|
This is exactly why the .NET craze never got a hold of me.
Removed... Too many questions
|
|
|
|
|
You can obfuscate your code using one of the many tools, or you can sell your source code along with your product so it's a moot point, or you can make it so that it's not the application that's important but rather the data, or if you feel someone's stealing your IP then you can decompile their app and take a look yourself.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote:
You can obfuscate your code using one of the many tools
I tested Dotfuscator, it is not a easy work for a programming team and multiple projects sharing all DLLs and more...; the time saved on .NET then wasted on obfuscate.
Chris Maunder wrote:
you can sell your source code along with your product so it's a moot point, or you can make it so that it's not the application that's important but rather the data
Do you mean .NET means open source? if the anwser is positive, how can I not to give up .NET!!!
Is .NET another Java?
eric feng
|
|
|
|
|
just release it open source... that way you're guaranteed that no one will ever decompile or look at your code.
/bb|[^b]{2}/
|
|
|
|
|
There are some things I'm really looking forward to with C# 2.0--generics, partial types, anonymous methods and iterator blocks.
As to .NET 2.0, I think the thing that interests me the most is potential performance improvements especially in reflection.
Marc
MyXaml
Advanced Unit Testing
|
|
|
|
|
Generics are really a feature of .NET CLI, not C# in particular.
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
|
|
|
|
|
Not to downplay generics at all, but I've found anonymous methods almost more useful than generics, especially when writing code that needs to manipulate a WinForms control on its original thread, or doing callbacks and asynchronous code. Very, very useful addition to the language IMO.
Additionally, as part of .NET 2.0, Windows Forms has undergone a big overhaul, with a lot of good stuff including skinnable menus, new controls like ToolStrip, MenuStrip, SplitContainer, rafting controls, DataGridView, just to name a few.
Any remotely useful information on my blog will be removed immediately. There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who have heard of the ubiquitous, overused, worn-out-like-an-old-shoe binary "joke" and those who haven't.
Judah Himango
|
|
|
|
|
... has to be at least "slightly interested". Even if you don't have any immedate plans on upgrading, one of your customers might, and you may find your 1.0 and 1.1 .NET apps running on the 2.0 framework. Yes, I believe it is supposed to be backwards compatible, but everyone knows there's always something that changes...
IIRC, a machine can only have one version of the .NET framework running at a time. Is this true, and will it still be true with version 2.0 (e.g., to run .NET 2.0, you have to upgrade, you can't have 1.1 and 2.0 running side by side, for instance)?
An expert is somebody who learns more and more about less and less, until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
>IIRC, a machine can only have one version of the .NET framework running at a time
Maybe I am wrong but I think you are wrong. Certainly with ASP.NET you can have one code-base targteting v1.0 and another targetting v1.1 on the same machine at the same time.
I believe this to be true for WinForm apps too, though I have little experience in that area.
Also right now on my machine I have v1.0, v1.1 and the BETA of v2.0 running with different ASP.NET sites using the different versions. You can actually set directives in the web.config to tell the app what version to use.
3 Leaf seems to indicate likewise.
(And if you weren't making a statement but were rather asking a question, then apologies, I am unsure about your phrasing.)
regards,
Paul Watson
South Africa
Michael Dunn wrote:
"except the sod who voted this a 1, NO SOUP FOR YOU"
Crikey! ain't life grand?
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, it was kind of both. I was in a sense wondering if there could actually be more than one .NET Framework running on the same machine at the same time. So with what you said, it appears you can. That is a good thing. 
An expert is somebody who learns more and more about less and less, until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Navin wrote:
if there could actually be more than one .NET Framework running on the same machine
I accidently made this discovery! I happened to install .net 1.1 n then went on to install VS.NET (Not 2003). It began complaining that .net framework was not installed. So I installed 1.0 and things really came out fine.
Thus I ended up with the cheapest solution to the problem: Install 1.1 as well as 1.0 (Actually 1.1 is used only for my RSS Bandit - No other use for that!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
|
As you guys ended up in the conclusion:
Yes, any number of the .NET framework can run side-by-side on a machine. Any application can be reconfigured or better said, 'redirected' to various versions of assemblies, including the .NET framework class library.
RGab
|
|
|
|
|
I picked "slightly interested", only because of typesafe containers. Or, to be precise, not because of the containers that come with .NET Framework (System.Collections.Generics), but rather because of the possibility that someone else makes good typesafe containers. Maybe Power Collections[^] are a good attempt. On the other hand, how can one trust people who put "definitions" like Generics are like C++ templates, only better on the front page of their project? 
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I want .NET 2.0 so I can have .NET Compact Framework 2.0. 1.0 is too crippled to allow all the productivity benefits, and is still pretty buggy.
Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
From what I've seen, the changes to Winforms look like they may make developing richer desktop apps a more enjoyable experience.
Other than that, there isn't a lot to interest me. There are a few VS.NET features that interest me but this isn't a poll about that.
Michael
CP Blog [^]
|
|
|
|
|
I have used C# Express Beta with .NET 2.0 Beta for a while, and these are the changes I have noticed:
1. .NET 2.0 has a few very nice controls.
2. There are more overloaded variations of common methods for common types.
3. C# Express generates more and bigger source files.
The great new features seem to be in namespaces I have not yet needed. 
