Why is .NET so popular? (Serious Question)
-
b_dunphy wrote:
why the .Net framework is so popular.
Depends on whom you ask? How many*desktop* applications which you use on a day to day basis are written in .NET? Let' see:- 1. Internet Browsers - Chrome, IE, FF, Opera -> None of them are in .NET 2. Microsoft Office - Not .NET (though some add-ons can be .NET) 3. Windows Live Messenger, Yahoo messenger, Google Talk etc - Not .NET 4. Notepad, Paint, Calculator - Not .NET 5. Visual Studio - Mainly .NET 6. SQL Server - Not.NET but portions of Management studio/BI Studio are .NET 7. Task Manager - Not .NET I am just talking about Windows here. Mac and Linux users may survive even without knowing about .NET. The place where .NET is popular is in Websites developed for IIS (lot of intranet sites). ASP.NET is almost the de-facto choice. Now again, IIS is a very small percent of total websites out there. The only other place where .NET is popular is enterprise applications or custom developed enterprise apps.
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
The only other place where .NET is popular is enterprise applications or custom developed enterprise apps.
The "only other place"? That's a fairly substantial chunk of the market.
-
I have some limited experience with C# and VS 2008 and I don't understand why the .Net framework is so popular. It is a meta environment running on top of the operating system just like Java and the non-Windows implementations do not have all of the capabilities of the Windows version so it's not truly cross platform. I don't see why -- other than Microsoft's semi-forcing the issue -- someone would choose to use this. Shouldn't Win32/64 code run just as well, if not better, since there is no runtime between the code and the system? I can't help thinking of Java or even UCSD P-System Pascal when I look at this. I realize .Net has a large amount of built-in functionality but the same thing could be implemented in native code as well. What am I not seeing here?
I can't speak for why businesses choose their platforms, but as a programmer, starting with Visual Studio 2005 -- I finally feel like I'm in the proper development environment after programming for 35 years. 1) There's true integration -- if I need to create a class (and I have full OOP, not the sorta OOP you get in PHP) I can create a class, basically on-the-fly, and it will be immediately available to code that is calling it. Any mods are immediately available, with no gyrations or extra mechanics to link things up. It is an extremely productive environment. 2) There are so many well-built ready-made classes available, I can concentrate on the application without getting side-tracked building a software library. Starting with FORTRAN, I've built these types of libraries with each new platform, but in VS in most cases I don't need to. (How many times have I programmed a Shell Sort over the last 3 decades?) Many of these classes are quite sophisticated btw, a lot more than sorts. My specialty is systems analysis (mostly business systems) and applications -- I can stick to that instead of spending days researching other specialties. 3) Debugging is pretty amazing -- stepping into or around calls etc -- plus if I want to try out some code I can exercise pretty much any code I want at a breakpoint. It's just so simple! That's the thing -- it's simple. I just write code now. I don't see programmers using VB to write a generic app like Office, but for business apps it's great.
-
I have some limited experience with C# and VS 2008 and I don't understand why the .Net framework is so popular. It is a meta environment running on top of the operating system just like Java and the non-Windows implementations do not have all of the capabilities of the Windows version so it's not truly cross platform. I don't see why -- other than Microsoft's semi-forcing the issue -- someone would choose to use this. Shouldn't Win32/64 code run just as well, if not better, since there is no runtime between the code and the system? I can't help thinking of Java or even UCSD P-System Pascal when I look at this. I realize .Net has a large amount of built-in functionality but the same thing could be implemented in native code as well. What am I not seeing here?
-
I too come from a back-ground that started out with machine code, assembler, C, etc. i.e. I'm an old git. Efficient code was the over-whelming goal, providing it worked. The emphasis has changed dramatically. Today, memory and disk space are both dirt cheap, cpu's are much quicker. The goal has changed to production - kinda like "never mind the quality, feel the width". There's also an obsession that code is "readable". I once worked with a brilliant guy who would remove all/any comments he found in code files because he felt anyone worth their salt should be able to figure what was going on from looking at the code. Generally speaking we had to have a fairly good understanding about what's going on under the hood. That's no longer the case. It's now more a matter of knowing which pieces to plug together. .Net is good example of this. The tools it provides and amount of work and effort it does for developers is astonishing compared to programming with C on a PDP-11. The cost is bloated exe's. Rather like the results of cobol compilers. No one cares about efficient code, or how things work; it's all just get it out there.
Kenneth Ede wrote:
The cost is bloated exe's.
