.NET is crap
-
Not only is the .Net a bloated (1.2 Gb!) distribution [.Net Framework + Visual Studio .Net] but the design principles behind the product are completely motivated by Microsoft's continued need to dominate the technogolies that it perceives drive the marketplace. C# is an obvious rip-off of Java. Does Microsoft think I'm going to continually invest my valuable lifespan learning "new" languages with no tangible benefits over existing languages? C# is proprietary and flys in the face of a multi-platform advantage enjoyed by Java. VB is horribly incompatible with VB 6. Project conversion from VB6 to VB7 is verrrrry slow (almost 1/2 hour to convert a simple project with several forms) and results in hundreds of errors that much be attended to manually due to changes in VB. Each change is a reference to some documentation link that must be visited and absorbed. Tired of going down the same roads...
C# is proprietary and flys in the face of a multi-platform advantage enjoyed by Java. did you forget? Java is owned by Sun. VB is horribly incompatible with VB 6. VB?? talking about proprietary... at least MS is submitting C# to a standards body (which Sun won't do with Java and MS would never do with VB). -c
POKE 808,234
-
C# is proprietary and flys in the face of a multi-platform advantage enjoyed by Java. did you forget? Java is owned by Sun. VB is horribly incompatible with VB 6. VB?? talking about proprietary... at least MS is submitting C# to a standards body (which Sun won't do with Java and MS would never do with VB). -c
POKE 808,234
Java execution support is at least supported on a variety of operating systems and browsers whereas C# requires the Common Execution environment that Microsoft is not likely to make available elsewhere. I guess by "proprietary", I mean "limiting". Yeah, VB is proprietary but my point there was about compatibility.
-
Java execution support is at least supported on a variety of operating systems and browsers whereas C# requires the Common Execution environment that Microsoft is not likely to make available elsewhere. I guess by "proprietary", I mean "limiting". Yeah, VB is proprietary but my point there was about compatibility.
-
Java execution support is at least supported on a variety of operating systems and browsers whereas C# requires the Common Execution environment that Microsoft is not likely to make available elsewhere. I guess by "proprietary", I mean "limiting". Yeah, VB is proprietary but my point there was about compatibility.
i heard, back in the summer, that there are at least two companies (Ximian and Corel, i think) working on .Net CLR's for Linux - with MS's permission. believe it when ya see it, of course. -c
POKE 808,234
-
Not only is the .Net a bloated (1.2 Gb!) distribution [.Net Framework + Visual Studio .Net] but the design principles behind the product are completely motivated by Microsoft's continued need to dominate the technogolies that it perceives drive the marketplace. C# is an obvious rip-off of Java. Does Microsoft think I'm going to continually invest my valuable lifespan learning "new" languages with no tangible benefits over existing languages? C# is proprietary and flys in the face of a multi-platform advantage enjoyed by Java. VB is horribly incompatible with VB 6. Project conversion from VB6 to VB7 is verrrrry slow (almost 1/2 hour to convert a simple project with several forms) and results in hundreds of errors that much be attended to manually due to changes in VB. Each change is a reference to some documentation link that must be visited and absorbed. Tired of going down the same roads...
If you're a regular you'll know I have little nice to say about C#/.NET. That being the case: C# is proprietary and flys in the face of a multi-platform advantage enjoyed by Java. You came from /., right ? Only there is it acceptable for Sun to have a proprietary language, but not M$. Java wasn't exactly a new idea in any case. Christian After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
-
If you're a regular you'll know I have little nice to say about C#/.NET. That being the case: C# is proprietary and flys in the face of a multi-platform advantage enjoyed by Java. You came from /., right ? Only there is it acceptable for Sun to have a proprietary language, but not M$. Java wasn't exactly a new idea in any case. Christian After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
I come from Sun -> Linux -> Microsoft [curse of selling software]. Sure, Java is controlled by Sun but it was a significant concept over what C# has to offer and it was needed at a time when Microsoft was not addressing cross-platform execution. C# is me-too with yet another way to offer the SAME concept. What's the benefit to us developers aside from making Microsoft technology function better?
