Why .NET?
-
norm.net wrote:
If you writing an Stock Inventory System .net/C# is the man.
And yet nobody said that about Java or classic VB. Both of which were capable of delivering products faster. Jeremy Falcon
VB was a good tool for business software, it developed a bad reputation due to its use by non programmers and the fact that many coders had used basic as a child and gone on to C/++. Java sucked for GUI development until recently. AWT was awful, I personaly liked the very strict MVC of Swing's design, but it was way too slow. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
ME! Ok, bad joke. Jeremy Falcon
-
I posted this in the General discussion forum, but it didn't quite stir up the flame war I expected. After seeing Vista and .NET and Microsoft's Response to Vista and .NET I figured this is the place to go. So ... I use MFC (though I don't particularly like it) and VC++ 6.0 (which I like very very much). I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out why Microsoft (and a whole lot of people affiliated or not affiliated with them) think that everyone should switch from native Win32 C++ development to .NET Framework-based development ... and I just can't figure out why. Things I know: Yes - the .NET framework has a load of nifty classes that I would have access to. Yes - it's quite possible to write native code mixed with .NET code in various ways. Yes - .NET code is/will be portable to other platforms. Yes - I understand fully that .NET is the way to go for a large range of applications (if I hear "web" or "business" bells start ringing). Things I don't know: But - why must Microsoft push it as the future for ALL applications? But - why should everyone be writing VM (Virtual Machine) code? It's quite possible to write a very good framework (platform independent even) that doesn't use a VM. Why doesn't Microsoft do that? And: And - I'm aware of the benefits of VMs. It's just that I'm also aware of the benefits of non-VM code - and to be honest I must admit that I really prefer non-VM code. /Simon This is not a signature.
Simon Hofverberg wrote:
and to be honest I must admit that I really prefer non-VM code.
but why do you prefer it? Michael CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
-
VB was a good tool for business software, it developed a bad reputation due to its use by non programmers and the fact that many coders had used basic as a child and gone on to C/++. Java sucked for GUI development until recently. AWT was awful, I personaly liked the very strict MVC of Swing's design, but it was way too slow. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
Ryan Roberts wrote:
VB was a good tool for business software
I agree, despite the fact it wasn't my favorite language. It did what it was meant to do, although most people here hate it out of simple prejudice (they'll never admit though). I think the improvements .NET had made over classic VB are nice, but I find it odd so many people here love .NET and yet hated classic VB when they both were created to serve the same purpose.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
AWT was awful
Yup. Although I liked the structure of the Java language itself, I just lost all interest in Java because of the poor GUI support, the speed issue, and decompilation. I still never tried Swing though. Jeremy Falcon
-
fat_boy wrote:
Honestly, you should see what we have to deal with, you wouldnt believe the complexity, once you have written kernel device drivers, C# and .Net (more like .SafetyNet) look like a kids toy.
Which is sad because some of the developers I've worked with in the past get an ego over writing something as simple a data entry form in an app. Or some think they are 1337 because they managed to write an ActiveX DLL in VB. :doh: Jeremy Falcon
My ego gets excited about our architecture. Our device has 9 driver instances in memory. A bus driver with 4 functions: Data channel. Has 4 drivers on it including another bus driver that supports a legacy modem interface and an Ndis driver giving an Ethernet like connection to the GPRS/UMTS network to the PC. Application channel, debugging channel, COM port drivers. Smart Card channel, providing access for the smart card service to the SIM on the card to do EAP authorisation, if a WLAN access SIM is inserted, and our card has a WLAN component, or, providing access to the on SIM phone book for applications. To support all this for 2k, XP, 32 bit and 64 takes 13 sys files and 16 inf files. Design, code, test, and WHQL all of that lot, get it loaded and working in the Kernel, and not get any blue screens, AND get your product accepted by Acer, Vodafone, Orange, T-Mobile, Swisscom etc etc etc. And see your product advertised on TV. That stokes my ego! Nunc est bibendum
-
Exactly, horses for courses. If you need fast mission critical code, C++ is the man. If you writing an Stock Inventory System .net/C# is the man. Blogless
norm.net wrote:
mission critical
I woul dget rid of Windows if that was the case. No, perhaps NT4 sp6a tightened up to Military spec might do, but then again, didnt that US Frigate drift around the ocean for a few days while they worked out how to bring the NT system that ran the whole boat bacj up? Perhaps I would just get rid of Windows. Anyway, if you want fast, then C is better than C++, but, dont forget the compiler, if you have a bad one you are better off in assembler. Nunc est bibendum
-
My ego gets excited about our architecture. Our device has 9 driver instances in memory. A bus driver with 4 functions: Data channel. Has 4 drivers on it including another bus driver that supports a legacy modem interface and an Ndis driver giving an Ethernet like connection to the GPRS/UMTS network to the PC. Application channel, debugging channel, COM port drivers. Smart Card channel, providing access for the smart card service to the SIM on the card to do EAP authorisation, if a WLAN access SIM is inserted, and our card has a WLAN component, or, providing access to the on SIM phone book for applications. To support all this for 2k, XP, 32 bit and 64 takes 13 sys files and 16 inf files. Design, code, test, and WHQL all of that lot, get it loaded and working in the Kernel, and not get any blue screens, AND get your product accepted by Acer, Vodafone, Orange, T-Mobile, Swisscom etc etc etc. And see your product advertised on TV. That stokes my ego! Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
That stokes my ego!
