elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - EDA CAD Electronics - .NET Framework ??
Joel Kolstad
Guest
Guest
Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:11 pm
"Mike Monett" <No_at_email.adr> wrote in message
news:Xns9905BDEFF407FNoemailadr_at_208.49.80.251...
Quote:
Whenever I'm looking for applications, I disregard any application written
in .NET, and continue looking for code written by professionals.
in .NET, and continue looking for code written by professionals.
I'm willing to bet you a dollar that -- at least if you're running Windows XP
or Vista -- you're using plenty of .Net programs without even knowing it.
You can argue that the overhead of .Net -- and similar technologies such as
Java or (to a much lesser extent) Python -- are not worth their (sometimes
quite significant) overhead, but there are some objectives advantages to what
..Net is attempting to do. Not that that implies Microsoft has necessarily
done a particularly good job (I wouldn't really know, having only ever written
"toy" programs in .Net), but hey -- at least they're trying to advance
technology while they take over the universe! :-)
Quote:
One of the authors in the LTspice forum generated a MOSFET model program
using .NET. He recently changed it to a stand-alone exe. This shows .NET is
not needed, and how easy it is to get rid of it.
using .NET. He recently changed it to a stand-alone exe. This shows .NET is
not needed, and how easy it is to get rid of it.
Note that producing a stand-alone .exe doesn't imply that .Net is gone -- it
could have just been bundled up in the executable.
..Net certainly isn't "needed," but neither is Windows Vista or XP, or
Microsoft Outlook or Word or any other program out there. How easy or hard it
is to get rid of .Net is largely a function of the size, complexity, and scope
of the program that's written -- "hello world" is trivially ported to any
language/framework you want, after all.
----Joel
Mike Monett
Guest
Guest
Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:45 pm
"Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad71HatesSpam_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote:
"Mike Monett" <No_at_email.adr> wrote in message
news:Xns9905BDEFF407FNoemailadr_at_208.49.80.251.
Whenever I'm looking for applications, I disregard any
application written in .NET, and continue looking for code
written by professionals.
I'm willing to bet you a dollar that - at least if you're running
Windows XP or Vista - you're using plenty of .Net programs without
even knowing it.
news:Xns9905BDEFF407FNoemailadr_at_208.49.80.251.
Whenever I'm looking for applications, I disregard any
application written in .NET, and continue looking for code
written by professionals.
I'm willing to bet you a dollar that - at least if you're running
Windows XP or Vista - you're using plenty of .Net programs without
even knowing it.
Nope. Win98SE. No need for XP with all the problems. Biggest
advantage is I can use XCOPY32 and copy every file to a backup disk.
Takes only about 60 seconds, so I do it often.
Also, System File Checker is much better in Win98. I can verify
every critical file on the hard disk and ensure nobody downgraded a
dll of changed anything in the kernel.
Quote:
You can argue that the overhead of .Net - and similar technologies
such as Java or (to a much lesser extent) Python - are not worth
their (sometimes quite significant) overhead, but there are some
objectives advantages to what .Net is attempting to do. Not that
that implies Microsoft has necessarily done a particularly good
job (I wouldn't really know, having only ever written "toy"
programs in .Net), but hey - at least they're trying to advance
technology while they take over the universe! :-)
One of the authors in the LTspice forum generated a MOSFET model
program using .NET. He recently changed it to a stand-alone exe.
This shows .NET is not needed, and how easy it is to get rid of
it.
Note that producing a stand-alone .exe doesn't imply that .Net is
gone it could have just been bundled up in the executable.
such as Java or (to a much lesser extent) Python - are not worth
their (sometimes quite significant) overhead, but there are some
objectives advantages to what .Net is attempting to do. Not that
that implies Microsoft has necessarily done a particularly good
job (I wouldn't really know, having only ever written "toy"
programs in .Net), but hey - at least they're trying to advance
technology while they take over the universe! :-)
One of the authors in the LTspice forum generated a MOSFET model
program using .NET. He recently changed it to a stand-alone exe.
This shows .NET is not needed, and how easy it is to get rid of
it.
Note that producing a stand-alone .exe doesn't imply that .Net is
gone it could have just been bundled up in the executable.
Not likely. The exe is about the same size as before. And it loads
much faster.
[...]
Quote:
----Joel
MS .NET is junk. The concept sucks, and the execution is typical MS
crap.
I guess if you hire all these brilliant software jocks, you gotta
let them earn their keep. But if they'd only keep it amongst
themselves instead of forcing the rest of the planet to put up with
it.
Regards,
Mike Monett
Ignoramus3938
Guest
Guest
Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:07 pm
Try going away from microsoft and use some real software, written for
purpose other than taking your money.
i
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
Guest
Guest
Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:36 am
Joel Kolstad wrote:
Quote:
"Mike Monett" <No_at_email.adr> wrote in message
news:Xns9905BDEFF407FNoemailadr_at_208.49.80.251...
Whenever I'm looking for applications, I disregard any application written
in .NET, and continue looking for code written by professionals.
I'm willing to bet you a dollar that -- at least if you're running Windows XP
or Vista -- you're using plenty of .Net programs without even knowing it.
You can argue that the overhead of .Net -- and similar technologies such as
Java or (to a much lesser extent) Python -- are not worth their (sometimes
quite significant) overhead, but there are some objectives advantages to what
.Net is attempting to do. Not that that implies Microsoft has necessarily
done a particularly good job (I wouldn't really know, having only ever written
"toy" programs in .Net), but hey -- at least they're trying to advance
technology while they take over the universe! :-)
One of the authors in the LTspice forum generated a MOSFET model program
using .NET. He recently changed it to a stand-alone exe. This shows .NET is
not needed, and how easy it is to get rid of it.
Note that producing a stand-alone .exe doesn't imply that .Net is gone -- it
could have just been bundled up in the executable.
.Net certainly isn't "needed," but neither is Windows Vista or XP, or
Microsoft Outlook or Word or any other program out there. How easy or hard it
is to get rid of .Net is largely a function of the size, complexity, and scope
of the program that's written -- "hello world" is trivially ported to any
language/framework you want, after all.
Its better said that "hello world" is more easily ported to .NET and as
the programs get larger and demand more services (think databases,
specialized networking, etc.) the odds increase that .NET will _not_
have support for it.
Any 'write once, run anywhere' apps have to target the lowest common
denominator API set. With something like Java, which has a JRE for a
wide range of platforms, it was worthwhile for developers to add the
hooks for underlying services. For .NET, developers just asked "What's
the point?" .NET originally ws planned to support only Windows (ignoring
the Mono project). Its a 'write once, run in one place' runtime. So all
the developers asked themselves, "If I've already got my stuff running
on Windows (native .EXE), what does all that additional pain and
suffering buy me?".
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul_at_Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
The large print giveth and the small print taketh away.
-- Tom Waits
The Real Andy
Guest
Guest
Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:10 am
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 02:55:56 GMT, "Tom Del Rosso"
<td_01_at_att.net.invalid> wrote:
Quote:
"Mike Monett" <No_at_email.adr> wrote in message
news:Xns9905BDEFF407FNoemailadr_at_208.49.80.251
Anyone who writes software in .NET is demonstrating their amateur
status and corresponding incompetence. I don't need to waste my time
with code written by amateurs, and .NET clearly shows who they are.
In fairness to the programmers, it's probably their managers telling them to
use it.
news:Xns9905BDEFF407FNoemailadr_at_208.49.80.251
Anyone who writes software in .NET is demonstrating their amateur
status and corresponding incompetence. I don't need to waste my time
with code written by amateurs, and .NET clearly shows who they are.
In fairness to the programmers, it's probably their managers telling them to
use it.
I use .net, in fact i pushed it my last job. I told the managers to
use it and I am a c++ programmer, go figure. I guess I am an amateur.
What do you do for a living?
