.NET is killing natural of programming from inside !?
-
I have been thinking that for almost 35 years. On my little computer back then the normal way to write a program was machine language. Simple assemblers were available, but took away too much of your little memory. Or you could expand the memory and run Tiny BASIC, or a 'full' BASIC if you got yourself even more RAM. I always stayed on the low level side and got better results with less hardware and at a smaller price. Just because we have far stronger processors and much more memory now, that's no reason to get wasteful. And, what's worse, we have been isolated from what the compiler actually makes out of our source code. Often enough I have seen people do crazy things, totally unaware that memory still is limited and that even the strongest processor has no chance against brute force approaches. And I have also seen how helpless they can become when one of their 'silver bullets' fails.
-
No - it's just moving the "grunt work" into a tested, reliable code base. Just as we all used to do ourselves, but with that code base being consistent and shared among a huge number of users instead of different for each company or even programmer. All .NET does is let us concentrate on the application instead of getting bogged down by the details of the low level stuff we have written so many times before.
If you get an email telling you that you can catch Swine Flu from tinned pork then just delete it. It's Spam.
yes you are right ! but i am talking about Programming , not programming projects ! someone rich doesnt need do projects , he/she wanna code for fun and wanna feel joy of programming , and microsoft just help to do programming !
-
You have been thinking that for 35 years, is this a joke? The first Beta of Microsoft's .NET technology came out in 2000. And I don't think it's 2035 yet.
-
yes you are right ! but i am talking about Programming , not programming projects ! someone rich doesnt need do projects , he/she wanna code for fun and wanna feel joy of programming , and microsoft just help to do programming !
So am I. Low level code is fun to do: I have been involved with embedded software for most of my working life. But there is very, very little satisfaction from reinventing the wheel - particularly if you do it over and over with each new programming job you do. .NET allows you to focus on your code, your task - without having to write a combobox from scratch (which is a very,. very dull thing to do and get right). It's about freeing your time and making your effort more effective. Yes, it is a very good idea to know what is going on "behind the scenes" - but it shouldn't be the only thing you try to do! And you don't have to be rich to code with .NET, even as a complete amateur - each and every version of VS has included free Express editions which miss out very little that an amateur would need.
If you get an email telling you that you can catch Swine Flu from tinned pork then just delete it. It's Spam.
-
a calculator also can be interesting if you make it with new ways! dnt agree? in first version you write anything in one class, in second you involve inheritance, in third version you involve threads and delegates ,... as you see a simple programm can be interesting with new and great codes ! dont agree?
Maybe.. that sort of sounds like making it complex just for the sake of complexity though. How about a calculator that can parse formula's and do symbolic differentiation? Now that's pretty interesting, and the fact that you'd be working in C# doesn't really kill the fun.
-
And you think .Net was the first attempt to make our life better by doing that annoying low level stuff for us?
I never claimed that. I just pointed out that it has not been around for 35 years. And I do not like .NET myself, it has however teached me a lot about coding structures. I could step onto Java any time I want right now, C++ too. I think .NET is a good way to get started in coding. That however, is my opinion.
-
its just a private idea , really .net is not killing natural of programming? i mean in .net sometimes with one line you can do something wich needs more than 10 lines! it makes programming so simple and faster but in this situations i dnt feel im programming really ! maybe because my codes complete so fast :laugh: ! whats your idea? agree or not?
Programming comes by Passion and .NET is just a means for doing things and I really feel proud of MS .NET I don't agree that .NET kills anythings. Few years back I had a conversation with my Java folks and they said we have better control in Java and feel that we are really coding. In the end I told it's all Object Oriented no matter which one you pick. It may be Java or .NET all have framework libraries and one has to use them and implement solution. Remember one thing. Even If you are using C Programming language and code your solution , you are still using the libraries and code with them and there is nothing great if you are writing hundreds of lines to achieve the same. If you are really coding in Assembly or Machine language then I will have to bow my head to you :) Else it doesn't matter which technology and programming language you use and implement. Thanks,
Ranjan.D
-
Maybe.. that sort of sounds like making it complex just for the sake of complexity though. How about a calculator that can parse formula's and do symbolic differentiation? Now that's pretty interesting, and the fact that you'd be working in C# doesn't really kill the fun.
