Author Topic: .net (Read 419 times)

Bronk · « **on:** February 17, 2008, 01:50:59 PM »

Skuzzy should .net be avoided, or is it not that intrusive ?

Skuzzy · « **Reply #1 on:** February 17, 2008, 02:45:43 PM »

I presume you are talking about the .BET framework Microsoft is foisting on everyone?

It is just more needless overhead. I look at it this way. If an applcation depends on the .NET framework, then the application is written poorly and I want nothing to do with it. There is no benefot it to .NET and certainly more overhead for it.

llama · « **Reply #2 on:** February 18, 2008, 04:28:46 PM »

I have a different slant on .NET.

The .NET framework is the modern equivalent of the "Visual Basic Runtime Library" that you used to need to download and install all those crummy shareware programs of a few years ago. You needed to install the VBRTL before a lot of those shareware titles would work.

Ever wonder why you don't see any need for the VB Runtime Libraries anymore? Because programmers are using the .NET runtime libraries instead.

I don't consider the .NET libraries to be inherently problematic in and of themselves. The problem is that they allow what I will call "Junior Programmers" to write software very quickly, and this software frequently poorly thought out or executed.

It is usually THIS SOFTWARE as written by inexperienced programmers that causes problems, not the .NET framework itself.

Now then.

If you simply have to install .NET to run something that you simply must have (like something written expressly for your business), then I say go for it. Provided this software doesn't always run the background, then don't worry about it.

If you're considering software that uses .NET, but there's an alternative that doesn't need it, then that other software was probably written by a better programmer, and you should consider using it instead.

That said, if a skilled programmer used .NET to whip out a simple program that I needed, I would have no qualms in installing .NET and using the software.

All of my computers, including my gaming rig, have .NET installed.

-Llama

AKDogg · « **Reply #3 on:** February 18, 2008, 08:40:48 PM »

ATI CCC requires .net to be installed to use it.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #4 on:** February 19, 2008, 06:37:17 AM »

But you do not have to use the ATI CCC. There are alternatives.

And llama, I agree with the overall sentiment, but .NET is more intrusive than VB ever was. .NET has an underlying architecture which allows any computer using it to share with any other computer running it. More of a stealth distributed platform. At least that is Microsoft's long term goal with it.

It also incurs very high overheads for any application using it. There is a reason there are so many complaints with the performance of the ATI CCC and the new NVidia control panel as well.

Spatula · « **Reply #5 on:** February 19, 2008, 04:13:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by llama
The .NET framework is the modern equivalent of the "Visual Basic Runtime Library" that you used to need to download and install all those crummy shareware programs of a few years ago.

Java applications are another example of apps which need a runtime component installed on the target platform to run. The idea behind both Java and .NET is, in theory at least, is 'write once, run anywhere'. Your app is not compiled down to native ML, but to an intermediate byte code, which then the framework on any particular machine can JIT down to the target machine's native ML. So, in theory you can run Java apps on windows, unix, macs etc etc or .NET apps etc as long as you have the framework installed. This model, like it or not, is going to become more common.

Quote

Originally posted by llama

The problem is that they allow what I will call "Junior Programmers" to write software very quickly, and this software frequently poorly thought out or executed.
It is usually THIS SOFTWARE as written by inexperienced programmers that causes problems, not the .NET framework itself.

That certainly can be the case, but isn't always true. Yes, the languages like VB.NET etc make it easier for app developers to make apps but in some cases thats a good thing. The advent of 'easier' languages didn't create rubbish programmers, they've always been out there, there may be more of them now - who knows?

Quote

Originally posted by llama

If you're considering software that uses .NET, but there's an alternative that doesn't need it, then that other software was probably written by a better programmer, and you should consider using it instead.

Thats not always true. I disagree with the 'if its written in .NET, then it must have been written by a crap developer' sentiment. I'm a professional free-lance software engineer and I've been writing software since i was 8 years old, i've learnt many many languages along the way including ADA, C/C++, Prolog (for AI apps), Haskell, Small talk, Basic, VB, Java, C#.NET. Most of my life has been spent around C++. I choose to write my apps in .NET because it allows me to write useful apps much much quicker than writing them in C++. They're much easier to maintain and support. Fact of the matter is, i have limited time to write apps for myself and others in my free time, and if i couldn't have written them in .NET, then they wouldn't have happened at all, which would be a shame.

I dont want to start a religious war over this versus that. Different languages and tool sets are good at the things they were designed to do. You cant always compare them directly. Im not trying to convert anyone to anything, either. Just thought i'd add my perspective...

llama · « **Reply #6 on:** February 19, 2008, 06:15:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Spatula

Thats not always true. I disagree with the 'if its written in .NET, then it must have been written by a crap developer' sentiment. I'm a professional free-lance software engineer and I've been writing software since i was 8 years old, i've learnt many many languages along the way including ADA, C/C++, Prolog (for AI apps), Haskell, Small talk, Basic, VB, Java, C#.NET. Most of my life has been spent around C++. I choose to write my apps in .NET because it allows me to write useful apps much much quicker than writing them in C++. They're much easier to maintain and support. Fact of the matter is, i have limited time to write apps for myself and others in my free time, and if i couldn't have written them in .NET, then they wouldn't have happened at all, which would be a shame.

No offense intended. As I also stated earlier:

"That said, if a skilled programmer used .NET to whip out a simple program that I needed, I would have no qualms in installing .NET and using the software."

I use a lot of programs written with .NET from very skilled programmers, and I wouldn't live without them. I know for a fact that .NET has allowed one of these guys to write the app in 2 days rather than 2 weeks, he said. I believe him.

Still, I stand by my assertion that there are a lot of crummy programs out there that are written with .NET, and that most of the perceived problems with .NET are really problems with the crummy software that someone wrote that used it.

-Llama

Spatula · « **Reply #7 on:** February 19, 2008, 10:14:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by llama
No offense intended.

None taken, just wanted to add my couple of cents.