Curious about C# and desktop apps
-
Hi! I'm curious about if anybody is using .NET in desktop application development. I've just finished a live chat front-end using Windows Forms in C#, similar to Humanclick. Did not used any code obfuscator, mainly because the front-end itself don't have utility without the server's components (the windows service it uses and the aspx pages used in administration), so having people disassembling it is not a big issue. I'll distribute the front-end to my customers along with .NET framework runtime and other stuff on CD-ROM, but will let customers to download it from web too. Now comes the big question: The .NET framework runtime is about 20Mb. Does somebody developed an application which requires the user to download the runtime? Will them install it? Or .NET is being used only for server side application development? Thanks, John
-
Hi! I'm curious about if anybody is using .NET in desktop application development. I've just finished a live chat front-end using Windows Forms in C#, similar to Humanclick. Did not used any code obfuscator, mainly because the front-end itself don't have utility without the server's components (the windows service it uses and the aspx pages used in administration), so having people disassembling it is not a big issue. I'll distribute the front-end to my customers along with .NET framework runtime and other stuff on CD-ROM, but will let customers to download it from web too. Now comes the big question: The .NET framework runtime is about 20Mb. Does somebody developed an application which requires the user to download the runtime? Will them install it? Or .NET is being used only for server side application development? Thanks, John
Microsoft answer are : - the .NET run-time is soon part of the operating system, so it's not a problem anymore. Besides that, beginning with XP SP1, the .NET run-time is part of the service pack (XP SP1 CD). - .NET run-times can run side-by-side, hence users will be able to have both the (current) 1.0 release and soon coming 1.1, and actually have applications to work with the appropriate run-time. Of course, that's a lot of marketing. First, I can't see shareware authors distributing software that require 20MB++ (and ++ is up to 180MB) of binaries before they can start your app. In addition, the application author must have anticipated a built-in .config file to manage seamlessly the case of multiple .NET run-times installed on the same machine. Otherwise, it fails miserably with a stupid MS error box. I can see in-house desktop app development using .NET, that is in environments where deployment is not an issue. I don't see for the foreseeable future high end customer .NET desktop apps. But may be that's only me. ;P (That's a totally different story when we are dealing with server-side : ASP.NET, web services, ...).
-
Microsoft answer are : - the .NET run-time is soon part of the operating system, so it's not a problem anymore. Besides that, beginning with XP SP1, the .NET run-time is part of the service pack (XP SP1 CD). - .NET run-times can run side-by-side, hence users will be able to have both the (current) 1.0 release and soon coming 1.1, and actually have applications to work with the appropriate run-time. Of course, that's a lot of marketing. First, I can't see shareware authors distributing software that require 20MB++ (and ++ is up to 180MB) of binaries before they can start your app. In addition, the application author must have anticipated a built-in .config file to manage seamlessly the case of multiple .NET run-times installed on the same machine. Otherwise, it fails miserably with a stupid MS error box. I can see in-house desktop app development using .NET, that is in environments where deployment is not an issue. I don't see for the foreseeable future high end customer .NET desktop apps. But may be that's only me. ;P (That's a totally different story when we are dealing with server-side : ASP.NET, web services, ...).
.S.Rod. wrote: I don't see for the foreseeable future high end customer .NET desktop apps. But may be that's only me. I agree, however, I am always reading that .NET is replacing WinAPI,MFC,etc., but I really don't see that happening for pure desktop application development. Sometimes I wonder if when I work with MFC/ATL, am I just wasting my time with a technology that will soon become extinct?
R.Bischoff | C++ .NET, Kommst du mit?
-
.S.Rod. wrote: I don't see for the foreseeable future high end customer .NET desktop apps. But may be that's only me. I agree, however, I am always reading that .NET is replacing WinAPI,MFC,etc., but I really don't see that happening for pure desktop application development. Sometimes I wonder if when I work with MFC/ATL, am I just wasting my time with a technology that will soon become extinct?
R.Bischoff | C++ .NET, Kommst du mit?
