|
RAD is the name of the game these days. And .NET + C# are where it is at.
I have not give C# the chance it probably deserves. And like some people I have been coding C++ long enough to find C# annoying.
Welcome to the world of competitive development. If you cannot finish the project in a month, they can hire some else who will. 
C++ - Pure, Simple, Makes Sense.
C# - Microsoft's idea of Pure and Simple
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I intend to become a total .Net junky and annoy my friends by touting its virtues day and night, because Microsoft thoughtfully gave me a copy of a tool I could never hope to afford on the wages I can earn here. VB may suck, but I can't beat the price, and VS.Net is priced way beyond my budget. I've gone through the examples, have been appropriately impressed by the ease of use, and look forward to trying out web app development using it. Anything would be better than continuing to struggle with Visual InterDev. I'll be really impressed if I can successfully integrate David's BattleAxe Forums into a ASP.Net site.
Some people think of it as a six-pack; I consider it more of a support group.
|
|
|
|
|
My former boss and I were ".NET evangelists" within our company. We learned C# early, and used it where it really shines (ASP.NET front-end, small ad-hoc applications for XML processing, etc...). However, I would never use it for our core NLP libraries. For them, I need flexibility and power of umanaged C++, and libraries like Boost and Loki give me far more benefits than .NET BCL. For desktop apps, I have mixed feelings, but if I had to start developing a big desktop app at this time, I believe I would go with old, ugly MFC rather than .NET.
|
|
|
|
|
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
I believe I would go with old, ugly MFC rather than .NET.
I probably wouldn't go with .NET either, but I wouldn't go with MFC, I'd use wxWindows.  It's biggest (possibly only??) disadvantage is that there aren't a ton of CodeProject articles on it.
The annoying thing is, even if we get to the point where "everyone" is using .NET and most have the .NET framework on their machines, there will probably be multiple versions. So that headache will never go away.
"Fish and guests stink in three days." - Benjamin Franlkin
|
|
|
|
|
I probably wouldn't go with .NET either, but I wouldn't go with MFC, I'd use wxWindows.
No, no, no, no (shakes head sadly)...wrong answer!
The correct answer (repeat after me):
"I'd use the VCF[^], and make sure to share with everyone I know how truly wonderful, awe-inspiring, jaw-dropping, cracker barrel cool, and just generally terrifically enlightened it is."
Thats the right answer
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire!
Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)!
SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0
0 rows returned
|
|
|
|
|
I have been looking for an excuse to use .NET
I have a good story. About 2 years ago, I attempted to install
.NET beta at home, to avoid interference with my machine at work
fully populated with vc++ 6.0 and other libraries.
Well, after about 60 minutes of installation (on a Win 2K machine),
I got a message to the effect that the Windows Registry database was overflowed!
It took me a while to search for a method to increase the registry database size - sorry, I don't have the url handy 
Eventually, I loaded the IDE. A bit nicer, much slower.
Well, that was beta.
Since then, I allowed my MSDN subscription to expire, and I want the latest version before I can fiddle aroud with it.
Note that fiddeling is fine at home, but I have very little hope
to get it to work at the shop. I have lots and lots of 3rd party
libraries that will need to be updated (renewal $$$$) and my boss/partner requires some better explaination than "lets follow the hype with dot net" to throw out the money to keep all these things up to date, plus my own time,
|
|
|
|
|
I think that the results are inaccurate and based on a misunderstanding of the question.
I use VS.NET, but do not use .NET. I think many of the positive responders were referring to VS.NET.
|
|
|
|
|
Careful there Jim - some coward is voting my posts down without even bothering to offer an explanation! WTF is this site coming to?
The Rob Blog
|
|
|
|
|
I voted "No" because I use(d) VS.NET compiler, but not .NET (e.g., I was just using standard C++. No managed C++, C#, or anything.)
There are a few in our company that do use C#, but it's for internal prototypes. We don't ship any .NET code becuase of the worrisome logistics (having to put a 20 meg redistributable either on the web or on an already cramped CD, and then trying to get it installed correctly.)
And what I'm working on now isn't even on Windows anymore. Mono does look promising, but it's in beta (or alpha??) mode now.
"Fish and guests stink in three days." - Benjamin Franlkin
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
