their kidnaped child and make better on the promises that MS has made than MS themself. But lucky Mono has Novell on their side kinda like IBM has been to Linux.

So if you are a developer and dot net makes more sense try to go mono (http://mono2.ximian.com/archive/1.0/windows/mono-1.0-win32-1.exe) before you go MS. And if you go MS at least try to test in Mono to make sure your program complies with the standards that Microsoft set forth and is not broken by the things Microsoft has sabotaged. :devil: Your users will thank you and you will have more of them to thank you. :D Even if your program is not opensource use opensource and respect it. You will acomplish great things. So while I doubt I will ever install dot net I think I will give mono a try. ;)

[McoreD]

In my case, I never installed .NET Framework just to get a small application to work. Actually I install .NET Framework soon after installing Windows XP as I treat it as a part of Windows.

Although .NET Framwework did not ship with Windows XP, it comes with Windows Server 2003 and all the future Windows versions will included .NET Framwork 2.0 or higher. From there on everybody will just threat it as a part of Windows.

[Joe999]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
So even though projects like Mono exist and are at 1.0 don't expect dot net programs written on/for MS Windows to run smoothly or at all.

That's one of my beefs with .NET. It seems to have received the same reputation as Java for being totally crossplatform, but not even counting the mess of the windows.forms there often seems to be so much windows specific code in any .NET program made for windows that there's not a chance it'd run on anything else. When mono hit 1.0 I thought it'd be fun to give it a test run, and every program I was interested in was tied up with DirectX. Understandable of course, it's the multimedia standard for Windows - but still unfourtunate in terms of hopes for crossplatform compatability.

I will say though, that I'm thrilled about .NET just because it seems to have woken sun up to a lot of the problems that java had on the desktop. I think I've seen more movement from them on that front the past year than I did in the three before that combined. I always liked the idea of java, but wasn't thrilled with the actual implementation. With the shared class libs, speedier swing, looking glass, opengl accleration in linux, and swt from ibm I'm actually starting to get hopeful for its future again. Kind of a good reminder that compition is good no matter where it's coming from.

[stax76]

@Neo Neko

Occasionally you fail to understand parts of Microsoft's strategy because you don't know the technical background. If you really want to understand the strategy behind .NET you need to program .NET or a free implementation of .NET. Same goes for any other platform and software in general. Don't believe every fud people write at site like OSNews or even worse on Slashdot and rather go and test it yourself.

[Doom9]

I thought Windows forms as well as ASP.NET were Microsoft specific additions to the standard CLR. Despite that, the mono guys are already working hard on implementing those additional features.. I think asp.net is already in and windows forms will come in release 1.1. And mono 1.0 even implements certain .net 2.0 features already.. until a few days ago it was the only working implementation for certain features that will be introduced in the next version of the .NET runtime.

As for Java.. unlike what you might think (and I do love Java.. it's been the first OO language I learned and I still use it for many things), Java isn't as cross platform. Forget about MS feeble attempts to muddy the water. The company I work for is currently implementing a voice guided banking service. We have a subcontractor that delivers a voice portal, and the application is mostly written in Java. The bank's business layer is written in Java as well, but they use a special IBM java runtime.. as it so happens this is incompatible with the standard sun runtime which our subcontractor uses... Also, a lot of management software tools that comes with our hardware (telephony, computer management), uses Java, but is locked in to a specific JRE version. Sometimes you manage to use an up-to-date version, but many times you don't, so you have to install multiple JREs on the same machine and switch between them in order to get all your software working. So much about write once run anywhere.
Plus, Java isn't really as open as you might think. Sun still has it thightly under control.. you just have to read the latest news surrounding the Java One conference. In many ways it's probably easier to write a .NET CLR runtime for an alternative platform (like mono.. there's also an alternative runtime for PDAs), whereas I think you'd have to buy a license to do the same with Java.

Now as I said, I love Java, but that shouldn't blind you from the truth that not all is gold in javaland.