Soliant wrote: I agree, however, I am always reading that .NET is replacing WinAPI,MFC,etc., but I really don't see that happening for pure desktop application development. Custom Windows form controls require WIN32, so I don't think that, with GUIs getting more professional every day, we are seeing WIN32 going offphase anytime soon. Without WIN32, the CLR does nothing. So, if you have capitalized on WIN32 libraries, you are not wasting your time. Soliant wrote: Sometimes I wonder if when I work with MFC/ATL, am I just wasting my time with a technology that will soon become extinct? How could MFC/ATL become extinct ? You have the source code for both libraries (you can even recompile them), so it won't become obsolete as long as you don't deltree them! ;P That said, yes, MS is trying to make us switch to .NET. The fact that all content in MSDN mag and MSDN library is now related to .NET does not have to make you and your company feel like MFC/ATL is over. MS is not investing anymore in those, but who cares?
-
Hi! I'm curious about if anybody is using .NET in desktop application development. I've just finished a live chat front-end using Windows Forms in C#, similar to Humanclick. Did not used any code obfuscator, mainly because the front-end itself don't have utility without the server's components (the windows service it uses and the aspx pages used in administration), so having people disassembling it is not a big issue. I'll distribute the front-end to my customers along with .NET framework runtime and other stuff on CD-ROM, but will let customers to download it from web too. Now comes the big question: The .NET framework runtime is about 20Mb. Does somebody developed an application which requires the user to download the runtime? Will them install it? Or .NET is being used only for server side application development? Thanks, John
I am developing a desktop app using .NET, and it is wonderful. Yes, you need the .NET runtime, but you can include it on your installation CD if you have one. The great thing about .NET is how easy and seamless it has made developing components and user controls. It's now a true peice of cake, basically it is COM the way it was always meant to be (even Don Box thinks so according to an associate of mine who knows him). Here where I work, the goal is all new development in .NET. And we don't take those decisions lightly.
-
I am developing a desktop app using .NET, and it is wonderful. Yes, you need the .NET runtime, but you can include it on your installation CD if you have one. The great thing about .NET is how easy and seamless it has made developing components and user controls. It's now a true peice of cake, basically it is COM the way it was always meant to be (even Don Box thinks so according to an associate of mine who knows him). Here where I work, the goal is all new development in .NET. And we don't take those decisions lightly.
jpwkeeper wrote: I am developing a desktop app using .NET, and it is wonderful. Yes, you need the .NET runtime, but you can include it on your installation CD if you have one. Indeed. .NET is wonderful. jpwkeeper wrote: The great thing about .NET is how easy and seamless it has made developing components and user controls. It's now a true peice of cake, basically it is COM the way it was always meant to be (even Don Box thinks so according to an associate of mine who knows him). Here where I work, the goal is all new development in .NET. And we don't take those decisions lightly. I have used .NET for building my last 2 projects, an accounting system with lots of XML handling, and the live chat system, with sockets handling, XML, multi-threading, and other stuff that can be a bit harder to develop/debug when using C++/MFC and those crypt COM interfaces... I think .NET is a great framework for building any kind of application. We can still use C++ for some work that needs very high performance. Sadly, I have heard about people and some companies that don't want .NET installed on their computers...:(( I just don't know why... Cheers, John
-
jpwkeeper wrote: I am developing a desktop app using .NET, and it is wonderful. Yes, you need the .NET runtime, but you can include it on your installation CD if you have one. Indeed. .NET is wonderful. jpwkeeper wrote: The great thing about .NET is how easy and seamless it has made developing components and user controls. It's now a true peice of cake, basically it is COM the way it was always meant to be (even Don Box thinks so according to an associate of mine who knows him). Here where I work, the goal is all new development in .NET. And we don't take those decisions lightly. I have used .NET for building my last 2 projects, an accounting system with lots of XML handling, and the live chat system, with sockets handling, XML, multi-threading, and other stuff that can be a bit harder to develop/debug when using C++/MFC and those crypt COM interfaces... I think .NET is a great framework for building any kind of application. We can still use C++ for some work that needs very high performance. Sadly, I have heard about people and some companies that don't want .NET installed on their computers...:(( I just don't know why... Cheers, John