Executable c# without framework
-
Hi everybody! Can anybody tell me if it is possible to build an executable, form a C# code made in Visual Studio .net 2003, that not requires framework installed? Thank you so much
-
Hi everybody! Can anybody tell me if it is possible to build an executable, form a C# code made in Visual Studio .net 2003, that not requires framework installed? Thank you so much
Not in a very practically way. There are tools which compile c#-code in win32-exe files but they are very expensive. With the build in tools from vs.net it is not possible. 'A programmer is just a tool which converts caffeine into code'
-
Not in a very practically way. There are tools which compile c#-code in win32-exe files but they are very expensive. With the build in tools from vs.net it is not possible. 'A programmer is just a tool which converts caffeine into code'
Actually, if you use XenoCode and ask it to embed the .NET framework, it will embed it in to your applciation codebase (binaries), so you don;t have to ask your customers to have .NET Framwork installed.
-
Hi everybody! Can anybody tell me if it is possible to build an executable, form a C# code made in Visual Studio .net 2003, that not requires framework installed? Thank you so much
Why do you use a .NET programming language if you want to run it outside .NET? It's a totally imbecilic demand! :| Regards, Nish
My blog : Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET
-
Actually, if you use XenoCode and ask it to embed the .NET framework, it will embed it in to your applciation codebase (binaries), so you don;t have to ask your customers to have .NET Framwork installed.
How could this possibly work? Embedding the JIT IL runtime in a binary is one thing. Embedding the whole of the .Net Framework (there is a reason why its a multiple MB install, there is a lot of stuff in it) is something different. In any event, yes there are tools out there that try to sidestep the .Net Framework through runtime tricks but in general you have to ask yourself why do you want to this? Maybe C# isn't the best tool for your problem since you can't/don't/whatever use the .Net Framework.
-
Actually, if you use XenoCode and ask it to embed the .NET framework, it will embed it in to your applciation codebase (binaries), so you don;t have to ask your customers to have .NET Framwork installed.
Odd, nowhere in their documentation do I find that this elimanates the need to have the .NET Framework installed. All I found was: NET Framework embedding: Xenocode Postbuild 2006 allows the .NET Framework libraries to be embedded into the output assembly, dramatically reducing the complexity of application testing, deployment, and support. Xenocode Postbuild 2006 automatically identifies and statically binds a minimal set of Framework dependencies, reducing overall deployment size and eliminating dynamic link costs. OK... say this is true and you really do get the minimal .NET Framework statically linked into your app, so you don't need to have the .NET Framework installed. Now, write and deploy 10 apps using this method to your entire user base. Now you've got, at a dead minimum, 10 copies of mscorlib linked into your applications. Lots of duplicated code and wasted space. Whoops! SP1 for the .NET Framework comes out and it fixes nagging problems you've had in a few or your apps. Recompile, relink, and redeploy your busted apps. Now, go back to square one and start this experiment over. Deploy the .NET Framework to all of your user base. Now deploy all of your apps (much smaller since they don't include the Framework statically linked into them and just as easy to deploy). Now SP1 comes out for the .NET Framework. All you do is deploy the SP to your user base. Don't have to recompile any of your apps because dynamic linking takes care of using the updated Framework classes for you. I can live without static linking the .NET Framework into my apps. This is just from a LAN Admin's point of view. If I only have to deploy the SP to fix these problems, GREAT! More time to do other things. RageInTheMachine9532 "...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
-
Why do you use a .NET programming language if you want to run it outside .NET? It's a totally imbecilic demand! :| Regards, Nish
My blog : Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET
I started programmin in november 2005. I've choosen .net platform, but someone asked me for an executable running without framework and I tried to get informations. Now I'm watching at C++...but your answer is offensive, not all people are expert like you!!! We are on a forum, so a minimal respect is necessary. Sorry for my bad english
-
I started programmin in november 2005. I've choosen .net platform, but someone asked me for an executable running without framework and I tried to get informations. Now I'm watching at C++...but your answer is offensive, not all people are expert like you!!! We are on a forum, so a minimal respect is necessary. Sorry for my bad english
hellamasta wrote:
Now I'm watching at C++...but your answer is offensive, not all people are expert like you!!! We are on a forum, so a minimal respect is necessary.
I am sorry if I offended you, but my reply was to a more general audience. Every week, we get questions from people where they want to deploy a managed .NET application on a machine that does not have the .NET framework on it. It clearly indicates that they have begun coding on .NET without getting even a basic understanding of the framework. It's frustrating to think that people would do that. It's like buying a car and beginning to drive on a busy road without understanding the basic traffic rules. And note, I am no expert, just a guy who codes for a living. Regards, Nish
My blog : Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET