Managed code is really unmanageable
-
Muammar© wrote:
What do you do??
Write it using native API and proper language.
Tell me, do you bind the lib files into your executable, potentially bloating the size, or require them to have the necessary runtime DLLs installed on their machines up front? Answers like this, while glib, tend to be very misleading.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
modified on Monday, July 19, 2010 7:21 AM
-
Tell me, do you bind the lib files into your executable, potentially bloating the size, or require them to have the necessary runtime DLLs installed on their machines up front? Answers like this, while glib, tend to be very misleading.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
modified on Monday, July 19, 2010 7:21 AM
We use C++, and statically bind everything into the executable. Your assumption that the technique bloats the size is "very misleading", since the resulting output may well be smaller than a dynamically bound executable and the associated runtime.
-
We use C++, and statically bind everything into the executable. Your assumption that the technique bloats the size is "very misleading", since the resulting output may well be smaller than a dynamically bound executable and the associated runtime.
Electron Shepherd wrote:
Your assumption that the technique bloats the size is "very misleading",
True, and I shall modify the offending statement.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
Tell me, do you bind the lib files into your executable, potentially bloating the size, or require them to have the necessary runtime DLLs installed on their machines up front? Answers like this, while glib, tend to be very misleading.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
modified on Monday, July 19, 2010 7:21 AM
Hm, let me check your statement. Are you're complaining about few hundreds of kilobytes in the worst case (if you're using MFC for instance) while we are talking about frameworks that weight tens of megabytes and requires additional downloading and installation by the users? 'Elephant in the room', anyone? Man, the metaphor works in so many ways, here.
-
Muammar© wrote:
Face it Marc, just look me in the eye and tell me this doesn't sound familiar to you
Sure, people ask me. In fact, just last week I was helping the school install an upgrade to their fundraising software. The company had switched from SQL Anywhere (soon to become SQL Nowhere) to SQL Express, and while the UI's didn't change, they were obviously using .NET for their DAL. My friend asked me, why do I have to install .NET now? My answer is basically always "because it's a necessary component." Everyone ooh's and ahhh's over how knowledgeable I am. :rolleyes: BTW, there are some products (and I think even a free one or two) that extract out the functions that your app uses and packages them up, so you don't actually need the whole .NET Framework installed. Never tried them though. Marc
Remotesoft[^] (warning web site navigation does not work in firefox) has one. It costs over a grand and sucks. You still end up with a fairly large chunk of the framework in your apps folder (basically all the native components) and you generally need to manually add additional framework DLLs to correct runtime errors at startup. The latter problem is supposedly because it gets confused by patches to the framework; :wtf: but regardless I recommend staying far, far, away.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
Hm, let me check your statement. Are you're complaining about few hundreds of kilobytes in the worst case (if you're using MFC for instance) while we are talking about frameworks that weight tens of megabytes and requires additional downloading and installation by the users? 'Elephant in the room', anyone? Man, the metaphor works in so many ways, here.
I'm not complaining about anything - just pointing out that your argument indicated that there was no need to download anything else if you did a C/C++ application for instance.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
I just developed some screen saver and spread it among my friends world wide, and although I specified the target framework to be .NetFramework 2.0, almost everyone complained that they can't run it! Even on Windows Vista!! On the bright side, only Windows7 plays it without the need to install the dotNet framework! Anyone have the same problem?? What do you do??
Muammar© wrote:
Anyone have the same problem?? What do you do??
package an installer with VC runtime support. ;P
_________________________ John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others." Shhhhh.... I am not really here. I am a figment of your imagination.... I am still in my cave so this must be an illusion....
-
Muammar© wrote:
Anyone have the same problem?? What do you do??
package an installer with VC runtime support. ;P
_________________________ John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others." Shhhhh.... I am not really here. I am a figment of your imagination.... I am still in my cave so this must be an illusion....
-
Great, I don't know where you guys live but here, we're still running 14-52 KB download rate as the maximum internet speed!! A .net runtime package would take a day to download!!