Also, many C++ GUI programs today use MFC. That's also an additional library you have to install, and in the early days, its size and the fact that it was not installed on most computers, did matter. Yet, MFC greatly improves the way you can write applications for Windows so it eventually became accepted. But even today, I had to ship about 1MB (or 1.5, I don't remember) of up-to-date runtimes because the computers I wanted to install my software on did only have an old version of MFC.
The same also goes for Visual Basic. VB is the most widely used language to write programs for the Windows platform. Yet, it requires rather large runtimes (larger than MFC), and initially this was a big issue, as with 14400baud modems, downloading a couple MBs isn't so much fun. And even today if you have a modern WinXP installation, there's no guarantee you don't have to download a runtime to get your VB apps working. In the early VB days, having to install a runtime was just as much of an issue as installing the .NET runtime today.. perhaps it even was more of an issue as the .NET runtime is already on Windowsupdate and you'll probably find it on 20 magazine CDs you have stacked away somewhere.

Unless you're willing to write native Win32 API code (and that API is really ugly and a major pain in the ass to work with if you ask me), you pretty much have to rely on some runtime somewhere. So as long as your app is good enough, people will install what's required to run it. Sure, some will complain, but nobody is ever perfectly happy ;)

[everwicked]

I don't know exactly the details of your project but the different JREs should be interoperable, as far as I have gone.. Also tying a product to a JRE is rather a problem of the company that makes it, not the programmer/language. I know that it eventually becomes the programmer's problem but my point is that it's a bad choice by the company.

Towards Neo Neko's statements I'd have to say that it would be much better if any of them were justified. I don't mean to flame or anything but being new to .NET I would have to read some proof on what he said.


I managed after a lot of trouble to check out Mono's webpage. It looks like it's unreachable from here at the moment. If I understood correctly (I couldnt browse all pages) it only supports C#, ASP and ADO which are totally uninteresting to me, I love my C++ :)

[stax76]

If I understood correctly (I couldnt browse all pages) it only supports C#, ASP and ADO which are totally uninteresting to me, I love my C++


it's because implementing C++ compiler for .NET is not a trivial task. Most of the time it's used for interop with native code, you would do better if you use a more appropriate language like VB .NET or C# for the rest if you want to target the .NET platform. Of course you should also consider P/Invoke for the interop, most of the time somebody defined the functions and interfaces already, you can either use google groups to find 'em or google or use tools that generate the interop code like tlbimp, writing the code self from the IDL is also not hard. Decompiling with Reflector is also great to get interop code. Why not use C#, beta with support for generics and anonymous methods is available already for free from both, Microsoft and the Mono team, ain't that great?

[unmei]

I voted i would consider it. But it actually it's more like "i will not refuse to install a new windows just to stay without it", because as of now i cannot think of an application i could possibly like that uses .net. If a large amount of essential software becomes .net i would have to accept it, but i think the probability of those applications i consider essential becoming .net in the near future is close to zero.

What bothers me about .net is not the size or the possible slowness - these are java problems as well. For example on this comp java programs are more or less unusable because they are so slow, i hate it, but then again i can run these on the faster comp. Nevertheless i installed java SDK 1.5 beta two days ago - it hits only 270MB (!!)(it says SDK+JRE in the add/remove programs but i only ran one installer). We learn a lot with java in my school and in the beginning i always thought of it as a toy, but at last when i installed Eclipse i was convinced even a java program can be made decent.

What bothers me about .net is M$ trying to take over even more of my computer. That's probably why i like java more already from looking at it: there is a M$ layer and a Sun layer and the IDE is by IBM ..on contrary with .net its all M$, like the programmer and user are totally at M$'s mercy. This is bad with any company but with M$ it's _really_ bad.

[jcsston]

I never really have been fond of .NET because it claims to be a cross-platform API. Write once, run everywhere (as with Java).

