|
Jan Rodriguez wrote: i don't like that .NET thing.
Why not?
Jan Rodriguez wrote: I see no reason to use any of the "new programming" idea from ms
.NET is not a programming idea, it is a Framework.
BTW, with .NET you can develop any size of web, desktop and mobile applications in a fast and powerful fashion.
How much time would you need to write an enterprise web-app in classic ASP, PHP or even JSP? ASP.NET makes you save tons of time and thousands lines of code.
How much time would you need to write a dumb utility that batch renames a bunch of files in VC++? Forget all the GUI problems with MFC or whatever and focus on the business logic.
You could complain about performances, but on today's PCs .NET is fast enough to be used widely.
I love .NET, especially 2.0.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not a framework, it's a full system with no portable code and if you didn't notice it, has the biggest virtual machine ever built by man. Of course, ms has run a lot to include it attached to it's 'new' operating system. It may be made up of assemblies, but you have to install them all.
You say it's a way of focussing on the business logic, by allowing you to write code faster, but coding faster is normally not a good idea, and as programmer one should focus on programming not bussines logic.
Also i want to point out that maybe for a starter (being a bussines or an individual) it's a good way of grasping some programming concepts, or to make your personal c# address book, but nothing more. Who uses them? Adobe? Autodesk? Apple?, well, ms don't even use it to build it's SO apps.
As my last point i'll tell you a history, 9 years ago, a bussines started a really big project, some bussiness men felt that Visual Basic was the way to go, garbage collector, no memory leaks, not even those gui problems you mention on MFC and such. After many years of work, and many different people working on that project, ms decides to release VS7, they included a converter, which didn't work on big apps. And that's it, ms will eventually discontinue C# and the like some few years from now. Even if they don't, would you risk it all again, just because ms says the same things they said when VB was the way to go?
Take my advise, if you want to do serius programming things, use non-managed c++, if you want to play or to learn use .Net.
Regards.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan Rodriguez wrote: Who uses them? Adobe? Autodesk? Apple?
Actually AutoCAD uses .NET for software updates, at least in the 2005 release. NASA uses .NET for its World Wind, There is even a videogame written in C++/CLI (Netkar Pro). The London Stock Exchange runs on .NET and Windows Server 2003 (link[^]).
There are thousands web applications written in ASP.NET, in the Internet.
If Microsoft discontinues .NET, they lose a huge part of the marketshare. It would be a suicide.
My opinion is, BTW, that VB has not been discontinued, but it has been upgraded to VB.NET.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thats not really true.
There are more and more .net apps around. C# is used a lot in banking (replacing VB6 actually). An ex co-worker has recently worked in development for both MBNA and Barclays using C# in both places.
Its not just custom in-house stuff that is being done in C# either. The main (and industry standard) accounting package you can buy in the UK (Sage Accounts) is now using C#. Its premier retail product is entirely written in C#.
I would imagine its probably used in a lot more places than you realise.
Jon
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
so there's finally someone who shares my lack of ambition with all the (not that new) (.NET) hype. It's funny you mention VB, since all the .NET hype strongly reminded me of the same thing. The way MS is pushing .NET and people being eager to jump on the running train it becomes difficult to stand your ground against all the supporters of the new engine.
I'm afraid the time is drawing closer when I shall be forced to use .NET, but for now I am happy without it, focusing on the most basic programming elements.
Still, what I'm doing now is really independent of anything. As long as there's a simple C++ compiler for the machine, I'll get my code to run and even if something windows-specific has sneaked in somewhere, it'll take just about a day or so to port it.
I'll have to forget about that once I'm up to .NET.
I agree that finally there's even a .NET for Linux, but the support of that is even less guaranteed than the one of windows.
And then using a system on a system will certainly speed up your work, but only as long as you stay inside the bounds of both of these systems. On any other case work might become excruciatingly painful.
Just mho.
Regards,
Pelle.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan Rodriguez wrote: It's not a framework, it's a full system with no portable code and if you didn't notice it, has the biggest virtual machine ever built by man.
you are totally ignorant of what .net is, and therefore have made the decision you have based on heresay and conjecture.
what is a virtual machine? it is something that simulates or emulates hardware or other software, taking the place of one of those physical things. for .net to be considered a platform that runs on top of a "virtual machine" it would need a "virtual machine" I've been hard pressed to find that "virtual machine." ngen.exe perhaps?
if you consider .net a virtual machine, then mfc has to also fit into that category because it wraps the exact same libraries as .net does.
Jan Rodriguez wrote: ms don't even use it to build it's SO apps
have you crawled out from under that rock and taken a look at msdn lately? windows live? oh yea, you have no need for those things because what you're working on hasnt changed in the last 45 years.
Jan Rodriguez wrote: if you want to do serius programming things
I've done work with some of the largest systems integrators in the world, and guess what they're using??? I'll give you 3 guesses and the first 2 dont count.
again, decisions made on ignorance.
the reason programming technologies change is because hardware changes. if you want to be mr hard-core programmer, why arent you programming on punch cards? perhaps because hardware has changed and so have the technologies used to program them.
go ahead and stick to what you know... good luck in being marketable in your carreer.
|
|
|
|
|
It is the first time I interfere in such a debate. You made me excited to reply back.