Actually, I'd beg to differ on that point. The size of executables is something I'm intimately and very concerned with as we make business software distributed only online. We started out years ago with MFC / C++ and a slew of third party stuff like Crystal Reports etc. By comparison our .net version of that same app with at least triple the features it used to have but all the same functionality is a tiny fraction of the size it used to be. .Net apps have a tiny footprint thanks to the vast built in functionality of the clr.
Let not your mind run on what you lack as much as on what you have already. - Marcus Aurelius
-
I have some limited experience with C# and VS 2008 and I don't understand why the .Net framework is so popular. It is a meta environment running on top of the operating system just like Java and the non-Windows implementations do not have all of the capabilities of the Windows version so it's not truly cross platform. I don't see why -- other than Microsoft's semi-forcing the issue -- someone would choose to use this. Shouldn't Win32/64 code run just as well, if not better, since there is no runtime between the code and the system? I can't help thinking of Java or even UCSD P-System Pascal when I look at this. I realize .Net has a large amount of built-in functionality but the same thing could be implemented in native code as well. What am I not seeing here?
I've asked myself that several times. Java used to be my favorite programming language before I switched to .Net. The first draw for me was how easy putting together a GUI (win app) was. In Java this took significantly longer 5 years ago, although Java does have nice layout containers that .Net does not out of the box. I think other draws are other language features. Getters / Setters, Delegates, LINQ (big for a lot of people now). I like the Asp .Net model over any other web framework, and its nice that the code behinds are in a .Net language. WPF is also a very powerful framework that uses .Net as well as Silverlight. I'd be interested to hear why others are drawn to .Net over say Java or another language.
-
I have some limited experience with C# and VS 2008 and I don't understand why the .Net framework is so popular. It is a meta environment running on top of the operating system just like Java and the non-Windows implementations do not have all of the capabilities of the Windows version so it's not truly cross platform. I don't see why -- other than Microsoft's semi-forcing the issue -- someone would choose to use this. Shouldn't Win32/64 code run just as well, if not better, since there is no runtime between the code and the system? I can't help thinking of Java or even UCSD P-System Pascal when I look at this. I realize .Net has a large amount of built-in functionality but the same thing could be implemented in native code as well. What am I not seeing here?
Here's a summary of some of C#'s cooler features.
-
I have some limited experience with C# and VS 2008 and I don't understand why the .Net framework is so popular. It is a meta environment running on top of the operating system just like Java and the non-Windows implementations do not have all of the capabilities of the Windows version so it's not truly cross platform. I don't see why -- other than Microsoft's semi-forcing the issue -- someone would choose to use this. Shouldn't Win32/64 code run just as well, if not better, since there is no runtime between the code and the system? I can't help thinking of Java or even UCSD P-System Pascal when I look at this. I realize .Net has a large amount of built-in functionality but the same thing could be implemented in native code as well. What am I not seeing here?
b_dunphy wrote:
I realize .Net has a large amount of built-in functionality but the same thing could be implemented in native code as well. What am I not seeing here?
It is. .Net is a library/framework, and it's popular because it works and has the kinds of flexbility developers need. It also easier to learn and use than MSs previous GUI frameworks. C# is a language. Near as I can tell, its popular because Microsoft, wanting to out-compete Java, told us developers to like it. Its slow and a bit buggy with some half thought out features built right into the language and others designed into the Visual Studio IDE. If it weren't for the .Net library, I'd have no interest in learning and using it. Of course, as things stand now, whatever the reasons, it has become a resume prerequisite.
patbob
-
I have some limited experience with C# and VS 2008 and I don't understand why the .Net framework is so popular. It is a meta environment running on top of the operating system just like Java and the non-Windows implementations do not have all of the capabilities of the Windows version so it's not truly cross platform. I don't see why -- other than Microsoft's semi-forcing the issue -- someone would choose to use this. Shouldn't Win32/64 code run just as well, if not better, since there is no runtime between the code and the system? I can't help thinking of Java or even UCSD P-System Pascal when I look at this. I realize .Net has a large amount of built-in functionality but the same thing could be implemented in native code as well. What am I not seeing here?
Does anyone ever give serious answers to these questions, or is this the humor page? And how would I know if an answer to this question that made me laugh was a serious answer? .NET is designed NOT to be cross platform. It is designed to create lock-in to microsoft OS products. That said, it is a very extensive, very complete library on microsoft products. People like it because it is effective, once you buy into the OS lock-in. It's more efficient at run-time than many Java things, partly because it's a thin wrapper over windows C libraries. C# does have some language features that Java doesn't have, if you care about such arcana. And the microsoft IDE is rich, fast, and stable. What's not to like, except for the lock-in?
