Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - Programming - .NET or not to dot net?
| User | Post |
dan
Posts: 167/782 |
Originally posted by Jesper
Originally posted by FreeDOS
I don't even have Windows! I use Linux... Microsoft will never port .NET to Linux.
Mono?  (Quick edit for clarity: Yes, I know Microsoft isn't maintaining Mono.
dotGNU is also another non-Microsoft version of the .NET framework. It's probably not as complete as Mono, but at least it has a System.Windows.Forms implementation (basically, the whole GUI part of the proper .NET framework, which Mono lacks).  Once Mono gains that feature, I can see it getting a lot more popular. (Currently, it's just one of those quirky new things that nobody really writes serious stuff in) |
Parasyte
Posts: 148/514 |
Originally posted by Jesper
And no, I didn't miss that part. I just hate unnecessary dogma - which could easily be seen as UNIX/whatever-loving asshattery. If you have your reasons, then for god's sake, say so. How are we to be able to distinguish you from people talking out of their asses just because they don't like Microsoft, and how are we to learn from or understand your reasons if you won't mention them? Granted, the "xenophobia" thing was a bait. I was truly interested in seeing what a ROM hacking veteran like yourself was thinking.
Shaw! I figure you could have distinguished the difference rather easily. Afterall, you did end up calling me a "ROM hacking veteran" ... That should be a good hint that I have at least half a brain. Maybe not much more than half, but at least half, you know? Oh well.
Oh, speaking of interpreted applications which attempt to avoid memory leaks and segmentation faults and whatnot... Did we all forget that even interpreted applications are not error proof? I mean, they aren't any less error prone, even. How many Visual Basic programs have you seen which exit with such-and-such error message? Probably quite a few, if you've used any VB apps at all. Just because the interpreter can catch an error such as "Subscript out of range" does not mean it's any better at preventing and\or fixing the problem than any other program. *shrug* |
neotransotaku
Posts: 1330/4016 |
It is going to be a while before .NET is the main thing offered my microsoft. They are gradually phasing out their older Visual Studio series. It will be a while before you have to use .NET if you want to develop via Microsoft, but that is from the corporate point of view.
But as an amateur programmer, nothing says you have to use .NET nor do you have to use Java, or C, or VB. As long as the language does what you want it to do, who cares.
Also, C# isn't a only .NET thing. There are C# compilers that will compile into binary executables that do not depend on the runtimes. However, they do not get the adequate testing that Microsoft or other corporations do and thus your code might be correct but the compiler is at fault. |
Jesper
Posts: 861/2390 |
Originally posted by FreeDOS
GUIs existed before the Macintosh or PC, for that matter.
And .NET existed before we knew about it. I think not more than say 10,000 people in the US had even considered GUIs when it was still in PARC (and noone from the outside had seen it yet).
The GUI got widely recognized with the Mac, and the .NET got widely recognized about two or three years ago, as in "most people has heard of the term somewhere", although it's still building up. |
Squash Monster
Posts: 385/677 |
Then replace Mac in what Jesper said with Xerox, then. It still stands. |
FreeDOS
Posts: 700/1657 |
GUIs existed before the Macintosh or PC, for that matter. |
Jesper
Posts: 856/2390 |
Originally posted by FreeDOS
I don't even have Windows! I use Linux... Microsoft will never port .NET to Linux.
Mono? (Quick edit for clarity: Yes, I know Microsoft isn't maintaining Mono. But this question is a bit like saying in a GUI discussion in 1984 that "I don't care, PCs will never have a Mac GUI anyway.") |
FreeDOS
Posts: 698/1657 |
I don't even have Windows! I use Linux... Microsoft will never port .NET to Linux. |
Jesper
Posts: 850/2390 |
Originally posted by Parasyte
Hmm, perhaps you missed the part where I mentioned lying about having .NET installed. So, that answered your question. Just because I hate it doesn't mean I am not forced to use it every now and then -- that's just life. On the bright side, .NET's existence does not mean I have to write programs for it. That would be absolutely ridiculous.
On the bright side, the existance of thousands of programming language / compiler/interpreter combinations does not force me to develop for any of them at all. So yes, that would be ridiculous.
And no, I didn't miss that part. I just hate unnecessary dogma - which could easily be seen as UNIX/whatever-loving asshattery. If you have your reasons, then for god's sake, say so. How are we to be able to distinguish you from people talking out of their asses just because they don't like Microsoft, and how are we to learn from or understand your reasons if you won't mention them? Granted, the "xenophobia" thing was a bait. I was truly interested in seeing what a ROM hacking veteran like yourself was thinking.