Now think for a minute, Why in the world would MS want people to use other platforms?
Why would the largest OS company in the world tell developers to develop for non-Windows platforms?
That's like opening a gas station and saying on the pump that the cheaper station across the street is just as good.

The only reasons I can think of is what Neo Neko pointed out,
1) It's not really cross-platform, The amount of Windows dependent API is laughable.
2) Copyrights and Patents, I really wonder how long MS will allow the Mono project to continue.

Of course the fact it uses VM isn't a point, If I wanted something that would 'Write once, run everywhere'. I'd use tried and true solution that has worked for years. C/C++.

If I only wanted to compile it once, I'd take Java. Even though Java may seem less open than .NET, I don't worry about Sun's motives as much as I would worry about MS's.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Dolemite
@Neo Neko

Occasionally you fail to understand parts of Microsoft's strategy because you don't know the technical background.

Are you sure? In what way am I misunderstanding? I am all rather familliar with the technical background. Which typically is copy inovation, break compatability, then market the original out of existance.

Originally posted by Dolemite
If you really want to understand the strategy behind .NET you need to program .NET or a free implementation of .NET. Same goes for any other platform and software in general.

I have programed in X86 Assembler, 8 different Basic varriations including VB, Perl, C, Python, Pascal, Delphi/Objective Pascal, Java, Fortran, C# and other parts of .net, and many many lesser known languages some which were just flashes in the pan. I can tell you that assembler is great for low level stuff when you know what you are doing and have a need for speed. But anything more than "hello world" and you are talking some major time invested. Basic is great for writing simple aplications fast, but lacks more powerfull constructs and libraries other languages have. That and in the case of VB the binaries are hardly self contained and leave something to be desired for speed in all incarnations. Perl is highly cross platform and when it comes to manipulationg text the Practical Extraction and Report Language lives up to its name and flies. If I am manipulating text data or pattern matching in text Perl and it's regexp implementation is usually my first choice. Python is cross platform as well, but it has an interopperability with other languages that put other languages to shame including C#. Pascal was simpler than C though not quite as crossplatform as C. But it produced binaries just as fast for it's day. Delphi and it's Linux component Kylix both of which I have are quite good at developing rather powerfull and intuitive programs fast. But Delphi has been lacking in non-linux/windows support. Java is truly cross platform with a ritch set of libraries to complement it for every platform. And the only popular byte code language ATM where you can write and compile GUI programs that will run just about everywhere. The only con to Java is that it's connectivity to other languages is a bit lacking due to Sun's past lack of initiative. Fortran....... What can I say about fortran? It was better at handling large numbers back in the day. It was also simpler to prototype some mathematicall functions in than other languages since that was it's primary focus; mathematics. Apart from that I don't miss fortran. C# Adopts a C/C++ similar syntax much like Java only incompatable in many areas. It is billed as a cross platform bytecode language but relies on massive ammounts of code and libraries only present on MS Windos systems. But for all the numerous cons of straight .net [and there are way more than pros] It does have a single pro. It has better interoperability with a few languages than it's bytecode competitor from which it was coppied.

So Dolemite I don't think I misunderstand the strategy as you imply. I simply have a different insight. Correct me if I am wrong. But you program for Windows correct? If that is all you ever plan to do then .net is a little bit of ok. But if you ever plan to use .net for it's cross platform compatability you are going to be sorely disappointed if you are writing anything more than a CLI hello world program. .Net's cross platform compatability is a joke. And it is like that on purpose. .Net brings little or nothing new or innovative to the table other than alot of hype and missinformation. But it does work ok under Windows. Not much better than Java. But just ever so slightly better under Windows.

Originally posted by Dolemite
Don't believe every fud people write at site like OSNews or even worse on Slashdot and rather go and test it yourself.

