|
Thats all I need concerning PP-directives...
Guess I'll have to give C# another chance (someday)
A student knows little about a lot.
A professor knows a lot about little.
I know everything about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Stanneveld wrote:
My opinion on .NET/repid development is:
A rapid developer is a bad developer.
That offends me. Just because someone writes code quickly doesn't mean that they write bad code. One can be a bad developer in any programming language, but just because they use a language that you dont like doesn't mean they are a bad developer.
|
|
|
|
|
Kyle Edwards wrote:
That offends me. Just because someone writes code quickly doesn't mean that they write bad code. One can be a bad developer in any programming language, but just because they use a language that you dont like doesn't mean they are a bad developer.
True, but since rapid developers often choose quantity over quality (in terms of runtime speed and package size). This choice may not be up to the avarage developer, but I think this is a bad choice.
A student knows little about a lot.
A professor knows a lot about little.
I know everything about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you misunderstood when you read up on RAD. Perhaps you should read it again. The definition is not a developer slinging code as fast as he can go with no regard to quality which seems to be what you think it is.
Also, you said you wrote your C# application in school. What qualifies you to make the statement "rapid developers often choose quantity over quality"?
|
|
|
|
|
my thoughs are these:
a BAD PROGRAMMER is he who picks his tools according to HIS _liking_, not according to a project's requirements. Sounds like you hate c# just like I hate eggplants... I never tried the thing, but I can't stand even looking at it.
People here would finish 3 projects in C# while you're creating header files for the first.
$$$$
Grow up.
|
|
|
|
|
Slash74 wrote:
Also, you said you wrote your C# application in school. What qualifies you to make the statement "rapid developers often choose quantity over quality"?
Last year I did an internship at a company which developes .NET applications. All the senior programmers in the department I worked in, were complaining about .NET. Not because you can create an app just like that, but because the custumor keeps complaining about how big an slow the apps become.
Back in the days of C++, custumors were complaining about the long development time.
Now I ask you: which do you prefer, custumers who complain about the quality of your product or custumers who complain about the time it took you developing it?
A student knows little about a lot.
A professor knows a lot about little.
I know everything about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Stanneveld wrote:
Now I ask you: which do you prefer, custumers who complain about the quality of your product or custumers who complain about the time it took you developing it?
So my question to you: do you prefer working at a software company that stays in business because it provides working systems at a reasonable price, or do you prefer working at a software company that goes out of business because all development work takes so long and is so expensive?
|
|
|
|
|
The answer to that question depends on the market your in. If the market demands cheap products, you don't have much choice. But when market is big enough, you can stay in buisness with quality products and move on to .NET when the framework has evolved into a more mature form.
A student knows little about a lot.
A professor knows a lot about little.
I know everything about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know who you work for or what kind of software you develop, but in today's profit conscious business world, your development philosophy just doesn't make sense. Most employers (with the possible exception of game and real-time developers) would have issues with your spending 3 months developing a 'great' program/utility when a 'good' result could be had in 1 month (including tweaking).
In the 22 years I've been developing software (mostly for large corporate clients), I have found that the client is much more interested in quick, fairly decent, results that can be tweaked; than lengthy, costly results (which will most likely need to be tweaked too).
Just my opinion 
Stefan
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