And it should. There's a LOT more work and know-how involved in that. Jeremy Falcon
-
I posted this in the General discussion forum, but it didn't quite stir up the flame war I expected. After seeing Vista and .NET and Microsoft's Response to Vista and .NET I figured this is the place to go. So ... I use MFC (though I don't particularly like it) and VC++ 6.0 (which I like very very much). I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out why Microsoft (and a whole lot of people affiliated or not affiliated with them) think that everyone should switch from native Win32 C++ development to .NET Framework-based development ... and I just can't figure out why. Things I know: Yes - the .NET framework has a load of nifty classes that I would have access to. Yes - it's quite possible to write native code mixed with .NET code in various ways. Yes - .NET code is/will be portable to other platforms. Yes - I understand fully that .NET is the way to go for a large range of applications (if I hear "web" or "business" bells start ringing). Things I don't know: But - why must Microsoft push it as the future for ALL applications? But - why should everyone be writing VM (Virtual Machine) code? It's quite possible to write a very good framework (platform independent even) that doesn't use a VM. Why doesn't Microsoft do that? And: And - I'm aware of the benefits of VMs. It's just that I'm also aware of the benefits of non-VM code - and to be honest I must admit that I really prefer non-VM code. /Simon This is not a signature.
atleast they named it "C"#. somewhat encouraging to look at. BTW, why not you add a "C#" to your skill set?? you are not going to forget those sweet memories of Win32,C++ by learning C#. and C# is more supportive to C++ developers than VB programmmers. and learning dot net is as simple as that. huhhh you know this is how i'm trying to make up my mind, damn, when i took up VB as my main skillset(without knowing what the hell was that) during my college days, people were talking high about VC ... and due to attraction ,I jumped into VC,(and ultimately fell in love with) and crapped VB totaly. now VB is taking its revenge on me, every dumb VB programmers (my old colleagues) have just suffixed a ".net" to their VB. and they are looking at me like. "are you still working with VC.6 ?? MS has stopped supporting it. dont you know that??:-O:->:-O"... sh*t, i'm saving my face with the VC7 compiler.:sigh:, atleast MS managed to include it in the VS2003. now i'm planning to learn C# :(
VuNic
-
atleast they named it "C"#. somewhat encouraging to look at. BTW, why not you add a "C#" to your skill set?? you are not going to forget those sweet memories of Win32,C++ by learning C#. and C# is more supportive to C++ developers than VB programmmers. and learning dot net is as simple as that. huhhh you know this is how i'm trying to make up my mind, damn, when i took up VB as my main skillset(without knowing what the hell was that) during my college days, people were talking high about VC ... and due to attraction ,I jumped into VC,(and ultimately fell in love with) and crapped VB totaly. now VB is taking its revenge on me, every dumb VB programmers (my old colleagues) have just suffixed a ".net" to their VB. and they are looking at me like. "are you still working with VC.6 ?? MS has stopped supporting it. dont you know that??:-O:->:-O"... sh*t, i'm saving my face with the VC7 compiler.:sigh:, atleast MS managed to include it in the VS2003. now i'm planning to learn C# :(
VuNic
Look at the bright side. At least you're not alone. :~ Jeremy Falcon
-
fat_boy wrote:
That stokes my ego!
And it should. There's a LOT more work and know-how involved in that. Jeremy Falcon
Yeah, the Ndis driver is really neat. The cards have a PPP stack on then to mimic an ISP to get windows dial up working, although over the network, it is actually GSM RF protocol etc. So, the Ndis driver stokes up the PPP stack on the card, does all the LCP, PAP, CHAP, IPCP stuff, then, tells the system the cable is connected. It then gets DHCP messages from the PC which the driver responds to with the IP address it got from IPCP. It also satisfies ARP messages with faked MAC addresses. Also, it has to do Ethernet to PPP reframing of the data packets, so, IP, PPP, UDP check sum calculation, escaping chars below 0x1F, MD5 encryption for the CHAP data, etc. The LCP/CHAP/IPCP handling code alone is 4000 lines! Yep, there is a lot of real coding there, protocols, constructing packets, real maths, and windows system knowledge. Thats what I call real software engineering! Nunc est bibendum
-
atleast they named it "C"#. somewhat encouraging to look at. BTW, why not you add a "C#" to your skill set?? you are not going to forget those sweet memories of Win32,C++ by learning C#. and C# is more supportive to C++ developers than VB programmmers. and learning dot net is as simple as that. huhhh you know this is how i'm trying to make up my mind, damn, when i took up VB as my main skillset(without knowing what the hell was that) during my college days, people were talking high about VC ... and due to attraction ,I jumped into VC,(and ultimately fell in love with) and crapped VB totaly. now VB is taking its revenge on me, every dumb VB programmers (my old colleagues) have just suffixed a ".net" to their VB. and they are looking at me like. "are you still working with VC.6 ?? MS has stopped supporting it. dont you know that??:-O:->:-O"... sh*t, i'm saving my face with the VC7 compiler.:sigh:, atleast MS managed to include it in the VS2003. now i'm planning to learn C# :(
VuNic
Yep, but you sure can tell when a naive VB programmer is writing in .NET.. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
Look at the bright side. At least you're not alone. :~ Jeremy Falcon
-
I wrote:
Why doesn't Microsoft do that? [Why don't they create a really good framework in native code?]
