|
... that what the industry needs is cross platform solutions, not cross language. I see dot.NET as having a high lock-in factor. That is great for Microsoft, but is it great for me?
|
|
|
|
|
... which is why they are doing it. Lock in = great for them.
Christian
The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda.
To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
|
|
|
|
|
So... are you saying if you use Java you are not locked into Sun???????
|
|
|
|
|
You're not locked into Solaris, if that's what you mean ( I hate Java BTW, for largely the same rationale that I dislike the idea of C#. CLR = VM = extra step to slow down my code )
Christian
The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda.
To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
|
|
|
|
|
Sure! In all fairness, it's way to early to make a call on this one... lets wait and see.
|
|
|
|
|
Guys: Java is slow, C Sharp and dotNET are not. Have you tried a FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) using Java, C Sharp and C++? Try it, you'll be surprised 
|
|
|
|
|
I mean, .NET is huge... 
I spend 95% of my time writing NT Services and COM Objects (used from ASP) in C++. Vhen they release VS.NET i'm moving my current projects from VC 6 to VC 7, but this is not "Using .NET", because I'm not going to use "Managed C++"...
A lot of people thinks that (.NET == C#), but .NET is also all the other languages.
When you guys say you want to use .NET, what is it you wanna use?
Web development?
Do you want to code your GUI apps. in C# using Winforms?
Maybe even code server-side apps using code that needs the .NET runtime? (arghhhhh) 
I'm really looking forward to see what the web-guys, that I work with, can do with / thinks about .NET, but I don't think I'm going to use either C#, VB.NET or Managed C++ to write "Lean Mean Serverside Stuff".
I can't wait to get my hands on the final release of VS.NET (VS 7.0 (I actually like this name better)), but that's because I hope for some improvements in VC. 
- Anders
|
|
|
|
|
Have you ever tried Borland C++ Builder 5 ?
|
|
|
|
|
Yea, and I have also used Delphi from version 1 to 4...
IMHO the VCL is way too buggy.
- Anders
|
|
|
|
|
I may use .NET to write regular applications, but what I really like writing is DirectX stuff. I'm not sure .NET will be able to run fast enough for graphics programs, even with the JIT compiler. There are also some programs that just don't need the features of .NET. For instance, I'm writing a small text interpreter. There's no way I would write that using .NET, it'd just take too much time. On the other hand, if I was writing a full IDE or something similar I would consider it.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree totally and have been raising this for a while. NO graphics text uses MFC due to speed concerns, and yet people tell me a CLR will be fine ?
Christian
The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda.
To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
|
|
|
|
|
Deer Hunter was written using MFC... oh wait, bad example 
|
|
|
|
|
Is it really such a bad example???
Now it might have been shite to you and me (and probably everyone else that will ever read this), but it was one of the most COMMERCIAL SUCCESSFUL GAMES EVER.
I think that us, as developers, have to look out of our ivory tower down into the gritty reality of the world sometimes. It's ugly, but its REAL.
Have fun,
Paul Westcott.
|
|
|
|
|
I worked on a project that used the Deer Hunter 2 engine; it was really, REALLY bad. MFC is a great tool for putting an Office clone together, but not for game development. I wish I could post a code snippet from the engine to demonstrate.
I will say one thing for Sunstorm though, Deer Hunter was constructed in under three months for about $50k -- that's outstanding for any commercial product, let along a game. And when you consider the number of units they moved, it's all the more impressive.
|
|
|
|
|
=)
I have no doubt it was awful given that time frame!
But (I think!) that's my point. Even though the game was doing all sorts of things that we would consider as being "bad" (ie. very inefficent, slapped together code, etc.) those things don't REALLY matter in a lot of cases (obviously not all cases). Efficently just DOESN'T MATTER for most things (I would have cried hearing these words a year ago).
So anything that helps you "slap together" code faster (ie. get rid of pointers, have garbage collection, ...) then this is "GOOD".
I know this is heretical in many sences. But there just aren't enough people out there who care (? love ?) enough about code for an "uncripple" language (such as c++).
Anyway, you've got to remember "Green Eggs and Ham". (The good doctor was always full of good advice, just because people thought he was (must have been) on acid half the time, doesn't mean he doesn't have wisdom!!)
Have fun,
Paul Westcott.
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft's propaganda machine has been trying to portray .NET as being
a built-from-ground-up technology. But the fact of the matter is this is
simply a repackaging (with some sugar coating) of the their obsolete Windows
Foundation Class (WFC) library (the Java class library for Windows).
The big giant has yet to learn how to tell the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
I say there is a lot of new stuff that is in dot net.