-
I come from Sun -> Linux -> Microsoft [curse of selling software]. Sure, Java is controlled by Sun but it was a significant concept over what C# has to offer and it was needed at a time when Microsoft was not addressing cross-platform execution. C# is me-too with yet another way to offer the SAME concept. What's the benefit to us developers aside from making Microsoft technology function better?
What's the benefit to us developers aside from making Microsoft technology function better? Not a damn thing. Like I said, if you read CP regularly you'll find many posts where I claim C# came out of M$ wanting to reuse the J++ code. That doesn't change that bagging it for being a proprietary language over Java is a bit rich. Christian After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
-
Not only is the .Net a bloated (1.2 Gb!) distribution [.Net Framework + Visual Studio .Net] but the design principles behind the product are completely motivated by Microsoft's continued need to dominate the technogolies that it perceives drive the marketplace. C# is an obvious rip-off of Java. Does Microsoft think I'm going to continually invest my valuable lifespan learning "new" languages with no tangible benefits over existing languages? C# is proprietary and flys in the face of a multi-platform advantage enjoyed by Java. VB is horribly incompatible with VB 6. Project conversion from VB6 to VB7 is verrrrry slow (almost 1/2 hour to convert a simple project with several forms) and results in hundreds of errors that much be attended to manually due to changes in VB. Each change is a reference to some documentation link that must be visited and absorbed. Tired of going down the same roads...
Java is dead and it's Sun's fault. http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011101.html
-
Java is dead and it's Sun's fault. http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011101.html
-
Not only is the .Net a bloated (1.2 Gb!) distribution [.Net Framework + Visual Studio .Net] but the design principles behind the product are completely motivated by Microsoft's continued need to dominate the technogolies that it perceives drive the marketplace. C# is an obvious rip-off of Java. Does Microsoft think I'm going to continually invest my valuable lifespan learning "new" languages with no tangible benefits over existing languages? C# is proprietary and flys in the face of a multi-platform advantage enjoyed by Java. VB is horribly incompatible with VB 6. Project conversion from VB6 to VB7 is verrrrry slow (almost 1/2 hour to convert a simple project with several forms) and results in hundreds of errors that much be attended to manually due to changes in VB. Each change is a reference to some documentation link that must be visited and absorbed. Tired of going down the same roads...
>Not only is the .Net a bloated (1.2 Gb!) distribution The final distribution hasn't confirmed yet. >C# is an obvious rip-off of Java Oh and Java is such an original language. Java is C++ for dummies and was designed by Sun to sell more of their overpriced hardware in the Network Computer Scam. >C# is proprietary and flys in the face of a multi-platform advantage >enjoyed by Java. Name one decent multi-platform advantage that Java has. Most applications are written for pre-determined hardware, especially on the server-side. >VB is horribly incompatible with VB 6. Project conversion from VB6 to VB7 >is verrrrry slow (almost 1/2 hour to convert a simple project with several >forms) and results in hundreds of errors that much be attended to manually >due to changes in VB. Microsoft themselves have said that converting projects from VB6 to VB7 is not recommended. Why would anybody want to convert an existing project to another compiler? The project was designed to do a job, converting it to VB7 won't improve it. Anyway, with a bit of luck it might teach some of those VB hackers how to program better. Michael :-)
-
>Not only is the .Net a bloated (1.2 Gb!) distribution The final distribution hasn't confirmed yet. >C# is an obvious rip-off of Java Oh and Java is such an original language. Java is C++ for dummies and was designed by Sun to sell more of their overpriced hardware in the Network Computer Scam. >C# is proprietary and flys in the face of a multi-platform advantage >enjoyed by Java. Name one decent multi-platform advantage that Java has. Most applications are written for pre-determined hardware, especially on the server-side. >VB is horribly incompatible with VB 6. Project conversion from VB6 to VB7 >is verrrrry slow (almost 1/2 hour to convert a simple project with several >forms) and results in hundreds of errors that much be attended to manually >due to changes in VB. Microsoft themselves have said that converting projects from VB6 to VB7 is not recommended. Why would anybody want to convert an existing project to another compiler? The project was designed to do a job, converting it to VB7 won't improve it. Anyway, with a bit of luck it might teach some of those VB hackers how to program better. Michael :-)
