Printable View
Does anyone else use SharpDevelop to write apps with?
I installed it today and when it asked me to create the autocomplete database it just slowed my PC to a crawl and took up all the RAM. I tried it the fast way in the end and that took over 15 minutes.
Is it just me? My machine is as follows...
XP Home
256 RAM
1.5Ghz Intel Celery
Wasn't running anything strenuous at the time.
And the code colouring scheme was evidently designed by Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles.
SharpDevelop is pants :D , try Borland C#Builder. you can download the " Personal edition " for free. here's the link... C#Builder Personal download edition
I really hate Borland's products.
Anyway, I tried Sharp Develop, seems nice but it refused to compile my existing VB.NET programs. If I build osmething with errors, then try to build it again, the program totally freezes.
Other than that it seems nice... anyway, I did the slow one for the database and it took a like 30 seconds and was done. Your problem is your ram, if I were you I'd add more ram to your PC.
Windows XP, at a bare minimum, should have 256MB and you want to run developer tools as well. Even if it doesn't solve your problem with Share Develop, it would enhance your computing experience*.
*been a while since I said something cheesy
Do you think 256 ram is few? It is more than ok to run vs.net IDE, if it is not enough for #develop then it's #develop fault, not lack of ram faultQuote:
Originally posted by kasracer
I really hate Borland's products.
Anyway, I tried Sharp Develop, seems nice but it refused to compile my existing VB.NET programs. If I build osmething with errors, then try to build it again, the program totally freezes.
Other than that it seems nice... anyway, I did the slow one for the database and it took a like 30 seconds and was done. Your problem is your ram, if I were you I'd add more ram to your PC.
Windows XP, at a bare minimum, should have 256MB and you want to run developer tools as well. Even if it doesn't solve your problem with Share Develop, it would enhance your computing experience*.
*been a while since I said something cheesy
I hate #develop, its awful, has a lot of bugs and errors, has the worse conversion between it and .SLN files in history and is slow as hell
256 is considered very minimal for Windows XP. Running a full fledge IDE on top of that as well as whatever else he runs just increases the strainQuote:
Originally posted by PT Exorcist
Do you think 256 ram is few? It is more than ok to run vs.net IDE, if it is not enough for #develop then it's #develop fault, not lack of ram fault
Sharp Develop is still really buggy! But as far as I recall its still some sort of beta version?!?
If you do like the idea of an Open Source Freeware IDE so, maybe you want to participate in making it less buggy ;)
What about the licensing if you want to sell your apps? Are you allowed to sell apps you build on it?Quote:
try Borland C#Builder. you can download the " Personal edition " for free
Again, its open source! :D But I agree!Quote:
And the code colouring scheme was evidently designed by Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles.
My personal opinion: If you want create Applications for commercial purposes, you want to think about licensing problems before deciding for one or the other ide, if you just want to create apps for your own purposes or share them with some friends (I always like new free apps ;)), you can just go ahead with Borland sharpDevelop or notepad...... whatever you like!
Well just my thoughts about this topic.
Stephan
SharpDevelop is beta yeah.
I've not had any problems with only 256 megs yet, in fact thats the first time it has ever struggled. VS.net loads about 3 times faster and thats including the MSDN index pane too!
Another annoying thing is that #Dev insists on using stupid proprietary terminology like Combine instead of solution. ***?
I now realise that #Dev is balls, I shall remove it forthwith. I can't even believe it got to beta in that state! To get the code panes to refresh I have to resize the toolbar! I have only previously seen incompetance like that in my own apps! :D
Legal reasonsQuote:
Originally posted by wossname
Another annoying thing is that #Dev insists on using stupid proprietary terminology like Combine instead of solution. ***?
It would ask you for a legal license .Quote:
Originally posted by Sgt-Peppa
What about the licensing if you want to sell your apps? Are you allowed to sell apps you build on it?
ok a question to ponder over.
is it possible to make applications that can be freely distributed with the .net framework? ie: built up in say notepad , then compiled via the command line.
Yes. That's the idea of the free SDK :rolleyes:
yes of course. VisualStudio is just a glorified NotePad with craploads of features, and then the compilers are integrated into the program so you don't have to compile via command lineQuote:
Originally posted by dynamic_sysop
ok a question to ponder over.
is it possible to make applications that can be freely distributed with the .net framework? ie: built up in say notepad , then compiled via the command line.
yes i'm aware that it's free :) , i'm hinting that...
borland's personal c#builder is only for " Personal use " , but building the forms ( with borlands designer method so you can see what you are building ) , then building the app's via the command line ( maybe saving the borland forms in notepad if you didnt want them to be saved as .cs files / anything that maybe pointed towards borland ) , you could quite easily build " none-personal " app's with C#builder maybe.
But if you compile something with borland's C# compiler how will somebody ever discover it was made with a not borland's C# compiler licence?
Even though Sharp Dev is buggy, I'd much rather use that then Borland to make programs.Quote:
Originally posted by dynamic_sysop
yes i'm aware that it's free :) , i'm hinting that...
borland's personal c#builder is only for " Personal use " , but building the forms ( with borlands designer method so you can see what you are building ) , then building the app's via the command line ( maybe saving the borland forms in notepad if you didnt want them to be saved as .cs files / anything that maybe pointed towards borland ) , you could quite easily build " none-personal " app's with C#builder maybe.
I hate Borland. The fact they need a TON of info just so I can try one of their products is just BS.
I know where you want to go here, and I guess it is possible that way, so nobody would know what IDE it was created on.Quote:
Originally posted by dynamic_sysop
yes i'm aware that it's free :) , i'm hinting that...
borland's personal c#builder is only for " Personal use " , but building the forms ( with borlands designer method so you can see what you are building ) , then building the app's via the command line ( maybe saving the borland forms in notepad if you didnt want them to be saved as .cs files / anything that maybe pointed towards borland ) , you could quite easily build " none-personal " app's with C#builder maybe.
But again, you want your customers to pay for your product, so if you are making money with your products, I think you should buy a license that allows you to do so. I just think thats fair enough!
Stephan
I have often thought about this myself. What if I set up a service to compile VB6 apps for people. They develop with whatever, doesn't matter if it is legal or not, then 'sell' me the source. I do the final compile, then 'sell' it back to them. Obviously this should be legal for me, and make their distributed application perfectly legal also.
This is a grey area, and if you made a lot of money, I think that MS/Borland would end up finding this post, and refering to it in court, and would win. (they have better lawyers).
:lol:Quote:
This is a grey area, and if you made a lot of money, I think that MS/Borland would end up finding this post, and refering to it in court, and would win. (they have better lawyers).