Microsoft obviously doesn't want to say that its roots, at least in some respect, come from Java - to me this was like asking Ex-President Clinton "Did you have sexual relations with Ms. Lowinski" (or however you spell her name). I mean you already know the answer, but for it to be uttered aloud is a mere formality. Did it make Clinton a bad president? Well no, I don't think so. Does MS not mentioning its bedfellows of dot net make it bad? No, I don't think so.
Who cares where it came from (do you remember the guy who first got fire going? do you remember who invented the wheel?), its to evaluate if it works, and works well. And that's where our time should be spent.
Have fun,
Paul Westcott.
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree - you're right that M$ is repackaging stuff they couldn't sell/ couldn't get away with previously, but I don't think they have failed to add to what they did before, even if they DO lie on it's origins.
I don't think it's a desire to lie, it's simply marketing. Anyone who thinks .Net is not being marketed to us is fooling themselves, and that can only mean it needs to be pushed to succeed. Like Java, it may well be a solution looking for a problem ( to steal a Bjarne quote ).
Christian
The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda.
To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
|
|
|
|
|
So many of you seem to be complaining about having to learn something new ... why the hell did you get into the high tech field then? Did you not know that the only constant is change?
Note: This does not necessarily include the people who voted "Definitely not", just the ones complaining without a valid argument.
Isn't it the challenge of learning and mastering a new technology what drives most developers? Being on the bleeding edge? Let me know if I am wrong.
On another note ... some people believe that MS is shoving this .NET stuff down our throats, not. The change that you are seeing is Microsoft keeping up with the demands of Fortune 500 companies, and .NET is a large jump in that direction.
Hey, if you want to keep programming in C++, MFC, ATL then do that. There will still be quite a bit of work in that field for years to come. I am sure that I will be using C++ all the time along with C#.
I believe that one should use the right tool for the job, not the other way around ( "Ok, I have the screw driver, what do you want me to do?" - "Please hammer in some boards!" ).
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with a lot of this ( surprised ? ). I agree we should use the right tool for the job, but I don't agree that M$ is following the F500 - I believe they are trying harder and harder to kill platform independant code and languages we can use to write it. There is a ton of stuff for which C#/managed C++/VB.Net will make things easier, once you learn it's annoying syntax changes. I'm not working on any of them, so I will not be changing. When the dust settles, maybe it will survive and I'll find myself using it one day, assuming a major change in my direction. If it's the best tool, sure, I'll use it. But why change for it's own sake ? Not for me.
Christian
The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda.
To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. Why change when it does not make sense. But there will be quite a few situation that do make sense.
Many developers will not need to change, but many will and they seem to be afraid or defensive about it (sort of like an animal backed into a corner ).
I guess I am just really confused as to many developers reactions to .Net.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh please.
You say you believe that people should use the right tool for the job, then chastise developers who are aprehensive about jumping on the .NET bandwagon?
Smart developers will wait until .NET is released and proves itself as a solid platform before embracing it.
PS. Have you taken a look at MSDN Online recently? How can you seriously say .NET isn't being shoved down our throats?
|
|
|
|
|
I am not chastising developers who are not jumping on the .NET bandwagon. For many it does not make sense, however there are developers out there that it would make sense for.
I guess the questions really should of been, "If so many of you hate what Microsoft is doing, why are you developing products on the MS platform?"
You wrote "Smart developers will wait until .NET is released and proves itself as a solid platform before embracing it.", and I agree with you. However there seems to be many developers who already have make up their mind, which is ".Net is crap" ... this hardly seems reasonable to me, don't you think?
I find this "Love/Hate" relationship that most developers have with MS quite amusing.
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect a lot of people who, like me, answered that they will not use it meant they won't use it until it has proven to be useful. I know there was another spot for it, but we like to balance all those mindlessly fawning over it in the assumption that if you don't love what M$ are doing you will never work again.
Christian
The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda.
To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that one should use the right tool for the job, not the other way around
My complaint about .NET is that I can't get a straight answer about what job it is the right tool for. Many things about it sound good, but whenever I have posted a question in the Lounge asking how to plan for .NET in terms of figuring out what parts of my work it might be appropriate for, all I have gotten is a lot of "I can't comment because I am under NDA."
It would be really nice for people here at Code Project to start a serious discussion about where .NET is helpful and where it's not.
Right now, I do a lot of hard-core C++ for performance-critical work and a lot of Python to tie things together (with a mixture of MFC, Pythonwin, and wxPython for the UI). I am very interested in .NET for the UI portion of my work, since ActiveState promises great things with Python.NET, but I have not seen a good paper in all the hype surrounding .NET to help me figure out how to strategize planning ahead for it.
He was allying himself to science, for what was science but the absence of prejudice backed by the presence of money? --- Henry James, The Golden Bowl
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