Originally posted by Parasyte
Personally, I cannot imagine why anyone would really want to go solely with interpreted applications. There's a lot of damn power in computer hardware these days, so why not make full use of it? I know I certainly don't want a high-end emulator or game running under interpretation. That would suck, no matter how many instructions per second your CPU could pull; because in the end, you're just wasting CPU cycles... CPU cycles which could be put to good use. (See http://www.distributed.net/ and similar projects.)
On the other hand, it's an interesting attempt to bring multi-platform applications into a single package. Somehow that still doesn't make up for the cons. Two big thumbs down.
The big idea with interpreted apps the way I see it is that you waste a small amount (a few percent?) of your CPU cycles in order to make it possible that you can write once, run anywhere. In .NET's case, Microsoft touted this as a big feature with .NET, and no, they didn't release any alternative implementations. This could be because of either or some or all of these reasons:- Microsoft are retards who won't deliver.
- Microsoft are already busy with switching over to .NET internally, and getting it out there because they didn't bundle it with the OS. They don't have time for Linux and OS X ports.
- Microsoft making a Windows headline feature for another OS wouldn't go down well. Have you ever tried the Windows Media Player for OS X? It's so scaled down, I'm surprised the Play button is still in. It doesn't support any of the DRM schemes either as far as I know.
- They knew some Open Source kooks were going to port it any day now, after having ported Linux to their dishwasher.
Originally posted by Parasyte
P.S. .NET and Java are equally ludicrous. I do not care for either in the least.
Fair enough.
Legion, good point. *moves to programming* |
Geiger
Posts: 104/460 |
Originally posted by Parasyte
Personally, I cannot imagine why anyone would really want to go solely with interpreted applications. There's a lot of damn power in computer hardware these days, so why not make full use of it?
Well, in a sense, it still is. Just not all of that power is going towards the execution of one's code. Some of it is used to make sure the program does not seg fault or corrupt memory or take the system down. Garbage collection eliminates most memory leaks. Its a tradeoff of performance for a better working program (which is an issue for any platform).
Its important to note that if one's program is good enough, people will use it anyway despite it's .NET status. This I know from experience with Peer TBL Editor.
---Evil Peer |
Legion
Posts: 2046/5657 |
What the hell is this doing in Rom Hacking? |
Gavin
Posts: 174/799 |
hah, yah. i was going to say, i was never very fond of java either |
Parasyte
Posts: 147/514 |
Originally posted by Jesper
Again... I suppose, since you all hate runtimes, you really must be manually removing all VB runtimes and Java runtimes from your systems, HyperHacker and Parasyte, right? Because otherwise you'd be hypocrites, right?
Answer these questions: what makes downloading .NET inherently more evil/bad/whatever than Java? What makes USING .NET more evil than Java? I don't believe I've ever gotten a logical answer to that, just xenophobia. And if you seriously believe that just because they're Microsoft they can't develop something good, you just may be a moron.
Hmm, perhaps you missed the part where I mentioned lying about having .NET installed. So, that answered your question. Just because I hate it doesn't mean I am not forced to use it every now and then -- that's just life. On the bright side, .NET's existence does not mean I have to write programs for it. That would be absolutely ridiculous.
Personally, I cannot imagine why anyone would really want to go solely with interpreted applications. There's a lot of damn power in computer hardware these days, so why not make full use of it? I know I certainly don't want a high-end emulator or game running under interpretation. That would suck, no matter how many instructions per second your CPU could pull; because in the end, you're just wasting CPU cycles... CPU cycles which could be put to good use. (See http://www.distributed.net/ and similar projects.)
On the other hand, it's an interesting attempt to bring multi-platform applications into a single package. Somehow that still doesn't make up for the cons. Two big thumbs down.
P.S. .NET and Java are equally ludicrous. I do not care for either in the least. |
Jesper
Posts: 848/2390 |
Again... I suppose, since you all hate runtimes, you really must be manually removing all VB runtimes and Java runtimes from your systems, HyperHacker and Parasyte, right? Because otherwise you'd be hypocrites, right?
Yes, Ailure, Mono is that project to bring .NET to Linux and Mac OS X, and Evil Peer provided a link to it.
Kagerato also pretty much mirrored my thoughts - it was very stupid to not bundle .NET with XP, and it's not like they're going to stop developing for .NET now, so you'd all just be better off by actually downloading the runtime.