"no portable code"
Portability is not as important as Sun is trying to market for, did you see how would a Java app look on Windows? or how slow it is?
"attached to it's 'new' operating system"
I would like to have access to every tiny feature of the operating system, I like cool GUIs and I like fast apps. What I don't like is writing a generic slow code that will cost me more time and run slower (not to mention unhappy boss).
MFC is better than VB! It produces fast code, but did you notice that its code is UNPORTABLE? Did you notice that it would take double the time VB would take? Did you notice that the world doesn't rotate arround developers and there are other parties that requires your project to finish fast even on the expense of the performance (today performance between MFC and .NET application is negligible)?
"And that's it, ms will eventually discontinue C# and the like some few years from now"
This would happen with any programming language, who is now programming business apps in Pascal? ASM? Fortran? BASIC? COBOL? console C++? SmallTalk?
Maybe the world will abandon the OO languages the same way it abandoned the procedural languages and move to a new progamming style, I think this would be the only way that C# will be replaced. And if this happens then you can update your knowledge and follow the new trend the same way I moved from MFC to VB then to C#  Isn't this why developers are highly paid?
Cheers
Make it simple, as simple as possible, but not simpler.
|
|
|
|
|
Forgive me sir, i was pointing my opinion. But look, i'm one of those crazy guys who is amazed by the WTL. I'm a multiple-inheritance-class yunkie freak, with some nasty experiences on trusting bussines-focused people. I build my own libraries (one work that never ends), i like using raw operating system access, i like it low, and i like it as high as c++ can be. The needs are always the same, what i don't understand is why people uses more and more bigger dependencies, feeding lots of somehow unnecessary code to the processor, yes, machines are pretty fast now, is that a valid excuse to make commands take double to process?
Well, you see? what doing things the WTL way makes of some programmers...
Regards.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan Rodriguez wrote: what i don't understand is why people uses more and more bigger dependencies
and yet:
Jan Rodriguez wrote: I build my own libraries (one work that never ends)
so, your frameworks are not dependencies? I seriously dont get that reasoning.
Jan Rodriguez wrote: i like using raw operating system access
kernel32 not raw enough for you?
in .net you can use system drivers, so I still dont understand your reasoning.
|
|
|
|
|
...so I voted generics and nullable types.
However, there are much more things in .NET 2.0 I'm using which are not listed in the poll, such as anonymous delegates, return yield, and lots of new WinForm controls such as TableLayoutPanel, SplitContainer, ToolStrips, MenuStrips, DataGridView, etc.
Regards
Thomas
Disclaimer:
Because of heavy processing requirements, we are currently using some of your unused brain capacity for backup processing. Please ignore any hallucinations, voices or unusual dreams you may experience. Please avoid concentration-intensive tasks until further notice. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
I've migrated a few things over to 2.0 (a major pain in the arse). most of our stuff here at work is asp.net so seeing as how they re-invented asp.net for 2.0, the cost of migration on that is too high.
and just when you get comfortable with a nice looking programming language, they come out w/ 3.0 (looks pretty darn cool IMO).
I cant wait to annoy the world w/ method extentions!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
MadHatter ¢ wrote: they re-invented asp.net for 2.0, the cost of migration on that is too high.
I agree on that. I have a (not much) old ASP.NET 1.1 application. The migration would require rewriting a lot of stuff, so it stays 1.1.
But for new applications, I really like ASP.NET 2.0, especially Master Pages.
|
|
|
|
|
non-asp migration is a pretty arduous task, but I'd say asp conversion is a total waste of time (may as well re-write it).
it seems like they looked at "what would be the hardest thing for people to change?" then they depricated it.
|
|
|
|
|
Dario Solera wrote: migration would require rewriting a lot of stuff, so it stays 1.1.
Well, I've migrated some ASP.NET 1.1 apps to 2.0.
The migration wizard ran smoothly, and the only problem were with special characters I've had with files that wasn't UTF8. However, that took notime to fix, and I gain access to the (a-lot) better tools that 2.0 languages has (Generics, anonymous delegates, ?? operator, etc.), the 2.0 Framework (Membership, ASP.NET Controls, better System.Xml, Dynamic Methods) and the VS2005 which is a lot better than VS2003.
|
|
|
|
|
our asp.net apps contain hundreds of thousands of lines of code, and there are 4 or 5 of them. We did an initial migration and after a couple of weeks dropped it.
there is the physical migration that vs.net does, but after that there are a ton of logical, and api level modifications that have to be done, and the logical ones create huge potential breaking changes to our apps, that again will cost too much to 1. implement 2. debug and 3. migrate to production.
|
|
|
|
|
I hear great thing's about 3.5 ohh wait 4.0 it much better, and 5.0.........
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generics
Master Pages
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
Generics, is obviously the most used and useful on the list but Master Pages are a godsend when having to write websites.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
