.NET

[atomman]

From the perspective of an end user (not a developer):

I very much dislike .NET for several reasons;

1) 3.5 redistributable is ~197 MB, compressed. I never used 3.5, but i had installed 3 at one time and it installed, along with it, completely uneeded useless crap. The only one i ever had installed for any length of time was 2, and that didn't last long.

2) from what i understand according to what appears to be knowledgeable people using it, it is better suited to web applications, not local apps.

3) it installs at least one more useless service -- the .net run time optimization service -- which seems to be doing an awful lot of "optimizing" in the background. This is nonsense.

Goes in the same category as the JVM: yet another bloated piece of garbage that does absolutely nothing but waste disk space until i need to use the ONE application that pretty much needs it: OpenOffice. .NET i do not have installed at all, and the only time i do install it (or parts of it), is when i'm going to reformat because nLite needs it. I don't even bother to consider applications that require it anymore.

I could be wrong, but i get the impression that a lot of uninformed and upcoming developers saw .NET as the latest and greatest "widget" to play with.

[Valik]

3) it installs at least one more useless service -- the .net run time optimization service -- which seems to be doing an awful lot of "optimizing" in the background. This is nonsense.

...

I could be wrong, but i get the impression that a lot of uninformed and upcoming developers saw .NET as the latest and greatest "widget" to play with.

Speaking of uninformed. If you would have bothered to research the service, you'd understand a few things about it. First and most importantly, it doesn't run forever. Once that service runs out of work to do, get this, it stops. Not only that, it sets itself to Manual so it doesn't start up automatically anymore. Sure, it'll take awhile. It really does do stuff for awhile. But once it finishes doing what it's doing, it'll hang around waiting for abit. If it isn't given anything else to do, it will close itself down.

A little research and patience would have shown this isn't a useless service. In fact, it's one of the smartest services I've seen. It shows up, does it's job and leaves. I can't ask for anything more than that from a service, can you?

[atomman]

That rather rude and presumptuous reply was uncalled for.

I know full well the service starts and stops. Matter of fact, i spent weeks researching every common windows xp service and wrote a in-depth guide of what is needed in a particular environment.

I also stated, evidently not clearly enough, "From the perspective of an end user (not a developer)"

The point is, most people probably don't have a lot of applications that depend on .NET, so if you want to install a 100KB app that does, well now you need 100+MB of bulk and an UN-needed service to support it. I say un-needed because i've run across many applications built on .NET that probably shouldn't be, but because the dev prefers to use it, the end user gets saddled with it.

[Valik]

That rather rude and presumptuous reply was uncalled for.

Awww.

[i542]

Awww.

Twice Awww.

@atomman: Don't bite one with stronger teeths...speaking in forum language... Don't mess with Valik. (Or whole moderating team)

[atomman]

comments like his -- and i don't care WHO they're from -- are uncalled for (and inaccurate, in this case) and when they're from a dev, they are unprofessional as well. it certainly doesn't make it any easier to click the "donate" button and i think we can all agree on that.

i often wonder, when forum browsing, whether people that are so rude behind the safety of their keyboard would be the same face-to-face. something to think about.

having said that, it was not my intension to offend Valik or anyone else. i didn't read the whole thread, but from what i gathered it appeared that AutoIt may be moving to a .NET based application. All i did was to explain, as an end-user, why that may not be attractive to some other end-users. if i assumed incorrectly, then i am wrong, my post is incorrect and i apologize for making it.

[Valik]

comments like his -- and i don't care WHO they're from -- are uncalled for (and inaccurate, in this case) and when they're from a dev, they are unprofessional as well. it certainly doesn't make it any easier to click the "donate" button and i think we can all agree on that.

Get over it. I am who I am. I am not AutoIt and neither am I some smoke blowing sycophant. You have some issues you need to resolve if you're unable to make the distinction between the product and the individual. You have another issue to resolve with yourself that you can't make the distinction between the individual and some supposed societal conventions you wish to impose on the individual.

i often wonder, when forum browsing, whether people that are so rude behind the safety of their keyboard would be the same face-to-face. something to think about.