im not talking about c#, i really love c# ! so you know interesting not bigs
-
Programming comes by Passion and .NET is just a means for doing things and I really feel proud of MS .NET I don't agree that .NET kills anythings. Few years back I had a conversation with my Java folks and they said we have better control in Java and feel that we are really coding. In the end I told it's all Object Oriented no matter which one you pick. It may be Java or .NET all have framework libraries and one has to use them and implement solution. Remember one thing. Even If you are using C Programming language and code your solution , you are still using the libraries and code with them and there is nothing great if you are writing hundreds of lines to achieve the same. If you are really coding in Assembly or Machine language then I will have to bow my head to you :) Else it doesn't matter which technology and programming language you use and implement. Thanks,
Ranjan.D
i dnt code in assembly but its my dream ! :) i know languages try to become OOP and i dnt say .NET is bad thing , OOP like C# (my favourite) is interesting thing becouse my class can have childs,dady and ... i just asked its not good if we go more down into programming and if we know anything that we make is completly writen by ourselves not just a little part? (biggest part writen by .net programmers)
-
I never claimed that. I just pointed out that it has not been around for 35 years. And I do not like .NET myself, it has however teached me a lot about coding structures. I could step onto Java any time I want right now, C++ too. I think .NET is a good way to get started in coding. That however, is my opinion.
-
I never claimed that. I just pointed out that it has not been around for 35 years. And I do not like .NET myself, it has however teached me a lot about coding structures. I could step onto Java any time I want right now, C++ too. I think .NET is a good way to get started in coding. That however, is my opinion.
Yvar Birx wrote:
I think .NET is a good way to get started in coding.
i am agree but just start with it . for being professional must drown into programming and reconize what is going on into your .net classes! i think is better to understand anything instead of just knowing how use it!
-
i dnt code in assembly but its my dream ! :) i know languages try to become OOP and i dnt say .NET is bad thing , OOP like C# (my favourite) is interesting thing becouse my class can have childs,dady and ... i just asked its not good if we go more down into programming and if we know anything that we make is completly writen by ourselves not just a little part? (biggest part writen by .net programmers)
As said it comes with passion. One has to think beyond and build frameworks and not just use the ones which Microsoft provides. As I have seen almost all companies do build their own in house wrapper or framework libraries either by extending or their own. If you are doing such things then you will feel more enthusiastic and feel like you are doing really a nice thing. I really see the power and future of .NET and of-course it makes life more easy but in the other end think about no framework libraries then it would have been a hectic job to write all stuffs by ourselves in building things. Ultimately as I believe MS has analysed all these things with other programming languages and they did their best part in bringing up the frameworks and Improving stuffs with each new releases.
Ranjan.D
-
So am I. Low level code is fun to do: I have been involved with embedded software for most of my working life. But there is very, very little satisfaction from reinventing the wheel - particularly if you do it over and over with each new programming job you do. .NET allows you to focus on your code, your task - without having to write a combobox from scratch (which is a very,. very dull thing to do and get right). It's about freeing your time and making your effort more effective. Yes, it is a very good idea to know what is going on "behind the scenes" - but it shouldn't be the only thing you try to do! And you don't have to be rich to code with .NET, even as a complete amateur - each and every version of VS has included free Express editions which miss out very little that an amateur would need.
If you get an email telling you that you can catch Swine Flu from tinned pork then just delete it. It's Spam.
OriginalGriff wrote:
without having to write a combobox from scratch (which is a very,. very dull thing to do and get right).
I can't confirm that. Writing my own UI actually was a lot of fun, not really hard and at least I hope I got some things right. :)
-
its just a private idea , really .net is not killing natural of programming? i mean in .net sometimes with one line you can do something wich needs more than 10 lines! it makes programming so simple and faster but in this situations i dnt feel im programming really ! maybe because my codes complete so fast :laugh: ! whats your idea? agree or not?
Comming from a COBOL world where our motto was "Why use one line when two will do", I love the simplicity of .NET
Ger
-
.NET has lasted ten years now (V1.1 came out with VS2003!) which is pretty good going these days. Yes, it makes MS money - but it's not quite as bad as Office, where you have to update your whole company because one of your customers upgraded and you can't read their documents any more! :mad: Don't get me wrong - I came up through the machine-code/assembler/c/c++ route after starting Uni with COBOL and FORTRAN - it's not the best it could be. But it does cut development and maintenance time considerably by removing the need to recode and retest a linked list every time, and a string class, and a ... It's certainly a shed load better than MFC ever was!
