.NET file size? *RANT*
-
Colin Davies wrote: don't even think its included in XP yet I think it will be included in SP1. Colin Davies wrote: I'm wondering, how long it will take for popular Net apps to appear. I remember when I wondered how long it would take for popular Win32 apps to appear. :) I think it will be pretty soon, at least compared with the Win16 and Win32 adoption rate.
Eddie Velasquez: A Squeezed Devil
Checkout General Guidelines for C# Class ImplementationYes, that makes me think about how "ready" .NET is for a 64 bit OS. I guess thats at the compiler level rather than Intermediate Language level. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I am sick of fighting with Martin, I think I will ignore his posts from here on in, and spend the time working on articles instead. Christian Graus
-
He must be including the .NET run-time along with the app. Actually .NET applications are generally quite a bit smaller than C++ apps (with the same functionality).
Actually, thier about the same as long as you don't statically compile with the CRT in your C++ apps. I frequently compile with the ATL library and some of my smaller exe's are only about 4K.
-
Yes, that makes me think about how "ready" .NET is for a 64 bit OS. I guess thats at the compiler level rather than Intermediate Language level. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I am sick of fighting with Martin, I think I will ignore his posts from here on in, and spend the time working on articles instead. Christian Graus
The only type that is bit sensitive would be IntPtr, and it was built to handle that change. The CTS has defined types so that they are strict, unlike C/C++ where only a relation is held between them. Some types defined by the CTS are Int16, Int32, Int64; I think we can all tell what the numbers mean :) While the CTS is 64 bit ready; the CLR is not. Currently there is no 64bit implementation of the CLR; not to say that there won't be there just isn't one yet. James "Java is free - and worth every penny." - Christian Graus
-
Mark A wrote: C# doesnt cater to small desktop applications well at all. C# for small desktop applications is like using a rocket engine to get a kite off the ground. Right now you're probably right, but in a year or two the .NET runtime will be as readily available in every desktop as shell32.dll, user32.dll or gdi32.dll.
Eddie Velasquez: A Squeezed Devil
Checkout General Guidelines for C# Class ImplementationEddie Velasquez wrote: Right now you're probably right, but in a year or two the .NET runtime will be as readily available in every desktop as shell32.dll, user32.dll or gdi32.dll. Yeah but if they keep changing it like MFC then we have to distro apps with that anyways like I do now with MFC42 :( Code4Food ---- "There is no try; only do or do not" -Yoda
-
Sounds like the setup had the .NET RunTime included.
You don't need to sleep to see a nightmare Anne Clark [sighist]
-
His setup included the .NET runtime or CLR, which is 20-25mb (I think...) This is only necessary if the target system does not already have it installed. (Which is probably most systems currently.)
Bruce Duncan, CP#9088, CPUA 0xA1EE, Sonork 100.10030
Arthur-Anderson, proud sponsor of the Corporate Make A Wish Foundation. -
Eddie Velasquez wrote: Right now you're probably right, but in a year or two the .NET runtime will be as readily available in every desktop as shell32.dll, user32.dll or gdi32.dll. Yeah but if they keep changing it like MFC then we have to distro apps with that anyways like I do now with MFC42 :( Code4Food ---- "There is no try; only do or do not" -Yoda
Code4Food wrote: Yeah but if they keep changing it like MFC then we have to distro apps with that anyways like I do now with MFC42 .NET's builtin versioning of assemblies prevents this scenario (bye, bye dll hell)
Eddie Velasquez: A Squeezed Devil
Checkout General Guidelines for C# Class Implementation -
Code4Food wrote: Yeah but if they keep changing it like MFC then we have to distro apps with that anyways like I do now with MFC42 .NET's builtin versioning of assemblies prevents this scenario (bye, bye dll hell)
Eddie Velasquez: A Squeezed Devil
Checkout General Guidelines for C# Class Implementation -
So we don't need to include the .NET runtime? Everytime I build an install I include the crazy MFC24 DLL (if I used MFC) I don't think most systems will have .NET installed on them yet. Code4Food ---- "There is no try; only do or do not" -Yoda
-
That sounds good what about the fact that people can decompile your code/dll? Are they going to solve that? Code4Food ---- "There is no try; only do or do not" -Yoda
Well, there are pretty good decompilers for native code (granted, the output isn't as nearly as complete as an IL decompilation) and that hasn't stopped development. There are superb Java decompilers and that hasn't stopped java development either. There are good .NET obfuscators that will deter most reverse engineering, but if your code is so sensitive it shouldn't be out there anyway, expose it as a web service or something.
Eddie Velasquez: A Squeezed Devil
Checkout General Guidelines for C# Class Implementation