It's called John Gabriel's Greater Internet Dickwad Theory. I'm a "Dickwad" either way. I wonder if you'd be so crass as to attempt to chastise me for my behavior in person. Something else to think about. If you were, maybe you need to find better things to do with your time than spread misinformation* and then have a hissy when you get called on it.

having said that, it was not my intension to offend Valik or anyone else. i didn't read the whole thread, but from what i gathered it appeared that AutoIt may be moving to a .NET based application. All i did was to explain, as an end-user, why that may not be attractive to some other end-users. if i assumed incorrectly, then i am wrong, my post is incorrect and i apologize for making it.

You're quite dead wrong. This is the discussion of individuals not related to the development of AutoIt who are discussing things the want or are working on. If you had taken the time to read the thread before posting, you would have ascertained that and also noticed my counter-points to a .NET-based AutoIt.

* Misinformation, that's what I call your remarks on the service .NET installs. The service is neither "useless" nor "nonsense". Calling it either is one of three things. Either you didn't understand the service (which is the simplest conclusion based on the complete lack of any service-related information); you are extremely picky to the point of being ridiculous that you'll bitch about a service that comes in, does it's thing once and goes away; you are willfully and intentionally mis-leading people. So which one is it? If you do know as much about the service as you claim , then your remarks are quite uncalled for (now where have I heard that before?). The only excuse for bashing the service is ignorance (something you've demonstrated you are capable of with your posting in ignorance of the contents of this thread). The other two options reflect a little more poorly on your character since there is the fringe hints of subverting the truth of the matter for the sake of making an (invalid) point.

At any rate. The simplest thing for you to do is to quit while you're still ahead. You are not going to be the catalyst that spurs some change in me to make me some sort of pseudo-civilized individual. You're not going to get a "One Millionth Customer Courtesy Day". If you want to see how bitching about me will turn out, just read the other dozens of threads where the issue has come up.

[Locodarwin]

I could be wrong, but i get the impression that a lot of uninformed and upcoming developers saw .NET as the latest and greatest "widget" to play with.

.NET has a solid, important place in the 3-tier business application world. Ever try to write applications divided into separate presentation, application, and data servers? This is very common in the business world - in fact, the 3-tier model is probably the most-used design principle in large-scale, transaction-based systems - for example, those used by banks, insurance companies, stock trading companies, and the like.

Suppose you've written 3-tier systems before. Have you ever tried to tie together 150 programmers to code and maintain an enterprise-class 3-tier system?

As systems grow more complex, trying to coordinate a team of programmers to work on them becomes more and more challenging. How do you get web developers working with business logic developers to come up with something both can understand? Answer: give them the same tools.

Without going into too many specifics, I can say that making the transition from Win32 native code to wholly managed code has upped productivity in my office 3-fold at least. Not only does .NET make everything so much simpler, with its extensive class library, but it also makes reusing classes and objects much less painful by simplifying the way one creates and manages them.

Don't even get me started on string and buffer management. Just dealing with strings in .NET (or, rather, not having to deal with them) is worth the price of admission for programmers who work with large databases full of data and need to move it around in memory.

I like how practically anything can become a type with relative ease.

Again, when you're working on enterprise-class 3-tier applications, .NET is the cat's meow. Using the same technology across 3 different platforms (database, business logic, and web) makes life so much easier. It's hardly a debate, even.

Want to make games or one-off applications meant for speed? Go native. Want to make huge business logic systems suitable for enterprises? Throw native away, and quickly.

-S

Edited December 24, 2007 by Locodarwin

[Valik]

Loco, that's all fine and dandy. Maybe it does excel in that environment. The problem is, it doesn't excel in the home-user environment where it's absolute rubbish. I would imagine in an enterprise environment, the sluggish response is mitigated by the umpteen core CPU's. I don't have umpteen cores, .NET apps are slow when I use them. They are often poorly designed - that's the hidden cost of ease of development, any idiot can develop something even if they don't know what they are doing. It reflects in the (lack of) quality of the software. These are the same reasons I have Java. These development platforms have their places. But that place is not the home-user.