The Real Andy
Guest
Guest
Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:12 am
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 03:08:47 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody_at_nowhere.com> wrote:
Quote:
"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa__at_charter.net> wrote in message
news:g2ZPh.116$xB7.92_at_newsfe12.lga...
I use C++ and Delphi mostly my self (Win32) on both.
Hasn't Borland jumped aboard also?
Borland lost it years ago, its all reactive, a bit like linux these
days actually.
Tom Del Rosso
Guest
Guest
Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:46 pm
"The Real Andy" <therealandy_at_nospam.com> wrote in message
news:s86413divaandtrqh9f87kedb8f76he55c_at_4ax.com
Quote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 02:55:56 GMT, "Tom Del Rosso"
td_01_at_att.net.invalid> wrote:
"Mike Monett" <No_at_email.adr> wrote in message
news:Xns9905BDEFF407FNoemailadr_at_208.49.80.251
Anyone who writes software in .NET is demonstrating their amateur
status and corresponding incompetence. I don't need to waste my time
with code written by amateurs, and .NET clearly shows who they are.
In fairness to the programmers, it's probably their managers telling
them to use it.
I use .net, in fact i pushed it my last job. I told the managers to
use it and I am a c++ programmer, go figure. I guess I am an amateur.
td_01_at_att.net.invalid> wrote:
"Mike Monett" <No_at_email.adr> wrote in message
news:Xns9905BDEFF407FNoemailadr_at_208.49.80.251
Anyone who writes software in .NET is demonstrating their amateur
status and corresponding incompetence. I don't need to waste my time
with code written by amateurs, and .NET clearly shows who they are.
In fairness to the programmers, it's probably their managers telling
them to use it.
I use .net, in fact i pushed it my last job. I told the managers to
use it and I am a c++ programmer, go figure. I guess I am an amateur.
Then go argue with the people making comments about programmers and have
your manager meet me in the alley.
Quote:
What do you do for a living?
--
Reply in group, but if emailing add another
zero, and remove the last word.
Joel Kolstad
Guest
Guest
Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:56 pm
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paul_at_hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:4611A189.72384B6_at_hovnanian.com...
Quote:
Any 'write once, run anywhere' apps have to target the lowest common
denominator API set. With something like Java, which has a JRE for a
wide range of platforms, it was worthwhile for developers to add the
hooks for underlying services.
denominator API set. With something like Java, which has a JRE for a
wide range of platforms, it was worthwhile for developers to add the
hooks for underlying services.
The "hooks" for .Net come in the form of COM "objects." Pretty much every
major Windows application out there has a COM interface available (including
many of the fancier schematic capture/PCB layout tools, and even high-end RF
design packages such as Microwave Office). So there's really a philosophical
difference in design there: Java tries to have a higher-level "base" API --
but you're left with a myriad of different protocols for interfacing to
anything not included in that API --, whereas .Net tries to have a purposely
lower-level API and Microsoft dictates than any extensions should come in the
form of COM objects.
(This is perhaps the main reason Microsoft Office
remains notably more powerful than OpenOffice, even though the VAST majority
of MSO users will probably *never* use those features.)
I do agree that how well these design philosophies work is largely a
significant function of program size and complexity, though.
Quote:
So all
the developers asked themselves, "If I've already got my stuff running
on Windows (native .EXE), what does all that additional pain and
suffering buy me?".
the developers asked themselves, "If I've already got my stuff running
on Windows (native .EXE), what does all that additional pain and
suffering buy me?".
The unfortunate answer to that is, "it meets some pointy-haired boss's
checklist for acceptable software purchases."
I have a friend who's a
programmer and he says they see this all the time -- they have a very nice
software package (it's very much COM-enabled -- .Net apps can interface with
it just as readily as Excel or Visual BASIC or Java can!) written in C++, and
yet they'll see some company's checklist for software purchases that requires
the software be written in some .Net language. Apparently PHBs attend some
Microsoft .Net infomercial seminar and buy into the hype that anything written
in .Net is good, anything else is junk... when in actuality, of course,
there's plenty of junk to be found regradless of the language chosen.
