.NET file size? *RANT*
-
Eddie Velasquez wrote: Right now you're probably right, but in a year or two the .NET runtime will be as readily available in every desktop as shell32.dll, user32.dll or gdi32.dll. Yeah but if they keep changing it like MFC then we have to distro apps with that anyways like I do now with MFC42 :( Code4Food ---- "There is no try; only do or do not" -Yoda
Code4Food wrote: Yeah but if they keep changing it like MFC then we have to distro apps with that anyways like I do now with MFC42 .NET's builtin versioning of assemblies prevents this scenario (bye, bye dll hell)
Eddie Velasquez: A Squeezed Devil
Checkout General Guidelines for C# Class Implementation -
Code4Food wrote: Yeah but if they keep changing it like MFC then we have to distro apps with that anyways like I do now with MFC42 .NET's builtin versioning of assemblies prevents this scenario (bye, bye dll hell)
Eddie Velasquez: A Squeezed Devil
Checkout General Guidelines for C# Class Implementation -
So we don't need to include the .NET runtime? Everytime I build an install I include the crazy MFC24 DLL (if I used MFC) I don't think most systems will have .NET installed on them yet. Code4Food ---- "There is no try; only do or do not" -Yoda
-
That sounds good what about the fact that people can decompile your code/dll? Are they going to solve that? Code4Food ---- "There is no try; only do or do not" -Yoda
Well, there are pretty good decompilers for native code (granted, the output isn't as nearly as complete as an IL decompilation) and that hasn't stopped development. There are superb Java decompilers and that hasn't stopped java development either. There are good .NET obfuscators that will deter most reverse engineering, but if your code is so sensitive it shouldn't be out there anyway, expose it as a web service or something.
Eddie Velasquez: A Squeezed Devil
Checkout General Guidelines for C# Class Implementation