Frankly I don't read OSNews. And I read slashdot for entertainment not specifically education. It tends to be more entertaining than educational. But still slashdot is an awesome starting point linking to the best tech and other stories on the net. Even if the slashdot poster misses the gist of the discussed article entirely and most of the coments barely deserve rimshots or groans. Slashdot is still an invaluable resource. Through it I found Groklaw which though clearly biased is actually one of the best least biased sources you can find for the SCOX/Linux or AdTI/Linux discussions. And from there I found Grokline which is truly a great project with some very noteable people contributing to it. Never believe everything you read, see, or hear. Always look beyond. But don't take something at face value and ignore it.

[everwicked]

Originally posted by Dolemite
Why not use C#, beta with support for generics and anonymous methods is available already for free from both, Microsoft and the Mono team, ain't that great?

Not quite. I dislike C#, I like boost to manage my pointers for me when I need to :angry:

I am glad to see there are very few people that wouldnt install .NET for anything. And to be honest I'm not so much worried about .NET being cross platform. If I needed that I would use Java. I just like OO programming.

[stax76]

I don't believe in the poll result anyway, if Microsoft would decide to reimplement MS Office in .NET and give it away for free or reimplement Media Player and Internet Explorer in .NET and include access to free porn, free music, movies or whatever else people like, guess how the result would look like? I'm pretty sure every year the result would look significantly different, .NET becoming much more popular every year to the point where it's a part of Windows like DirectX is. When I think back when I've announced the release of my first .NET application here when .NET still was very young, I my God :scared:

[Sirber]

Better dev in Delphi CLX. Run in both windows and linux :D

[unmei]

if Microsoft would decide to reimplement MS Office in .NET and give it away for free or reimplement Media Player and Internet Explorer in .NET

hah! To me it doesnt matter what language the most obsolete software uses:)

.NET becoming much more popular every year to the point where it's a part of Windows

Or the other direction, M$ making .NET part of windows could cause a lot of people to write their before OK software now in .NET :(

like DirectX is

DirectX in .NET is a terrible thought :scared: Even thought i haven't yet written any filter for it, it were in my long term plans to do so at some point.

[dragongodz]

a couple of things.

downloading the .net runtime on 56k modem is not at all similar to vb runtimes on 14k modems was. vb runtimes were something like 500-600k and took 5 minutes to download. .net runtime takes a wee tad longer than that. :)
oh and i still didnt install the vb runtimes until i absolutly had to.

also the fact is that version 1.0 of the .net runtimes were bugged P.O.S. that screwed up other programs that didnt even uyse it. 2 examples i know for sure are DVDx and xmpeg. DVDx's time slider suddenly wouldnt work properly until the runtime was removed. that puts a bad taste in peoples mouth and rightly so. no i havent heard of any more problems since version 1.1 but first impressions(especially bad ones) can make a difference yo peoples opinion and trust.

so my personal opinion is that i will not install it unless it is required by a program that i absolutly must use to ahich there is no reasonable alternative. :D

[ppera2]

Does anybody here see similarity between dinosaurs and nowadays software?

I'm getting sick when see that some primitive programm is over 1 MB and uses even more RAM to work. Plus runtimes...

I'm afraid that people forgot basic principles of programming.

Can someone tell here 3 ground elements of programm?

[lexor]

I don't really see a size issue with 12MB framework (.NET Framework Lite, offered by MS, for end users, not the full one that has copilers for all supported languages for developers) Mozilla is also 12MB, people download it no problem. And when MS start shipping it with windows, people would just accept it as given, and not bother thinking about it. Since, unlike Java, it doesn't have an icon popping up in the task bar, no one would even see it run.

As for the cross-platform compatibility, I'm not overly concerned and I really don't see why it should be MS business, the fact that Mono exists means it's open enough for someone else to do it, so if Lunux, Mac OSX folks want it for some reason, they can make their own implementation.

[ppera2]

Originally posted by lexor

As for the cross-platform compatibility, I'm not overly concerned and I really don't see why it should be MS business, the fact that Mono exists means it's open enough for someone else to do it, so if Lunux, Mac OSX folks want it for some reason, they can make their own implementation.