Muammar© wrote:
A .net runtime package would take a day to download!!
which is why I don't use it... you have a better download rate to some of my machines. More than half my machines will never have a download rate, hand-upgrading machines tends to discourage massive installs as well. No, I use the very small Visual C runtime. Per 2008, that was 1.7mb. I do have a collection of other DLLs, but then I make and distribute my own installers for about a decade now. :)
_________________________ John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others." Shhhhh.... I am not really here. I am a figment of your imagination.... I am still in my cave so this must be an illusion....
-
Muammar© wrote:
A .net runtime package would take a day to download!!
which is why I don't use it... you have a better download rate to some of my machines. More than half my machines will never have a download rate, hand-upgrading machines tends to discourage massive installs as well. No, I use the very small Visual C runtime. Per 2008, that was 1.7mb. I do have a collection of other DLLs, but then I make and distribute my own installers for about a decade now. :)
_________________________ John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others." Shhhhh.... I am not really here. I am a figment of your imagination.... I am still in my cave so this must be an illusion....
-
I think the size of a runtime is negligible next to some of the data sets you've worked with. :rolleyes:
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
Dan Neely wrote:
I think the size of a runtime is negligible next to some of the data sets you've worked with.
come on.... you don't HAVE to use the whole earth and every location we have.... I mean... the state of New Mexico, the entire state at 10m elevation grid and 1 meter imagery is only 350gb... we've still only got a smidgen over 500gb of terrains built. ;P ;P ;P
_________________________ John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others." Shhhhh.... I am not really here. I am a figment of your imagination.... I am still in my cave so this must be an illusion....
-
And then explain why a screensaver needs a 280MB runtime...
Electron Shepherd wrote:
And then explain why a screensaver needs a 280MB runtime...
My lightning screen saver that still is running around somewhere on the internet (from 2002 I think), only requires a small Visual C one. :-D
_________________________ John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others." Shhhhh.... I am not really here. I am a figment of your imagination.... I am still in my cave so this must be an illusion....
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
Tell them to install the .NET framework!
I always do, but do you think it's comfortable to ask someone to install a 40 MBs file to run a 100 KBs file?? Besides, they always have the question, why would we need this?? Just to run your applications?? We never had it and never needed it!! Face it Marc, just look me in the eye and tell me this doesn't sound familiar to you :laugh:
Muammar© wrote:
do you think it's comfortable to ask someone to install a 40 MBs file to run a 100 KBs file??
Yes. Library overhead aside, that happens to be the reason it's a 100 KB app and not a 40.1 MB application.
Muammar© wrote:
they always have the question, why would we need this?? Just to run your applications?? We never had it and never needed it!!
If they don't want to run any managed, .NET applications, great. Then you need to write your software for your target consumers. Your bad.
Muammar© wrote:
Face it Marc, just look me in the eye and tell me this doesn't sound familiar to you
I'm not Marc, but this never happens to me. All of the users I've run across in the past 2 or 3 years already have .NET installed. Of course my installation checks for that and will install it if need be, but since most of the installations are on non-internet computers, if they had to open an internet connection to get .NET, I'd hear about it.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E. Comport Computing Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
-
Muammar© wrote:
do you think it's comfortable to ask someone to install a 40 MBs file to run a 100 KBs file??
Yes. Library overhead aside, that happens to be the reason it's a 100 KB app and not a 40.1 MB application.
Muammar© wrote:
they always have the question, why would we need this?? Just to run your applications?? We never had it and never needed it!!
If they don't want to run any managed, .NET applications, great. Then you need to write your software for your target consumers. Your bad.
Muammar© wrote:
Face it Marc, just look me in the eye and tell me this doesn't sound familiar to you
I'm not Marc, but this never happens to me. All of the users I've run across in the past 2 or 3 years already have .NET installed. Of course my installation checks for that and will install it if need be, but since most of the installations are on non-internet computers, if they had to open an internet connection to get .NET, I'd hear about it.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E. Comport Computing Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
Walt Fair, Jr. wrote:
I'm not Marc, but this never happens to me. All of the users I've run across in the past 2 or 3 years already have .NET installed. Of course my installation checks for that and will install it if need be, but since most of the installations are on non-internet computers, if they had to open an internet connection to get .NET, I'd hear about it.