-
.Net is much more friendly to new programmers than something like MFC. .Net is a far more comprehensive library than MFC (or any other framework i've ever seen). also, .Net provides a far better way to do web programming than C++. (and i say this as a die-hard C++ programmer) and this "meta environment" you speak of is a bit exaggerated. .Net languages are compiled to native code, at run time. there isn't really any huge "runtime" between the code and the OS. there's an environment and a standard librar, just as there is with any other language. but it's not like .Net is interpreted or anything.
Comparing .NET to MFC is like comparing apples to poisoned gruel with bits of glass splinters and rusty nails in it. The time I worked with MFC is what I consider my 'dark age of programming'. If you've read The Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follet, the pains Follet's characters go through does not seem that dissimilar to my pain when programming with MFC. Or maybe I should say against MFC. ... Although, when I think about it, OLE was even worse! :cool:
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Why did the farmer cross the road?
To milk the bull with bear hands and earn a man points.
There is only one Ashley Judd and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
wouldn't that be 'bear paws'? ;P
-
I have some limited experience with C# and VS 2008 and I don't understand why the .Net framework is so popular. It is a meta environment running on top of the operating system just like Java and the non-Windows implementations do not have all of the capabilities of the Windows version so it's not truly cross platform. I don't see why -- other than Microsoft's semi-forcing the issue -- someone would choose to use this. Shouldn't Win32/64 code run just as well, if not better, since there is no runtime between the code and the system? I can't help thinking of Java or even UCSD P-System Pascal when I look at this. I realize .Net has a large amount of built-in functionality but the same thing could be implemented in native code as well. What am I not seeing here?
I have noticed that on average the time it takes to develop a Win32 app using .Net is about half of what it is with other technologies. The simple answer is I can get more done faster. In the rare case where .Net performance isn't up to the task, I can write specialized functions in C and put them in a Dll and use P/Invoke to execute them. It is very similar to Java, but Java is built to run on every platform and because of this doesn't perform as well.
-
I have some limited experience with C# and VS 2008 and I don't understand why the .Net framework is so popular. It is a meta environment running on top of the operating system just like Java and the non-Windows implementations do not have all of the capabilities of the Windows version so it's not truly cross platform. I don't see why -- other than Microsoft's semi-forcing the issue -- someone would choose to use this. Shouldn't Win32/64 code run just as well, if not better, since there is no runtime between the code and the system? I can't help thinking of Java or even UCSD P-System Pascal when I look at this. I realize .Net has a large amount of built-in functionality but the same thing could be implemented in native code as well. What am I not seeing here?
Boy, this thread, started to answer a simple question, is starting to look all too familiar. Look. people will always use the language that they like most and/or best suits their situation people will use the languages they know best people will always find ways of telling people that their choice of language/architecture/hair tonic is better than yours and that you are stupid/lazy/bald people will always come to threads like these to vindicate themselves and rationalize the use of their own preferred language, or just to bash the other side. people will always take a side and selectively listen to only the arguments that support their choice, blocking out all the others with ridicule and high-fallutin talk People will always be mac vs. pc (i'm not talking about actually liking one over the other, just the mindset. Red vs. blue, left vs. right, its all the same). It's human nature guys, lets all work together and make the world a better place, rather than split ourselves up and hate each other for what makes us great, our ability to think for ourselves.
-
In languages like C, C++, C#, Java etc you still "have to" know how numbers are represented - ok you might get away with ignoring issues like that, but then your code is likely to suck. Such as this, I never want to see this, if I see this I will tell you in your face that you suck and I will tell your boss to fire you:
bool IsPowerOf2(int x)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 32; i++)
if ((int)Math.Pow(2, i) == x)
return true;
return false;
}And yes, I saw that one in the wild. Suggested replacement:
return (x & (x - 1)) == 0;edit: the replacement treats 0 as power of 2, of course, usually not a problem in my experience and easy enough to change.This is only a good replacement if you also leave a comment describing what this does and why it works. I hate "cute" code that you have to think about for a long time to figure out what it is doing.
-
_beauw_ wrote:
it will also never present me with one of those head-scratching, out-of-the-blue errors that make it so difficult to work with high-level frameworks
The language and the framework are two different things. And you can use external code with assembly as well. Heck, you can make use of .Net DLL's using assembly. In which case you'd get that same "Failed set trust point in ssl context" error. The language itself is not really too much of an abstraction, but the amount it helps productivity is huge.