Said friend refers to "dot net" as "dot crap." :-)
---Joel
Rich Grise
Guest
Guest
Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:41 pm
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 19:10:19 +1000, The Real Andy wrote:
Quote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 02:55:56 GMT, "Tom Del Rosso"
"Mike Monett" <No_at_email.adr> wrote in message
Anyone who writes software in .NET is demonstrating their amateur
status and corresponding incompetence. I don't need to waste my time
with code written by amateurs, and .NET clearly shows who they are.
In fairness to the programmers, it's probably their managers telling them to
use it.
I use .net, in fact i pushed it my last job. I told the managers to
use it and I am a c++ programmer, go figure. I guess I am an amateur.
What do you do for a living?
"Mike Monett" <No_at_email.adr> wrote in message
Anyone who writes software in .NET is demonstrating their amateur
status and corresponding incompetence. I don't need to waste my time
with code written by amateurs, and .NET clearly shows who they are.
In fairness to the programmers, it's probably their managers telling them to
use it.
I use .net, in fact i pushed it my last job. I told the managers to
use it and I am a c++ programmer, go figure. I guess I am an amateur.
What do you do for a living?
Solve Real-World Problems. :-)
Thanks!
Rich
john jardine
Guest
Guest
Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:07 pm
"Mike Monett" <No_at_email.adr> wrote in message
news:Xns9906B4AB439DNoemailadr_at_208.49.80.251...
Quote:
"Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad71HatesSpam_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
"Mike Monett" <No_at_email.adr> wrote in message
news:Xns9905BDEFF407FNoemailadr_at_208.49.80.251.
Whenever I'm looking for applications, I disregard any
application written in .NET, and continue looking for code
written by professionals.
I'm willing to bet you a dollar that - at least if you're running
Windows XP or Vista - you're using plenty of .Net programs without
even knowing it.
Nope. Win98SE. No need for XP with all the problems. Biggest
advantage is I can use XCOPY32 and copy every file to a backup disk.
Takes only about 60 seconds, so I do it often.
Also, System File Checker is much better in Win98. I can verify
every critical file on the hard disk and ensure nobody downgraded a
dll of changed anything in the kernel.
You can argue that the overhead of .Net - and similar technologies
such as Java or (to a much lesser extent) Python - are not worth
their (sometimes quite significant) overhead, but there are some
objectives advantages to what .Net is attempting to do. Not that
that implies Microsoft has necessarily done a particularly good
job (I wouldn't really know, having only ever written "toy"
programs in .Net), but hey - at least they're trying to advance
technology while they take over the universe! :-)
One of the authors in the LTspice forum generated a MOSFET model
program using .NET. He recently changed it to a stand-alone exe.
This shows .NET is not needed, and how easy it is to get rid of
it.
Note that producing a stand-alone .exe doesn't imply that .Net is
gone it could have just been bundled up in the executable.
Not likely. The exe is about the same size as before. And it loads
much faster.
[...]
----Joel
MS .NET is junk. The concept sucks, and the execution is typical MS
crap.
I guess if you hire all these brilliant software jocks, you gotta
let them earn their keep. But if they'd only keep it amongst
themselves instead of forcing the rest of the planet to put up with
it.
Regards,
Mike Monett
Not come across the '.NET' rubbish until now.
Bought a USB hard disc this afternoon. Had on it's CD a "One click backup!!"
program.
240Mbytes of *.NET program crap later I find that this "program" can
transfer no more than a whole single file at a time!. Hell I can do a whole
directory via normal drag-n-drop. Deleted the whole mess.
Yes. Rank amateurs all the way down the line.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Joel Kolstad
Guest
Guest
Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:12 pm
John,
One of my favorite programs for "backup" is Beyond Compare, by Scooter
Software. Even though it's really meant more of "synchronizing" than "backing
up," it's powerful enough to do the later much better than many of junkware
packages that come with, e.g., new hard drives.
I'm quite confident it's not written in .Net. :-)
---Joel
elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - EDA CAD Electronics - .NET Framework ??