I'm very suspicious in that - that anyone will try to make it's own implementation for other OS.
Remember what Avery Lee wrote about M$'s documentation...

[lexor]

Originally posted by ppera2
I'm very suspicious in that - that anyone will try to make it's own implementation for other OS.
Remember what Avery Lee wrote about M$'s documentation...

I don't know what he wrote, but what is Mono then (and why is Novell behind it?), but I do believe that MS shouldn't make .Net Framework for any other platform, if someone else whats it they can make it. Otherwise we gonna have Sun and God knows who else (in addition to all the open source supporters) screeming that MS replacing Java and a bunch of other things and furthers it's control over other platforms by using closed-source tech.

If it doesn't do that, but instead will concentrate on getting it right on Windows only, it will catch up first with dev's then with end-users. So if some other platfrom wants a piece of the action they would have to provide something decent a.k.a Mono on steroids. And if .Net fails then it will only fail on Windows platform and not contaminate any other, where dev's might want to create something, and end up loosing big because Framework failed as a concept and not their own projet.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by lexor
Since, unlike Java, it doesn't have an icon popping up in the task bar, no one would even see it run.

Java does not have to pop up in the task bar. It's not like there is some law that forces sun to do so. THey did it in the interests of being more transparent and user friendly. Have you ever had to terminate a .net session run amok? You have to go to the task manager which many users don't know exists. Guess how you terminate a java session amok? Right click on the system tray icon and say close/exit.

Originally posted by lexor
As for the cross-platform compatibility, I'm not overly concerned and I really don't see why it should be MS business, the fact that Mono exists means it's open enough for someone else to do it, so if Lunux, Mac OSX folks want it for some reason, they can make their own implementation.

If it should not be MS business then why was/is it Sun's buisines to do so with Java? Shouldn't Microsoft be the company responsible for developing MS Word for Linux and not someone else? It is their product after all. And you completely miss the point where portability is concerned. Sure the specs are open. And Mono basically perfectly covers those specs. 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. ;)

[stax76]

"But the chance that .net programs will ever run under mono is still slim to none."

Slim to none is my knowledge about Java and that's exactly the reason why I don't criticise it.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by lexor
...but I do believe that MS shouldn't make .Net Framework for any other platform, if someone else whats it they can make it. Otherwise we gonna have Sun and God knows who else (in addition to all the open source supporters) screeming that MS replacing Java and a bunch of other things and furthers it's control over other platforms by using closed-source tech.

Open source is not about replacing closed source. There are times when closed source makes sense and vice versa. And MS does not exert control over other platforms by supporting them. They exert control over other platforms by not supporting them and spreading fud about them. If MS developed .net for every platform Sun would only have themselves to complain about and you would see opensource communities embracing .net more. [Everyone would benefit from increased competition] The reason Microsoft created .net is so they can exclude others while still appearing open and not get sued by Sun for valid breach of contract. Microsoft does not want to compete with Java. They know they can't. So they just want to make Java irrelevant and suppress their user base.

Originally posted by lexor
If it doesn't do that, but instead will concentrate on getting it right on Windows only, it will catch up first with dev's then with end-users.

Shouldn't they first focus on getting MS Windows right before they get anything for MS Windows right? And seeing as they can't get MS Windows right can they get anything else? ;)

Originally posted by lexor
So if some other platfrom wants a piece of the action they would have to provide something decent a.k.a Mono on steroids. And if .Net fails then it will only fail on Windows platform and not contaminate any other, where dev's might want to create something, and end up loosing big because Framework failed as a concept and not their own projet.

By limiting .net to MS Windows only; Microsoft is actually risking .net death much more than if it were on multiple platforms. It may exist in MS Windows forever. But if MS Windows keeps becomming less and less relevant then so will .net. If .net were everywhere then the person in the future to out Microsoft Microsoft could not kill off .net or reduce it's usage.