Michael P Butler wrote: Anyway, with a bit of luck it might teach some of those VB hackers how to program better. Oh dear, I simply cannot refuse that barbed insult. Actually I don't think moving from VB6 to VB.NET will improve poor programmers. From what I have seen of .NET it makes it even easier so lousy programmers will become easy-lousy programmers. :-D Will people respect me more if I say I code in C# as opposed to VB? Or do I simply have to switch to C++ to become respected? hehe regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa Do you Sonork? I do! 100.9903 Stormfront "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge
-
Michael P Butler wrote: Anyway, with a bit of luck it might teach some of those VB hackers how to program better. Oh dear, I simply cannot refuse that barbed insult. Actually I don't think moving from VB6 to VB.NET will improve poor programmers. From what I have seen of .NET it makes it even easier so lousy programmers will become easy-lousy programmers. :-D Will people respect me more if I say I code in C# as opposed to VB? Or do I simply have to switch to C++ to become respected? hehe regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa Do you Sonork? I do! 100.9903 Stormfront "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge
I wouldn't class you as one of those VB hackers. You come across as a pretty decent developer who just happens to use VB. Like I've said in the past Programming is programming no matter the language. >Actually I don't think moving from VB6 to VB.NET will improve poor >programmers. From what I have seen of .NET it makes it even easier so lousy >programmers will become easy-lousy programmers. Hopefully having to rewrite their apps will make them think about what they are doing. Not likely, a bad programmer is a bad programmer not matter how good the language is. >Will people respect me more if I say I code in C# as opposed to VB? Or do I >simply have to switch to C++ to become respected? hehe Round here only C++ seems to be respected. VB and C# are treated as languages for dummies. To learn C++ you need to have that attidude, I think it's part of the C++ standard :-) Michael :-)
-
Not only is the .Net a bloated (1.2 Gb!) distribution [.Net Framework + Visual Studio .Net] but the design principles behind the product are completely motivated by Microsoft's continued need to dominate the technogolies that it perceives drive the marketplace. C# is an obvious rip-off of Java. Does Microsoft think I'm going to continually invest my valuable lifespan learning "new" languages with no tangible benefits over existing languages? C# is proprietary and flys in the face of a multi-platform advantage enjoyed by Java. VB is horribly incompatible with VB 6. Project conversion from VB6 to VB7 is verrrrry slow (almost 1/2 hour to convert a simple project with several forms) and results in hundreds of errors that much be attended to manually due to changes in VB. Each change is a reference to some documentation link that must be visited and absorbed. Tired of going down the same roads...
TBiker wrote: Not only is the .Net a bloated (1.2 Gb!) distribution [.Net Framework + Visual Studio .Net] So tell me how large VS6 + the MFC libs are, or VS6 + the VB runtime, or pick a JRE and your Java IDE or choice. The point is: so what? The actual redistributables will be around 15Mb (+/- a few Mb). Even something like Netscape is bigger than that. cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
-
TBiker wrote: Not only is the .Net a bloated (1.2 Gb!) distribution [.Net Framework + Visual Studio .Net] So tell me how large VS6 + the MFC libs are, or VS6 + the VB runtime, or pick a JRE and your Java IDE or choice. The point is: so what? The actual redistributables will be around 15Mb (+/- a few Mb). Even something like Netscape is bigger than that. cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
Its the "so what" attitude of Microsoft that has led to operating systems which seem to magically suck away all the benefit of increased clock speeds and available RAM. No matter how fast my processor is or how much memory I have, Microsoft products continue to amaze me in how the extra resources vanish to a point where my applications never get the benefit. That suggests a poor, bloated design. Sure, Microsoft can eat as much disk space as it needs for a rich development tool but when it takes four times longer to load Visual Studio .Net and twice as much memory before I am running like VS6, then something is really wrong there. What happenned to the days of living with 4 Mb. RAM and a few floppies for a distribution? That is my point.