[Locodarwin]

I don't disagree with you. Managed code in the home, for a single developer, is similar to walking on crutches. Since my early days of programming, I've always scoffed at the idea of the "runtime library" for single programs. I don't like the layers of goop managed code brings to the table (i.e. the CLR and the JIT) when programming alone. I prefer the minimalist approach to writing code, even if that means I have to work harder.

I was addressing the statement made by the previous poster who seemed to be suggesting that programmers who use .NET are "uninformed."

An uninformed person would be one who does not understand the benefit and widespread use of .NET in the enterprise world.

-S

P.S. Java is a real piece of sludge. Sometimes I think Sun is out to punish the world for its own misfortunes.

Edited December 24, 2007 by Locodarwin

[jvanegmond]

atomman's ignorant view on the topic almost had me take an anger management course. Luckily, reading down a bit Valik and Locodarwin managed to calm me down enough.

I may have exaggerated.

[Richard Robertson]

They are often poorly designed - that's the hidden cost of ease of development, any idiot can develop something even if they don't know what they are doing.

I'm sure this is the biggest problem. For developers who actually plan things, .Net applications work at normal speeds. With .Net so readily available though, the little script kiddies and "leet hackers" use it like a toy.

In response to the 3.5 framework being huge, I'd love to know what happened there. I think the 2.0 framework is good enough. Only about 30 mb redistributable. I can't figure out what happened to bloat the 3.5 framework, unless they added a bunch of useless pieces like for "game development."

[LarryDalooza]

Just installed some USB interfaced Arts and Crafts thing from Fisher-Price... .NET framework started... ughhhh... 5 minutes later started to install and crapped out with ... "You need 64 meg dedicated video ram"... What? for a dumb kids paint game!!!! ... Well, I have 128 meg, but dedicated? I don't know? ... Well, being an InstallShield expert, I know that during times of system "busy-ness" some InstallShield checking fails... so, I start the install during system startup and the video ram check got skipped... ha ha... experience rules again...

I hate .NET developers and the framework, because the developers tend to be inexperienced and relatively stupid... and the framework tends to make assumptions.

Lar.

[Locodarwin]

I hate .NET developers and the framework, because the developers tend to be inexperienced and relatively stupid...

I see a lot of ridiculously bloated .NET programming coming out of the Web 2.0 movement, especially. Case in point, I downloaded a file synchronizing program that promised to keep a list of files between computers up to date automatically. That one simple concept (which I could write in AutoIt using less than 100k of cleartext code) was wrapped up in a 42mb installer file. The program itself, once ran, took up over 100mb of RAM and utilized between 10-20% of the processor on average the whole time it was running! I could only assume the program was written by either completely inept baboons, or by nefarious jerks trying to do something illicit with my machine. Either way, I'm not fond of folks carelessly molesting my system like that.

Meanwhile, I also use a complex database front end built on .NET which barely adds a blip to my system resources even during the most intense data-burrowing sessions.

Just like anything else, it's all about the talent and resourcefulness of the programmer(s). It just requires a lot less of both to develop something in .NET that looks like its doing anything useful.

In response to the 3.5 framework being huge, I'd love to know what happened there. I think the 2.0 framework is good enough. Only about 30 mb redistributable. I can't figure out what happened to bloat the 3.5 framework, unless they added a bunch of useless pieces like for "game development."

They added quite a bit, like LINQ and full tooling of the WCF and WPF technologies. Still, though, it shouldn't be as big as it is. It's becoming a monster.

-S

[Valik]

It just requires a lot less of both to develop something in .NET that looks like its doing anything useful.

Ironically, I think most of my disdain for .NET stems from the fact that one of the first applications I used (forced upon me) was a .NET application that wanted to have like 3 EXEs running and the damn thing would crash 90% of the time. So it didn't even look busy, it just didn't work. It was pretty ridiculous. Since then it's been other working applications that 1) Didn't need to be .NET; 2) Would work better native.