If you get an email telling you that you can catch Swine Flu from tinned pork then just delete it. It's Spam.
OriginalGriff wrote:
It's certainly a shed load better than MFC ever was!
Most things are :-\
Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS Projects promoting programming in "natural language" are intrinsically doomed to fail. Edsger W.Dijkstra
-
i dnt code in assembly but its my dream ! :) i know languages try to become OOP and i dnt say .NET is bad thing , OOP like C# (my favourite) is interesting thing becouse my class can have childs,dady and ... i just asked its not good if we go more down into programming and if we know anything that we make is completly writen by ourselves not just a little part? (biggest part writen by .net programmers)
source.compiler wrote:
i dnt code in assembly but its my dream !
When you start learning it, beware of tutorials about 16bit x86. It's unnecessarily complex. The silly (by todays standards) memory model, all the missing instructions and the severely restricted memory operand encoding are all things you can learn later if you really want, but they can easily overwhelm a beginner. Just jump right into 32bit. Or into something other than x86.
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
It's certainly a shed load better than MFC ever was!
Most things are :-\
Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS Projects promoting programming in "natural language" are intrinsically doomed to fail. Edsger W.Dijkstra
True, especially the early versions which were a horror to work with. I used to compare it to gouging your own eyes out with a rusty spoon...
If you get an email telling you that you can catch Swine Flu from tinned pork then just delete it. It's Spam.
-
source.compiler wrote:
i dnt code in assembly but its my dream !
When you start learning it, beware of tutorials about 16bit x86. It's unnecessarily complex. The silly (by todays standards) memory model, all the missing instructions and the severely restricted memory operand encoding are all things you can learn later if you really want, but they can easily overwhelm a beginner. Just jump right into 32bit. Or into something other than x86.
harold aptroot wrote:
Or into something other than x86
Z80 is a good (if rather old) start, or 68000. Avoid ARM for beginners (it's truly lovely to work with, but if that's a RISC instruction set I'm a lump of cheese), and any PC based Intel processor until you have got into the mindset of assembler. PIC is good, but a pain to learn on because it relies on the hardware so much and you end up debugging both at the same time...
If you get an email telling you that you can catch Swine Flu from tinned pork then just delete it. It's Spam.
-
So am I. Low level code is fun to do: I have been involved with embedded software for most of my working life. But there is very, very little satisfaction from reinventing the wheel - particularly if you do it over and over with each new programming job you do. .NET allows you to focus on your code, your task - without having to write a combobox from scratch (which is a very,. very dull thing to do and get right). It's about freeing your time and making your effort more effective. Yes, it is a very good idea to know what is going on "behind the scenes" - but it shouldn't be the only thing you try to do! And you don't have to be rich to code with .NET, even as a complete amateur - each and every version of VS has included free Express editions which miss out very little that an amateur would need.
If you get an email telling you that you can catch Swine Flu from tinned pork then just delete it. It's Spam.
i said many times! i like .NET and microsoft ,But as you said yourself ! .NET is a product to help us to make our product simply! and if i make a combobox, i compile it as DLL , and will use it on my next projects! its deifference with .net is, I MADE MY OWN Control AND i will use my own ! actually after making it , i know how make it , so its will increase my programming skill ! (ofcourse we can read many Articles but discovering by ourselves has another taste)
-
True, especially the early versions which were a horror to work with. I used to compare it to gouging your own eyes out with a rusty spoon...
If you get an email telling you that you can catch Swine Flu from tinned pork then just delete it. It's Spam.
In the early 90'ies I was over in the land of OS/2 - where we had the IBM Open Class[^] library, MQ Series and DB/2. Returning to the world of MFC & Access was a culture shock - but thanks to Delphi & C++ Builder I didn't run away screaming - I also lucked out and had a number of customers that understood the difference between Access and the Oracle RDBMS - I also had one that didn't, and wanted a 16-bit Access version of the product too - I should have said no, but didn't. :-\
Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS Projects promoting programming in "natural language" are intrinsically doomed to fail. Edsger W.Dijkstra