> The language and the framework are two different things. True, but I also think that ends up being a trivial distinction in practice. C# typically implies the .NET Framework, while assembly language typically does not. My comment attempted to make the point that working in a low-level development shop is not as agonizingly slow and difficult as .NET programmers seem to think it is. If nothing else, those .NET programmers spend more time scratching their heads and looking at the "hourglass cursor" than their assembly language counterparts do. Beyond that, Microsoft has done a good job of conflating .NET with its languages. C# is not C; it does not run on a wide variety of hardware, and it does not seem to be used independently of the .NET Framework to any significant degree. Personally, I like .NET because of its development tools. Breakpoints, step-by-step execution, watches, Intellisense, etc. are all easily available right out-of-the-box.
-
i consider my reasons for saying such to be based on solid technical grounds you, however, add nothing to the discussion other than a personal attack based upon your undisclosed technical knowledge and unknown political agenda so i think /ignore is a good way to respond to you thanks for playing tho
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
He's right though ... unless you explain it in terms of your technical objections rather than just a simplistic generalization.
-
I love writing assembly, just can't find an excuse too. I really do believe assembly should be learned by all CS students very early on. It sheds a whole lot of light on what's really going on with the computer and makes you very jaded about claims of new technology (since you know that it's all just assembly in the end.)
EXACTLY!!!!! OMG - My MANTRA! - Edit: LOL (nth degree version): Everything else is BLOAT!
Know way too many languages... master of none! I'm just another artist navigating the technical shark infested waters trying to find digital serenity!
-
I have some limited experience with C# and VS 2008 and I don't understand why the .Net framework is so popular. It is a meta environment running on top of the operating system just like Java and the non-Windows implementations do not have all of the capabilities of the Windows version so it's not truly cross platform. I don't see why -- other than Microsoft's semi-forcing the issue -- someone would choose to use this. Shouldn't Win32/64 code run just as well, if not better, since there is no runtime between the code and the system? I can't help thinking of Java or even UCSD P-System Pascal when I look at this. I realize .Net has a large amount of built-in functionality but the same thing could be implemented in native code as well. What am I not seeing here?
I don't use any dot.net languages. Actually I don't currently write software in any Microsoft languages. My impression though is that the improvements in programming languages is intended to make writing software easier. Writing Windows applications using C (with just the windows API) was just too hard to do so Microsoft came up with MFC (Microsoft Foundation Classes) and Borland has someting called OWL, if I remember correctly. MFC helped, but really didn't make programming the panacea that was hoped for, IMO. Programming languages like Visual Basic (which I have used. Currently have VB 5.0 pro but not used much) made a big difference because of the drag and drop environment, but it often left programmers wanting more. dot.net was suppose to be the next big solution to programming, but personally I was turned off by the huge runtimes required. Fortunately most PC's come with the runtimes today. Is programming easier and better today because of these improvements. Possibly, but I am not so sure yet. I do see the need to build Engines which make programming easier and more powerful though. Actually I have done so myself. I started using PowerBasic about 10 years ago, which was more like writing apps using pure C (just the Windows API), except it was Basic. I had to learn the Windows API from the ground up. My first reaction was, "this is too much work and there has to be a better way". Of course I could have gone the route of Visual Basic and later dot.net's version of VB, but I never liked the bloat in such software, its reliance on COM and COM components. For example I have VB 5.0 Pro and the core runtime doesn't handle any of the common controls. The runtime is 1.4 meg in size, but when you need to use a Listview, Treeview or RichEdit control you had to start adding a bunch of OCX's. Where does it end ? Rather than require a bloated programming tool, I chose to stick with Powerbasic and build my own GUI engine, but with the principles of fast, small size, ease of use and powerful features. One does really need a good programming language add/or addon tools to make things simpler. What started out as an inhouse tool became a commercial product which is now in its 4th generation (and version 5.0 is on the horizon). I don't want to go into details about it since it is a commercial product, but I do think it valuable to compare it to common tools like Visual Basic. Where as VB as a 1.4 meg runtime DLL and then a bunch of OCX's when you need things like the common controls or c
-
apologies if i misunderstood you i thought you were saying .NET was a good way to write web apps if you were saying it is better than using c++ then i would probably agree if you are saying it is "a good way" to write them i stick to my original opinion microsoft do not understand the web ... do not appear to want to understand the web ... and keep trying to get proprietary tools adopted (and failing miserably) ... in short they suck at web and should stick to what they do best, which is (i think) desktop apps nd frameworks if i sound jaded maybe it's because i have had to spend a lot of time using IIS and .NET for web and frankly it's crap
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
I like what you wrote but this bit: "if you were saying it is better than using c++ then i would probably agree" I would just disagree... but... based on my love for closer to the CPU/leaner style of coding. I think Scripts and JIT are "tools" but I think bits pouring through a oscillator that exercises logic on bit patterns being retrieved and stored in ram or device IO push/pull as being viable for speedy systems... Everything else - adds a layer - a layer who may or may not truly be advantageous... each scenarios different... but the lag I see when JIT does its JIT - STINKS! Worst times - Java? I love when Java jocks say they compile their code - all they do is "P" on it[edit:] They only Pre-Compile (P-Code) code to a Tokenized state which does allows for generic dispatch programming at the lowest level but this too is another layer albeit necessary for "p-compile once - run anywhere". This is actually why I think FreePascal is the best thing going because it combines all the benefits of a mature OOP and other paradigm capable language like C/C++; it compiles to pure binary like C/C++, it compiles faster than c++ because it uses a completely different organization of application code and data so ... it's simply easier/faster for the computer to turn source into machine code.