_________________________________
Vote '1' if you're too lazy for a discussion
|
|
|
|
|
I think Millions of Programmer is still working on Visual Studio 6.0 (including me),and they take some time to switch over to .net and here,in no time microsoft comes with new version ,GREAT 
-----------------------------
"I Think It Will Help"
-----------------------------
Alok Gupta
visit me at http://www.thisisalok.tk
|
|
|
|
|
I agree they were still are fixing bugs in 1.1 when next thing they are markeying 2.0 like it is in production already. At tech-ed they aren't giving examples of 1.1 (the current version) but rather things like Widbey and Yukon. Kind of makes me feel like I am chasing the wind.
Once the latest version is released it always apears to me as if the now believe that the last version was the worst thing they could have ever released and the next on will solve all the problems. Each new version promises greater productivity and more intergration. I remember when VB6 came out and if you wanted to look the VB5 examples they were all gone. It is like "Use the lastest stuff or you are on you own".
So far I have had great fun with .net 1.0 and 1.1 and I enjoy learning new stuff. Just I feel like keeping up is pointless. I say stick with VS6 if that works for you or if your boss thinks it will work just fine. Only move versions when there is a business reason to do so not just because it is cool.
Doubin
visit me here http://doubin.forwardslash.com
|
|
|
|
|
Doubin wrote:
Only move versions when there is a business reason to do so not just because it is cool.
Agreed
-----------------------------
"I Think It Will Help"
-----------------------------
Alok Gupta
visit me at http://www.thisisalok.tk
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree, I think change for "extra cool" is a good enough reason. Do you write code purely for the money, perhaps you'd be happy making webpages is cobol then?
For me coding is about learning new stuff, doing things elegantly and walking away with that warm fuzzy coder feeling. Not smashing my head against the wall as I tackle with the gross inadequacies of ASP 2/3.
And whats to keep up with! I see the border as pre dotnet and post dotnet. Individual versions are a pretty insignificant issue. I'm looking forward to 2.0 for generics (mostly so I can strongly typed collections) and master pages, both of which should reduce the amount of code I need to write - which is bloody good thing!
PS: VS6.0's integration with sourcesafe is a complete nightmare.
[worldspawn]
|
|
|
|
|
I'd be happy making web pages in cobol if it made me lots of $$$. I'm not that ultruistic!
I write code for money first, for fun second. Unfortunately, one of the downsides to learning the new stuff is that you realise just how far from the old stuff we've come.
My company however writes code purely and simply for money. Therefore, it will upgrade when and only WHEN there is a business case that says WE WILL MAKE MORE MONEY by upgrading.
The most amazing thing though is that all the interviews I went to when .NET first came out wanted people with .NET skills, but still had them programming in VB6. Many C++ shops that I inteviewed for still had people coding in C. I wonder why? Perhaps it's because there is just not enough business benefit for upgrading.
So you may be able to avoid smashing your head against a wall avoiding the inadequacies of ASP 2/3, but the multinational organisations reaping in huge dollars, aren't paying for the upgrade path just yet - and many of the smaller companies can't afford to either.
Upgrade when you will make money for it for you business. Upgrade if you feel like it for fun.
Peter Hancock
My blog is here
And they still ran faster and faster and faster, till they all just melted away, and there was nothing left but a great big pool of melted butter
"I ask candidates to create an object model of a chicken." -Bruce Eckel
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps smashing one's head against the gross inadequacies of ASP 2/3 presents a business case. Improved productivity can also be the foundation of a business case. My company isn't making any rush to convert their existing VB6 codebase, but we use .net for a lot of new projects. Its just easier to get things done in c#/asp.net than in VB6/ASP.
|
|
|
|
|
Improved productivity certainly is a foundation for a business case. "It's cool" isn't.
The point you make about using .NET for new projects is perfectly valid also. The concern comes when you have... (as places where I've been still have)
VB5 applications.
VB6 applications.
ASP applications.
C# applications.
ASP.NET applications.
(note that this company ALSO has java, corba, jsp and J2EE applications. All because they were early adopters of new technologies)
All still in existence. And all because new projects warranted it as it IS easier to develop in the new technologies.
The downside now though - is that there is a support team still doing VB5 / VB6. There is another team supporting ASP. And yet a third team looking after the C# applications.
Mind you - none of this is Microsofts fault. While we keep jumping on the next big bandwagon - software companies will continue to provide them. That's why I think some sort of business case is vitally important. When left in the hands of us IT kids, we end up with the above situation.
Peter Hancock
My blog is here
And they still ran faster and faster and faster, till they all just melted away, and there was nothing left but a great big pool of melted butter
"I ask candidates to create an object model of a chicken." -Bruce Eckel
|
|
|
|
|
The tricky thing is that you never know if "The next big thing is going to be a dud". Ever code an ASP+ page?
I have a moderate view on the whole thing.
The industry NEEDS all types of people
1. "It's cool" people who drive the technology and find the bugs.
2. People who are careful not to waste money on vapourware.
3. People who go out on their own and don't just rely on their companies to expose them to new techologies.
People we can do without are those you refuse to change, up skill, etc regardless of new information or knowledge of the benefits.
Techonology is one part of business. If someone never saw a business need for computers you would not be reading this ramnbling message.
Using new technology does not prevent business failure and job losses. Look at http://www.20twenty.com[^] they were the poster boy company for .net SA Teched 2002 doing everything in 1.0 beta, that still never stopped them from going down when the money ran out.
http://doubin.forwardslash.com[^]
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