Also a word on contamination. I think Microsoft would agree with you on your usage of the term. But the rest of the world would call it choice and not contamination. :D That includes opensource geeks. :p

[lexor]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Open source is not about replacing closed source.

Now THAT is a classic, it's like Linus Tordvalds saying Linux is not political :D (he sounded like Einstein, while working on Manhattan project) puts a warm grin on my face. (and I'm not being sarcastic/sardonic/etc.)

As for the icon, I merely refered to transparency of applications to the end user, not functionality of the menu attached to the icon.

With rising pressure from alternatives, which are becoming if they aren't already a formidable force, MS is trying their best to improve Windows as it is, imho. .Net's situation doesn't change much in that department.

And limiting to Windows won't impare growth, since MS can avoid the cross platform compatibility issues (don't start me on Java and OSX, I had to do it once, and never again will I) and Windows has enough installed base to prove the concept of .Net to be either worthy or not. Limiting to Windows will reduce time for MS to refine it, and if it does turn out to be good it's much easier to port a final, refined, version then constantly change the code for every platform during the development stage.

Since I don't see Linux/OSX and the rest of *nix clones, craving for .Net I also see no harm of depriving them of it while it's under development. And yes it is under development and not till Longhorn did MS promise it's full functionality.

[Doom9]

@lexor: do you have a link for the lite framework? I'm currently deploying a .NET app and I don't see a reason to install compilers and SDKs on user boxes (likewise I only install the JRE for JAVA apps but most people around here already have a bunch of Java apps installed so JRE installation is a non issue).

[lexor]

.Net Framework 2 is in beta now, so only 1 has Lite version:

.NET Compact Framework 1.0 SP2 Redistributable (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=359EA6DA-FC5D-41CC-AC04-7BB50A134556&displaylang=en)

.NET Compact Framework 1.0 SP2 Developer Redistributable (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=10600643-09B3-46D8-BA28-BC494BC20D26&displaylang=en)

the second is smaller, but it requires VS.Net to be installed (well that's why it's for dev's) and SP2 is just a compatibility, not requirement.

[stax76]

@Neo Neko

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. Maybe you should stop reading slashdot for some time and read at OSNews, MSDN (you know about Sun Tzu? Miguel and Bill probably do;) and Mono occasionally. You should realize then things are a little bit different.

[Doom9]

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

@all: I think it's time to drop the subject, no good has come out of this discussion. The fronts are too hardened. It's funny though that everybody here that has actually tried .NET for windows development kinda liked it ;) Before I tried, I was very sceptical towards the whole idea as well. But I never liked installing a big JRE either, even though I never had any reason to dislike Java.

[dragongodz]

instead of being factual and neutral you are spreading a lot fud. Your dislike to Microsoft totally blinds you to see actual facts.
Dolemite the same could be said of you(to be fair). you have been praising .net for a long time and wouldnt hear anything bad about it.

i have already said why the first release has given a bad impression and why that bad experience will taint some peoples opinions, including mine. :)

Maybe you should stop reading slashdot for some time and read at OSNews, MSDN and Mono occasionally. You should realize then things are a little bit different.
and throwing blatant insults reflects badly on yourself more than the person you are insulting. not a good way to make a point.

I think it's time to drop the subject, no good has come out of this discussion.
i agree. facts about .net and/or runtimes have been ignored by both sides of the argument. i cant see that changing unfotunatly.

[stax76]

instead of being factual and neutral you are spreading a lot fud. Your dislike to Microsoft totally blinds you to see actual facts.

Dolemite the same could be said of you(to be fair). you have been praising .net for a long time and wouldnt hear anything bad about it.


so which of my statements are fud and which facts did I skip? I know the .NET architecture and the reasons why it was designed the way it is quite good you know


and throwing blatant insults reflects badly on yourself more than the person you are insulting. not a good way to make a point.


well, he said that he is reading slashdot, I doubt that's a good address to learn about Mono and .NET