Ryan Binns wrote:
What language would you do it for? Whichever one they chose, they would have developers in the other languages screaming for blood. The way they have done it, they make the framework available to everyone.
Well:
Ryan Binns wrote:
They know that there are classes of applications that will see no (or little) benefit from moving to a .NET platform.
What languages are those classes of applications written in? My guess is 98% C++ (and 80% of those use MFC). Ergo: the language would be C++. Why not give us something like MFC but 1000% better. I'd say all other languages are much easier to replace with the .NET framework. But being a C++ developer I don't know for sure (oh I'm so humble :rolleyes:). /Simon This is not a signature.
Simon Hofverberg wrote:
Why not give us something like MFC but 1000% better.
Because it already exists. Look at VCF or wxWidgets for example - and they are both cross-platform. The number of VB developers is far greater than the number of C++ developers for Windows. Simple economics (of which Microsoft is the master) dictate that that is the market to target the most. They support VB for the majority of programmers, created C# for those who like Java or C++ developers who don't mind using the best tool for the job (yes, slightly tongue in cheek, I know), and have left in C++ support for those that want/need it. Personally, I think they made a good decision. I have used .NET very little and probably will very little in the future, but it's good for what it is.
Ryan
"Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
-
norm.net wrote:
If you writing an Stock Inventory System .net/C# is the man.
And yet nobody said that about Java or classic VB. Both of which were capable of delivering products faster. Jeremy Falcon
-
Yep, but you sure can tell when a naive VB programmer is writing in .NET.. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
norm.net wrote:
mission critical
I woul dget rid of Windows if that was the case. No, perhaps NT4 sp6a tightened up to Military spec might do, but then again, didnt that US Frigate drift around the ocean for a few days while they worked out how to bring the NT system that ran the whole boat bacj up? Perhaps I would just get rid of Windows. Anyway, if you want fast, then C is better than C++, but, dont forget the compiler, if you have a bad one you are better off in assembler. Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
No, perhaps NT4 sp6a tightened up to Military spec might do, but then again, didnt that US Frigate drift around the ocean for a few days while they worked out how to bring the NT system that ran the whole boat bacj up? Perhaps I would just get rid of Windows.
Wow! There goes your pay cheque. Blogless
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
And yet nobody said that about Java or classic VB. Both of which were capable of delivering products faster
Both equally shite as languages ;P Blogless
norm.net wrote:
Both equally shite as languages
One could argue the same thing of .NET. :) Jeremy Falcon
-
Yep, but you sure can tell when a naive VB programmer is writing in .NET.. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
That's one thing I always found odd. Most classic VB teachings never really discussed design principles/patterns, and well, it shows. :) Jeremy Falcon
-
norm.net wrote:
Both equally shite as languages
One could argue the same thing of .NET. :) Jeremy Falcon
-
I posted this in the General discussion forum, but it didn't quite stir up the flame war I expected. After seeing Vista and .NET and Microsoft's Response to Vista and .NET I figured this is the place to go. So ... I use MFC (though I don't particularly like it) and VC++ 6.0 (which I like very very much). I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out why Microsoft (and a whole lot of people affiliated or not affiliated with them) think that everyone should switch from native Win32 C++ development to .NET Framework-based development ... and I just can't figure out why. Things I know: Yes - the .NET framework has a load of nifty classes that I would have access to. Yes - it's quite possible to write native code mixed with .NET code in various ways. Yes - .NET code is/will be portable to other platforms. Yes - I understand fully that .NET is the way to go for a large range of applications (if I hear "web" or "business" bells start ringing). Things I don't know: But - why must Microsoft push it as the future for ALL applications? But - why should everyone be writing VM (Virtual Machine) code? It's quite possible to write a very good framework (platform independent even) that doesn't use a VM. Why doesn't Microsoft do that? And: And - I'm aware of the benefits of VMs. It's just that I'm also aware of the benefits of non-VM code - and to be honest I must admit that I really prefer non-VM code. /Simon This is not a signature.
I repeat, there isn't a language good for all. Obviously you cannot write drivers in .NET. Always use the best language and platform for each purpose. .NET is very good for many applications (or part of them), C++ will be always good for OSs, drivers, and so on. For example I have to write and test a complex algorithm in C before porting it to the target platform (it will be run on an embedded device). I'll implement the IO functions in .NET and run the algorithm as a wrapped native DLL to keep the focus on important aspect of the development. If I had to write all the IO functions (anyway they would be thrown away after the testing), I would waste lots of time, without bringing benefits to the projects. ___________________________________ Tozzi is right: Gaia is getting rid of us. My Blog [ITA]