Software development should be much like evolution. The stupids weed themself out because the language is too complex for them to understand. By dumbing down the language, the stupids are free to play, too. It's like giving a retard a loaded gun - you know somebody is going to get shot. Furthermore, these frameworks like VB and .NET only consider the developer. Sure, the developer gets a free ride to fame and glory or something, while the end-user gets boned up the arse having to deal with bloated framework installations, shoddy applications and general slowness due to running non-native code (and crappy code due to crappy programmers).

[Locodarwin]

The bottom line is - and I know this has been mentioned before in this thread - it's all just part of the ploy. It's no more than Microsoft's continued plan to completely dominate the desktop, the web, and the data. And it will work, because it DOES make companies more productive. There will be no stopping that juggernaut anytime soon, though I do predict it will crack one day.

A number of the younger programmers in my office believe C# is the savior of the human race. Well, if you pulled it out of the .NET trench, and made it compile to native code instead of the CLR, it'd be fantastic. But these kids obviously never had to squeeze an accounting system into a 32k CP/M computer using an 8-bit Z80 running at 2.5MHz with a floppy drive storing 160k per disk. You learn a thing or two about tightening your code. Where is that philosophy these days?

The problem is, were I to truly protest, it would sound hollow. Like most people who work for a modern, web-enabled company without a lot of old-school talent, I, too, drink from the teats of Mother Microsoft.

Thank the (insert preferred deity, idol, or philosophy here) I have other hobbies as well.

-S

Edited December 26, 2007 by Locodarwin

[Richard Robertson]

I've seen a couple .Net assembly to native compilers. The resulting executables end up going from maybe 4 kb to 10 mb. The CLR to native compilers are there, but they suck still.

[Locodarwin]

I've seen that as well. I think what would be most efficient is to port just the C# language to its own stand-alone compiler, minus the CLR and JIT. No assemblies, no other runtimes - all of the classes link right into the executable and only if used, just like the good ol' days.

Sort of like Aurora:

http://www.ionicwind.com/index.php?option=...4&Itemid=27

Essentially Aurora compiles down to p-code, assembles, and then links up the bare machine language parts. The resulting executable is pretty damned small, considering the work that is done, and it uses no runtimes (other than exported DLL functions from system DLLs, or whatever other DLLs you want to call).

In fact, I think Aurora is better than C# as a language. It's closer to C/C++ but it simplifies strings and memory management and has a better out-of-box class library.

C# could benefit from such a concept. Why all of this hullabaloo with the CLR? Why don't they make three separate languages (VB, C#, C++) that all compile down to the lowest level? Why the middlemen? Why put them all on the same runtime? Why force a runtime at all?

While I've made it clear I think .NET makes programmers more productive (and, to be clearer, only because of C# and ASP.NET and how seamlessly they integrate with PHP and SQL), I still think there's a better way than forcing it all to use the same pseudo code.

I mean, with all the software advances we've seen in the last 20 years, why aren't we sticking to the original plan of building a smarter compiler?

Preaching to the choir, obviously.

-S

[Valik]

Yes, the middle-language is the main issue. You don't need the middle-language to provide ease-of-development. Look at ATL, WTL, MFC, STL. These all provide ease-of-development for C++ developers and they all compile to native code. C# doesn't need CLR. It could be a simplified C++ language compiling straight to native code. The only thing the runtime does is allows C++, C#, VB .NET, et cetera to use the same classes. But this seems minor to me. And it also seems something you could do with native code anyway. Thin wrappers and what-not as opposed to a thick intermediate language.

[Locodarwin]

The only thing the runtime does is allows C++, C#, VB .NET, et cetera to use the same classes.

True enough. The time would have been better spent to integrate those class libraries some other way.

[sarcasm]

Because, you know, the idea of making an updated platform SDK is so horrible.

[/sarcasm]

-S