Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. General Programming
  3. .NET (Core and Framework)
  4. .NET is crap

.NET is crap

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved .NET (Core and Framework)
csharpjavadotnetvisual-studio
20 Posts 13 Posters 2 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • T TBiker

    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?

    C Offline
    C Offline
    Christian Graus
    wrote on last edited by
    #8

    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

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • T TBiker

      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...

      G Offline
      G Offline
      Glenn Dawson
      wrote on last edited by
      #9

      Java is dead and it's Sun's fault. http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011101.html

      T 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • G Glenn Dawson

        Java is dead and it's Sun's fault. http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011101.html

        T Offline
        T Offline
        TBiker
        wrote on last edited by
        #10

        Interesting read. Thanks for the pointer. To wine is devine.c

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • T TBiker

          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...

          M Offline
          M Offline
          Michael P Butler
          wrote on last edited by
          #11

          >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 :-)

          P 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • M Michael P Butler

            >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 :-)

            P Offline
            P Offline
            Paul Watson
            wrote on last edited by
            #12

            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

            M 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • P Paul Watson

              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

              M Offline
              M Offline
              Michael P Butler
              wrote on last edited by
              #13

              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 :-)

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • T TBiker

                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 Offline
                C Offline
                Chris Maunder
                wrote on last edited by
                #14

                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)

                T 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • C Chris Maunder

                  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)

                  T Offline
                  T Offline
                  TBiker
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #15

                  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.

                  N 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • T TBiker

                    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.

                    N Offline
                    N Offline
                    Nish Nishant
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #16

                    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

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • T TBiker

                      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.

                      C Offline
                      C Offline
                      cdehelean
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #17

                      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.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • C Chris Losinger

                        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

                        H Offline
                        H Offline
                        Hadi Rezaee
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #18

                        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

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • T TBiker

                          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...

                          E Offline
                          E Offline
                          Ed K
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #19

                          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.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • T TBiker

                            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...

                            R Offline
                            R Offline
                            rchiav
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #20

                            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.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            Reply
                            • Reply as topic
                            Log in to reply
                            • Oldest to Newest
                            • Newest to Oldest
                            • Most Votes


                            • Login

                            • Don't have an account? Register

                            • Login or register to search.
                            • First post
                              Last post
                            0
                            • Categories
                            • Recent
                            • Tags
                            • Popular
                            • World
                            • Users
                            • Groups