|
We have recently developed an application in VB.Net
The app has since been deployed on many computers, most of which did not have .net before.
The size of the installer did not increase significantly after we included the .net framework redistribuatble, so that was really not an issue for us. At the moment the installer is around 48Mb, without .net redist it was only a few Mb less.
Note: we created the installer using installshield express 5.0, so i am not sure how it would be using other products.
Cheers,
|
|
|
|
|
21MB out of 48 is NOT sicnificant?
Thats ~45%... 
Greetings,
Stephan Eberle
hawke@deltacity.org
|
|
|
|
|
Stevie,
 You are right. I guess it was something else that i had checked to see how much diff it made for the size of the installer... In our case the difference is not so important, as the software comes on a CD, and i think that in this case it is better to extract .net from the setup.exe, rather than ask the client to download from the internet.
Certainly, 45% is a huge difference, apologies for not checking my facts earlier.
Cheers,
Kris
|
|
|
|
|
I see.
When you distribute by CD it's perfectly ok for me. 
We put it onto our CDs as well!
Greetings,
Stephan Eberle
hawke@deltacity.org
|
|
|
|
|
You know, It is NOT sicnificant compare to the hard drive xxGB. No body concern about dialup modem support support anymore.
eric feng
www.infospec.com
|
|
|
|
|
I think it has to do with Microsoft's definition of a service pack. Service packs, do not provide new functionality. This means .NET is not included as a required component. The exception to this (and their recent adjustment of the definition of a service pack to include new funtionality) is SP2. However, this was only done so that the new security enhancements could be added and deployed.
Perhaps future service packs will install .NET by default, but until then, I think the best you can look for with XP is a windows update download.
|
|
|
|
|
At least it's a recommended part of windows update... plus most new PCs have the framework installed.
Last year I actually went around all the new computers in bestbuy, circuit city and compusa checking to see which had .net installed. Interestingly, all except the Sony desktops had it installed. I guess Sony don't like Microsoft that much... 
|
|
|
|
|
This is one of those mysteries!
Should be included in XP SP2 but won't be in a default manner.
Should be included in XP Reloaded but we have to see this.
My explanation : version 1.0 or 1.1 of the .NET framework is still a juvenile product not worth mass-distribution.
When adapted to XP SP2 and Longhorn (i.e. with 4 or 6 GHZ cpu...) THEN the hours of glory will arrive... in 2007, 2008 (more around 2010 for mass population  ). My C# applications are not on par with the speed of C++ as far as I can see.
The bottom line: despite the official releases of VS .NET 2002 or 2003, we are all beta testers! (ASP.NET partly excepted)
|
|
|
|
|
Legal issues. Not sure of the exact nature of them but know there are some preventing them from including the framework until Longhorn.
|
|
|
|
|
I think the (poll) question had to be more precise. I don't think 60% actually deploy software developed with .NET. I guess most people still just play around with it or check out it capabilities. They might develop great tools that they use internally, but i really doubt 60% deploy or plan to deploy .NET Apps.
I am totally sympathetic to .NET and don't use anything else anymore, but just the fact that using it is different from deploying it is what I want to point out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Luca Leonardo Scorcia wrote:
Coming from a C++/MFC/ASP experience, I love it.
you sold ur soul.
I'll write a suicide note on a hundred dollar bill - Dire Straits
|
|
|
|
|
The nice thing about experience, is that you never forget what you learned in the past.
Before starting a new job, the knowledge of .NET is an extra weapon I can choose to output a better product (better = faster/faster to develop/anything that matters), but of course my past experiences are not forgotten, and these together form a nice portfolio of technologies among which I can choose what better fits my needs.
It's the power of choice 
Luca Leonardo Scorcia
http://zip.to/kojak (only in Italian)
|
|
|
|
|
yeah you are absolutly correct... knowledge in different technology makes you very important person in the company..
What I wanted to say that even if i knew 10 different technologies i would like to code in VC++.
May be i am narrow minded but thats what i want to do.
I'll write a suicide note on a hundred dollar bill - Dire Straits
|
|
|
|
|
You are a guy that prefers a Fiat Stylo to any Alfa Romeo.
ah, btw, lousy EURO 2004 performance... KILL your coach!!!
A Portuguese fan...
|
|
|
|
|
I tend to use whatever tool will help me get the job done, with a 10% of experiments here and there to try new approaches. Alfa Romeo can be a nightmare to park in a city as crowded as mine 
And, BTW, I am the first one wanting to fire Italy's coach - anyway this does not relate to this poll.
Luca Leonardo Scorcia
http://zip.to/kojak (only in Italian)
|
|
|
|
|
95% .net using C#, with a couple of interfaces to (inhouse) COM objects. Let me tell people who still think .net sucks, get with it, it's the future of programming.
|
|
|
|
|
norm.net wrote:
Let me tell people who still think .net sucks, get with it, it's the future of programming.
Can you honestly say that you never miss CClientDCs that would automatically release themselves when they went out of scope? I assure you that if I'm forced to migrate, I'll miss the good old days when it was easy to manage resources other than memory.
Nathan Holt
|
|
|
|
|
That's what the using keyword is for. Here's how you'd use it to manage the cursor, for example:
using (Cursor.Current = Cursors.WaitCursor)
{
... do some lengthy processing
}
Regards,
Alvaro
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, but you must admit that it is better to just type something like:
CWaitCursor wait;
... lengthy processing
Like I said before, using is a poor substitution for automatic variables, but it is still better to have it than to write all those annoying finally blocks, like in Java.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, I agree... although I don't consider it a poor substitution. I think the extra verbage adds to the readibility of the code -- a resource is being used for a certain amount of time, to be disposed of later.
Regards,
Alvaro
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.
|
|
|
|
|
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
I think the extra verbage adds to the readibility of the code
Extra verbage is OK with me. The problem is that the burden of automatic cleanup lies on the user of a class. I've seen many cases where programmers are just too lazy to use using. Heck, I even know some .NET programmers who are not sure what using is all about.
As for readability, I have mixed feelings. As you said, extra verbage generally helps, but I am not sure about extra scopes that need to be introduced.
|
|
|
|
|
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
I am not sure about extra scopes that need to be introduced.
I know what you're saying but the extra scope serves to ensure that the resource cannot be used after it ends, since it has already been disposed of. Also, I don't know if you realize that using works just like any other scope-introducing statements, such as if, for, and while. The curly braces are only required if more than one statement is inside the using:
using (someResource)
doSomething();
Regards,
Alvaro
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.
|
|
|
|
|
I thought a better example might be ...
using( ThousandsOfExtraClockCycles )<br />
DoSomeThingSlowly;
What's the point of producing applications in no time at all, if they take forever to run ?
|
|
|
|
|
If you're complaining about C# programs running slow... oh puh-lease, buy a faster machine and stop complaining. But if you're so concerned about execution speed, by all means write your programs in Assembly. I hear it's super duper fast. 
Regards,
Alvaro
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