Know way too many languages... master of none! I'm just another artist navigating the technical shark infested waters trying to find digital serenity!
modified on Friday, December 3, 2010 3:35 AM
-
I don't use any dot.net languages. Actually I don't currently write software in any Microsoft languages. My impression though is that the improvements in programming languages is intended to make writing software easier. Writing Windows applications using C (with just the windows API) was just too hard to do so Microsoft came up with MFC (Microsoft Foundation Classes) and Borland has someting called OWL, if I remember correctly. MFC helped, but really didn't make programming the panacea that was hoped for, IMO. Programming languages like Visual Basic (which I have used. Currently have VB 5.0 pro but not used much) made a big difference because of the drag and drop environment, but it often left programmers wanting more. dot.net was suppose to be the next big solution to programming, but personally I was turned off by the huge runtimes required. Fortunately most PC's come with the runtimes today. Is programming easier and better today because of these improvements. Possibly, but I am not so sure yet. I do see the need to build Engines which make programming easier and more powerful though. Actually I have done so myself. I started using PowerBasic about 10 years ago, which was more like writing apps using pure C (just the Windows API), except it was Basic. I had to learn the Windows API from the ground up. My first reaction was, "this is too much work and there has to be a better way". Of course I could have gone the route of Visual Basic and later dot.net's version of VB, but I never liked the bloat in such software, its reliance on COM and COM components. For example I have VB 5.0 Pro and the core runtime doesn't handle any of the common controls. The runtime is 1.4 meg in size, but when you need to use a Listview, Treeview or RichEdit control you had to start adding a bunch of OCX's. Where does it end ? Rather than require a bloated programming tool, I chose to stick with Powerbasic and build my own GUI engine, but with the principles of fast, small size, ease of use and powerful features. One does really need a good programming language add/or addon tools to make things simpler. What started out as an inhouse tool became a commercial product which is now in its 4th generation (and version 5.0 is on the horizon). I don't want to go into details about it since it is a commercial product, but I do think it valuable to compare it to common tools like Visual Basic. Where as VB as a 1.4 meg runtime DLL and then a bunch of OCX's when you need things like the common controls or c
yeah! I used Borland's TurboBasic 1.0 with DOS... old times... I share most of your comments. for me .NET is defined as EEE: Easy to learn Easy to leave Easy to cameback at any time... I don't need it too. But the reason for these is the type of projects that I am involved in the work. Simplex Method: define your objetive function, then hire the specialist to resolve them!.
-
yeah! I used Borland's TurboBasic 1.0 with DOS... old times... I share most of your comments. for me .NET is defined as EEE: Easy to learn Easy to leave Easy to cameback at any time... I don't need it too. But the reason for these is the type of projects that I am involved in the work. Simplex Method: define your objetive function, then hire the specialist to resolve them!.
Borland sold back the rights to TurboBasic back to its original developer, who in turn renamed it Powerbasic. Powerbasic still has a DOS compiler, plus a Console compiler for Windows and then their lead product Powerbasic for Windows. Powerbasic used to be marketed as an addon to Visual basic back when it was called PowerBasic DLL compiler. That last 4 versions of Powerbasic for Windows are designed for building complete GUI applications and it continues to improve with each new version.