-
Its the "so what" attitude of Microsoft that has led to operating systems which seem to magically suck away all the benefit of increased clock speeds and available RAM. No matter how fast my processor is or how much memory I have, Microsoft products continue to amaze me in how the extra resources vanish to a point where my applications never get the benefit. That suggests a poor, bloated design. Sure, Microsoft can eat as much disk space as it needs for a rich development tool but when it takes four times longer to load Visual Studio .Net and twice as much memory before I am running like VS6, then something is really wrong there. What happenned to the days of living with 4 Mb. RAM and a few floppies for a distribution? That is my point.
The .NET runtime-redistributable is under 20 MB http://download.microsoft.com/download/VisualStudioNET/Trial/2.0/W982KMeXP/EN-US/dotnetfx.exe Nish Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain
www.busterboy.org
Nish is a BIG fan of Goran Ivanisevic -
Java execution support is at least supported on a variety of operating systems and browsers whereas C# requires the Common Execution environment that Microsoft is not likely to make available elsewhere. I guess by "proprietary", I mean "limiting". Yeah, VB is proprietary but my point there was about compatibility.
There is the mono project that will make .NET available to LINUX. http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS6609104471.html Javas primary goal was to build OS independent client software. How many commercial client apps written in Java do you know. With .NET you will have some powerful libraries (Forms, etc) to get your job done in a productive manner. All I need is a roadmap and then I might be able to find a clue.
-
i heard, back in the summer, that there are at least two companies (Ximian and Corel, i think) working on .Net CLR's for Linux - with MS's permission. believe it when ya see it, of course. -c
POKE 808,234
Hi, you mean i can write program with VC++ and my program run on Linux ? Other question, what is POKE 808, 234 ? ;) My month article: Game programming by DirectX by Lan Mader. Please visit in: www.geocities.com/hadi_rezaie/index.html Hadi Rezaie
-
Not only is the .Net a bloated (1.2 Gb!) distribution [.Net Framework + Visual Studio .Net] but the design principles behind the product are completely motivated by Microsoft's continued need to dominate the technogolies that it perceives drive the marketplace. C# is an obvious rip-off of Java. Does Microsoft think I'm going to continually invest my valuable lifespan learning "new" languages with no tangible benefits over existing languages? C# is proprietary and flys in the face of a multi-platform advantage enjoyed by Java. VB is horribly incompatible with VB 6. Project conversion from VB6 to VB7 is verrrrry slow (almost 1/2 hour to convert a simple project with several forms) and results in hundreds of errors that much be attended to manually due to changes in VB. Each change is a reference to some documentation link that must be visited and absorbed. Tired of going down the same roads...
I'm amazed you would prefer Java over C#, or you haven't really looked at it and your following Sun's press rather than real honest investigation. After working with Java over the last few years, just a quick peek into what C# has to offer...I'm ready to rewrite everything in C#! But I think some things need to be set straight first...... 1) Java is not really platform independent. 2) Java introduces .jar hell which is equivalent to dll hell. 3) Java is SLOW regardless of the horsepower! 4) Java isn't original...C# isn't either.
-
Not only is the .Net a bloated (1.2 Gb!) distribution [.Net Framework + Visual Studio .Net] but the design principles behind the product are completely motivated by Microsoft's continued need to dominate the technogolies that it perceives drive the marketplace. C# is an obvious rip-off of Java. Does Microsoft think I'm going to continually invest my valuable lifespan learning "new" languages with no tangible benefits over existing languages? C# is proprietary and flys in the face of a multi-platform advantage enjoyed by Java. VB is horribly incompatible with VB 6. Project conversion from VB6 to VB7 is verrrrry slow (almost 1/2 hour to convert a simple project with several forms) and results in hundreds of errors that much be attended to manually due to changes in VB. Each change is a reference to some documentation link that must be visited and absorbed. Tired of going down the same roads...
Actually it's not a ripoff of java, it's written by the guy who wrote turbo pascal and Delphi. C# also has a UNIX compiler now. Don't use the IDE (I don't).. and your idea of "bloat" goes away. Even the UNIX world sees how .NET is good, and they are trying to port it all to UNIX.