Doesn't seem to be a problem in your case; but if you're doing offline installs via CD/etc you can put the redistributable installer on instead of the downloader and have that install the framework.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
Dan Neely wrote:
I think the size of a runtime is negligible next to some of the data sets you've worked with.
come on.... you don't HAVE to use the whole earth and every location we have.... I mean... the state of New Mexico, the entire state at 10m elevation grid and 1 meter imagery is only 350gb... we've still only got a smidgen over 500gb of terrains built. ;P ;P ;P
_________________________ John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others." Shhhhh.... I am not really here. I am a figment of your imagination.... I am still in my cave so this must be an illusion....
-
Muammar© wrote:
A .net runtime package would take a day to download!!
which is why I don't use it... you have a better download rate to some of my machines. More than half my machines will never have a download rate, hand-upgrading machines tends to discourage massive installs as well. No, I use the very small Visual C runtime. Per 2008, that was 1.7mb. I do have a collection of other DLLs, but then I make and distribute my own installers for about a decade now. :)
_________________________ John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others." Shhhhh.... I am not really here. I am a figment of your imagination.... I am still in my cave so this must be an illusion....
-
Muammar© wrote:
do you think it's comfortable to ask someone to install a 40 MBs file to run a 100 KBs file??
Yes. Library overhead aside, that happens to be the reason it's a 100 KB app and not a 40.1 MB application.
Muammar© wrote:
they always have the question, why would we need this?? Just to run your applications?? We never had it and never needed it!!
If they don't want to run any managed, .NET applications, great. Then you need to write your software for your target consumers. Your bad.
Muammar© wrote:
Face it Marc, just look me in the eye and tell me this doesn't sound familiar to you
I'm not Marc, but this never happens to me. All of the users I've run across in the past 2 or 3 years already have .NET installed. Of course my installation checks for that and will install it if need be, but since most of the installations are on non-internet computers, if they had to open an internet connection to get .NET, I'd hear about it.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E. Comport Computing Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
Walt Fair, Jr. wrote:
Yes. Library overhead aside, that happens to be the reason it's a 100 KB app and not a 40.1 MB application.
No, it doesn't consume the entire framework libraries and my point was some technique you may use to package those used libraries with the application.. I'm researching this for now. Thanks mate!
-
Great, I like the way you do it and shall consider it. Any hints to start with?? You know, how do I get those used libraries in place for my application.. Thanks mate!
Muammar© wrote:
Great, I like the way you do it and shall consider it. Any hints to start with?? You know, how do I get those used libraries in place for my application.. Thanks mate!
search the lounge for installers... its a common request for installer software, comes up about every 6-9 months. If you go back far enough, I even asked it. :laugh:
_________________________ John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others." Shhhhh.... I am not really here. I am a figment of your imagination.... I am still in my cave so this must be an illusion....
-
Dan Neely wrote:
Your Honor, the prosecution rests.
:laugh: ;P ;P
_________________________ John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others." Shhhhh.... I am not really here. I am a figment of your imagination.... I am still in my cave so this must be an illusion....
-
I just developed some screen saver and spread it among my friends world wide, and although I specified the target framework to be .NetFramework 2.0, almost everyone complained that they can't run it! Even on Windows Vista!! On the bright side, only Windows7 plays it without the need to install the dotNet framework! Anyone have the same problem?? What do you do??
Muammar© wrote:
although I specified the target framework to be .NetFramework 2.0, almost everyone complained that they can't run it! Even on Windows Vista!!
This is weird. Vista comes with 3.0 installed and since 3.0 is IIRC just some extra DLLs added to 2.0 you shouldn't need to install anything else on their machines unless it was removed for some reason.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18