Answer these questions: what makes downloading .NET inherently more evil/bad/whatever than Java? What makes USING .NET more evil than Java? I don't believe I've ever gotten a logical answer to that, just xenophobia. And if you seriously believe that just because they're Microsoft they can't develop something good, you just may be a moron. |
Geiger
Posts: 103/460 |
Since I do all of my projects in C#, it should be fairly easy to guess which platform got my vote.
And no, .NET is not necessarily Windows specific.
---Evil Peer |
Ailure
Posts: 4773/11162 |
But unlike Java, .NET is just for one platform (Windows) right?
...
Jesper says something about Novell devoloping a solution for Linux and Mac OS X hmm. 
I really don't mind it, as long it's not slow *cough*VB*cough*. |
HyperLamer
Posts: 1529/8210 |
Originally posted by Parasyte
I hate .NET, so I lied about having it installed and chose "No, I do not have .NET installed" because .NET is bloody terrible and awful. I hope .NET brings upon armageddon so I don't have to live in a world where .NET exists. Damn it!
Agreed, the hell if I'm installing .NET. It's like a runtime on top of a runtime. |
dan
Posts: 163/782 |
Write your program using whatever you are most comfortable with. Besides, you can't really convert VB.net/C# to a non runtime language anyways. (VB.net isn't anything like original VB, and C# can only really be converted to Java, which uses the JRE obviously) |
Kagerato
Posts: 20/25 |
There are two advantages to utilizing a runtime instead of standalone executables: smaller executable size and the possibility of portability. Whether Microsoft will support the .NET runtime as it becomes (widely) available on other platforms is yet to be seen; my guess is no.
The obvious disadvantage to runtimes is that they're a large download. .NET is about 22.5 mbyte. The Windows GTK binaries compact into 6.7 mbyte; when you decompress them, they occupy about the same space.
Personally I believe it was a mistake to jump into .NET so soon, before the major platform (XP) provided the runtime natively. However, Longhorn and future versions of Windows will definitely have .NET available, integrated with the system (simply because a lot of the code on the next-generation operating systems will be for the .NET platform).
I'm not sure how many people have noticed, but Borland (developer of a lot of high quality programming tools for numerous languages and environments) is moving to .NET as well. Delphi 8 is for .NET, and the company has also introduced a C#Builder for the platform.
At first, all this jumping to a foreign new environment scared and infuriated me. However, I've now accepted it as just another stage of development.
Interpreted languages (or rather, languages which require an interpreter of some kind), and platforms dependent on a central runtime, are slowly but surely beginning to dominate the programming sector. Java was/is the popular pioneer. But there is also Python and Perl. The Internet has rejected traditional languages, and is now almost consumed with numerous implementations of never-compiled scripts.
If you don't like this course, I suggest moving over to a unix-like system. Several Linux/GNU distributions I've tried are still heavily tied down in compiled languages (99.9% C/C++), and there are no signs of that changing in the near future. |
Jesper
Posts: 842/2390 |
Originally posted by Parasyte
I hate .NET, so I lied about having it installed and chose "No, I do not have .NET installed" because .NET is bloody terrible and awful. I hope .NET brings upon armageddon so I don't have to live in a world where .NET exists. Damn it!
It's really a matter of ubiquitousity. Who the hell wanted to download Java in 1995 to see those piddly little applets?
As someone with a little experience in both .NET and Java, I think they are pretty equal when looking at functionality. One is not inherently worse than the other unless you hate either of Microsoft or Sun outright. Java is available pretty much everywhere. Soon .NET will be available pretty much everywhere. Not this year, not next year, maybe the year after that.
For better or worse, Microsoft is not going to write much more 'native' code. In the next few years, more and more apps will be migrating to .NET. Either you can stay in the 90's () and use only native compiled apps or you could install .NET - it steals 30 minutes of your life, unless you're on dialup, in which case it steals up to 5 hours of your life - and don't ever need to give a fuck about if your apps are native or .NET again.
I guess one could question the sanity of the fuckers who decided to go with a 30MB runtime instead of linking, but it's really not anything we can do about it that will root all that up and change it tomorrow or even next year. And I agree with Garmichael. .NET is horrible for websites. I quite like the way it functions for apps though.
Lastly, consider this. In a few years, when the Mono project has catched up and .NET has gained widespread use (through bundling with Windows, hopefully - the VB runtimes are bundled and so's the Win32 API), you as a programmer will be able to code one version for Mac, Linux and Windows, just like with Java. Does that sound evil to you? |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. |
|
