|
Mono recently hit Beta 2. If what you're trying to do is relatively uncomplicated, Mono is great, and the portability is wonderful! If it's more complicated, it can take a fair amount of effort to port over from .NET 1.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
>I'm just doing an NT Service in .NET - and it's really straightforward
I recently knocked up some NT services in ATL7 - a breeze and no need for my users (NT4 users especially) to install a 20MB runtime. What benefits does .NET give you for writing NT services?? I can clearly see the benefits when it comes to web apps, but perhaps you can enlighten on what other benefits you are getting?
The Rob Blog
|
|
|
|
|
WTF did someone vote this down without even the guts to explain themselves?
The Rob Blog
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, I have my sense of fair play so here is my five.
Why?
To restate what I read in your post: --> How many great developers ever even think of doing a business analysis first to see what is the best solution. Then the heck with the latest fad etc. do what is right for the problem.
In my case we are doing web apps and integrating multiple systems with legacy and new services, Some are based off of .net and some are not. To me the #1 benefit is the usage of testing apps. Some are C++, C#, Java, and Pearl. If the Service only works with its native language I can point to a problem.
I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm using .NET because of the convienience of language interoperability. I have no need for distributed applications; everything I create is still a good ol local .exe application. (That's a requirement of the industry I work in.)
|
|
|
|
|
We do web-development and ASP.NET is awesome. We also use .NET for various Windows Services we have to build to support ASP.NET apps. We own and control our own hosting servers so don't have to rely on 3rd party hosting to have .NET.
A new project is calling for handheld dev and I will be recommending the .NET Compact Framework especially as the app will be rolled out to brand new handhelds which we can spec and configure.
If I did not have control over the target platform then I probably would not be using .NET yet as I would not like to be responsible for rolling it out to hundreds or thousands of desktops.
regards,
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
South Africa
Ian Darling wrote:
"and our loonies usually end up doing things like Monty Python."
Crikey! ain't life grand?
|
|
|
|
|
>as I would not like to be responsible for rolling it out to hundreds or thousands of desktops.
This would be a major issue for us - shipping a 20MB+ .NET runtime. It is amazing how many customers we have that still use Win9x clients - a download/install of this size would be simply unacceptable - and some of our customers have 10,000+ PCs. Most of my current development is in ATL/WTL - so no dependencies and small, easily distributed EXEs/DLLs.
The Rob Blog
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote:
we have that still use Win9x clients
The other pain is the dependency on IE5.01 for those machines.
.NET installs 100% on a clean W2K machine though.
Cheers,
Simon
sig ::
"Don't try to be like Jackie. There is only one Jackie.... Study computers instead.", Jackie Chan on career choices.
article :: animation mechanics in SVG blog:: brokenkeyboards
"It'll be a cold day in Hell when I do VB.NET...", Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Watson wrote:
If I did not have control over the target platform then I probably would not be using .NET yet as I would not like to be responsible for rolling it out to hundreds or thousands of desktops.
Why not? The size of download problem? , security issues?
I'm actually amazed at how many sys-admins have actually rolled out .NET onto their desktop machines, even though they have no software requirement to do so.
Michael
CP Blog [^]
|
|
|
|
|
.NET just doesn't feature on our radar at the moment . I have at least one NT server based app that customers would like to see ported to Linux, and I actually find this prospect quite exciting. Hence I can see myself switching from Windows to Linux development at some point in the next year or two. I am not convinced that MS have done a great job at selling the idea of .NET to the existing development community so I look forward to reading other comments posted here in the coming days. I am not anti-.NET - I just haven't been convinced that it is a technology I should be concentrating on.
The Rob Blog
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote:
am not convinced that MS have done a great job at selling the idea of .NET to the existing development community
I agree. It wasn't until I started reading some of the C# articles here on CP that I realised how powerful C# was.
Coming from MFC, the .NET UI classes still disappoint me as they lack the sophistication I have become accustomed to.
However projects such as MyXaml[^] and Genghis[^] have helped overcome a lot of the shortcomings I found within .NET WinForms.
Microsoft could help itself, if online MSDN and MSDN magazine stopped concentrating on technologies that we don't have (Longhorn etc) and started writing articles to show the average developer (the one with 2+ years of legacy code) what .NET can really do for them.
For a supposedly pro-developer company, Microsoft fumbled the ball when selling .NET.
However now I've started to use it on real projects, I find I don't want to go back.
Michael
CP Blog [^]
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote:
Microsoft could help itself, if online MSDN and MSDN magazine stopped concentrating on technologies that we don't have (Longhorn etc) and started writing articles to show the average developer (the one with 2+ years of legacy code) what .NET can really do for them.
Yep, all these Longhorn articles make me laugh. It will take probably 5+ years until I am in a position to actually use Longhorn technologies (not before Longhorn takes at least 50% of the market). Sorry, but none of my customers have Longhorn on their computers - they mostly use Windows 2000.
|
|
|
|
|
It looks like you dont appreciate the development time savings when using .NET (for some projects). In the IDE the code simply writes itself when you get on it. I can make a cross-platform(pc to pda) client server app in 10 minutes. If I had to use the old tools and the unwrapped sockets api it would have taken a week for me.
I am strictly talking about networking apps here. Don't use it for image processing.
|
|
|
|
|
Vladimir Ralev wrote:
In the IDE the code simply writes itself when you get on it.
How do you get it to do that? I just created a new project and I sat there watching it. Then I thought maybe it was like an artist that doesn't like being watched so I went of and did something else for a while, but when I came back still nothing. I then realised that it didn't know what it was to do, so I wrote some comments at the top to let it know what I wanted it to produce (nothing fancy - just a little hello world type thing as a proof of concept you understand) and still nothing. I was getting worried I'd missed something so I looked in all the menus, and all the properties and all the options and I couldn't figure out what to do....
I've tried everything I can think of, so how do you get the IDE to write itself?
"You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want." --Zig Ziglar
The Second EuroCPian Event will be in Brussels on the 4th of September
Can't manage to P/Invoke that Win32 API in .NET? Why not do interop the wiki way!
My Blog
|
|
|
|
|
Well, after setting up the class members you have to write(hehe) some code in the member functions.
Everything starts with "this." or "System.". After pressing the "." a list of options appears, so you just type few letters and three enter and the whole name is written.
Now I can do that very fast and more than 50% of the actual code pops from the list. That's what I am talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you know is there anything works like Crystal Report for Linux?
Thank you.
eric feng
www.infospec.com
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
