Out of interest, esposito, have you tried the latest version of Visual Studio 2010?
Printable View
Out of interest, esposito, have you tried the latest version of Visual Studio 2010?
exactly.....i am a newbie in .Net and i am in this for hardly 6 to 8 months......Quote:
Originally Posted by gep13
initially i istalled vb6 and vs 2005 both and looking at the IDE of vs2005,i decided to learn it........
vb6 simply fu@ks from my point of view............
No, I haven't. I'm sure VS 2010 is an amazing product but the software I sell must not exceed 5MB (I'm talking about the download size), so I can't switch to .NET. In the past (a couple of years ago) I made an attempt, which failed miserably: I received tons of e-mail messages from my customers who didn't want to install the Framework.Quote:
Originally Posted by gep13
Okay, so for the sake of clarity, why the 5MB limit? Who imposes that? It is more than possible to create an application that is under 5MB in size. Notice here that I am not talking about the .Net Framework Pre-Requisite which is a one off installation.
When you say "tons", exactly how many are we talking about, and out of interest, what were their reasons for not wanting to install the Framework?
Gary
Oh, and by the way, I have just installed the Full version of Visual Studio 2010 Premium, and it took a total of 22 minutes. Personally, I don't think that is a particularly long time to wait.
Gary
Oh, and Visual Basic 2010 Express Edition (i.e. the free edition) took a whopping 4 minutes to install.
By using the Framework, I'm able to keep my apps 2MB or less. All the complex stuff is in the FW for me already.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
There are exceptions to this rule, aren't there? This and other items on your web site are 7.2MBs, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
ops its written 7.2 mb but the downloading size shows only 3.30 mb :confused:
The question here was about VB6 for new users. That seems to have been discussed to the end.
What puzzles me is why anyone thinks there is something wrong with established users continuing to create VB6 applications. There can be plenty of reasons, but why should they matter?
Right, seems that 7.2 is the install size.Quote:
Originally Posted by HowTo
I don't think anyone is arguing that, at least not me. I think the debate was for users new to programming.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by baja_yu
I'm still mainly developing in VB6, just recently started the transfer to .Net. The new syntax will take some getting used to, but I like the new IDE very much. If the conversion/move was simpler I'd have done it a long time ago, if for nothing else than for the improved IntelliSense and parentheses marking. It makes coding so much easier. And the auto-indenting, I might turn it off (if possible) but it will sure force newbies to learn it, that's a big plus.
There are a number of great addin's that you can use, like StyleCop, CodeRush Express, and PowerCommands, (all of which are free), that add many other features that can help you as well.
Gary
Many, because Esposito cannot resist a VB6 Is dead thread :DQuote:
How many times are we going to have the same discussion, over and over again?
I still think that as and when Windows 7 becomes the dominant Windows operating system this will cease to be an issue. It is only because XP and other older versions of windows do not come with the Framework as part of the standard installation.Quote:
Personally, I would recommend Delphi, in order not to depend on the .NET Framework.
Windows 7 comes with up to Framework 3.5 pre-installed which means you could write targeted programmes (for the 3.5 framework) for Windows 7 and everyone will be able to use them without any extra installation. It will just take some time for Windows XP to die off.
Also before anyone counters with the argument about having to always learn the next framework version, and building apps for that, well quite simply you dont have to !
Many people will not need all the new features in each Framework release in order to write there systems. May of the Framework changes are for new technologies like Link which while nice are not necessary to create most applications.
We still generally target .Net Framework 2.0 with all our external .Net projects.
99% of my current apps target the 2.0 Framework, even though I manly use VS2008 these days, though I'm getting ready to migrate 1 app to VS 2010 (still targeting the 2.0 FW). There's a lot of things in the 3.5 FW I could use in these apps, but I can't because most of them are being used on Win2k (even Win98SE sometimes) of which the 3.5 FW doesn't run on anything less than XP. Simply put, with my apps targeting the 2.0 FW, I know they'll run on Win2k and newer, plus with the Framework stacking I know they'll continue to run for probably quite a few of the next MS OS's.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
And yes, I only ever see Esposito's posts regarding .Net is when there's a flame war thread (usually .Net vs vb6 or .Net vs Delphi threads) the guy really should expand his horizons :p
I develop and sell industrial control systems. (Control systems for heavy machinery, manufacturing, production, assembly lines etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuggaloBrotha
Many of these are NOT connected to the internet.
The user downloads my software and often copies the installer to a USB memory module or some other media and physically 'carries' that to the control PC to install the software.
Because of the nature of these control systems they can be running ANY version of Windows from 9x right through to Win7 including other various 'Server' versions running Thin Client terminals via terminal services and other 'citrix' like virtual sessions.
Total download size is around 3meg. It installs with a single click (It doesn't ask questions or send the user off to download anything else). The trial converts to a happy customer and I sell software. I'm happy and my customer is happy.
I know that if I start deploying the .Net framework then I can kiss goodbye to that simplicity and would have a lower conversion rate.
The exact same technique can be used for the .Net Framework. Why do people have such a big hang up on this. The .Net Framework is a one time installation that, in my experience, hasn't caused any ill effects on any server that I have installed it on. Once it's there, you never have to install it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by IanS
I really don't see how.Quote:
Originally Posted by IanS
As for Newbies learning VB6 - No, I'd say they shouldn't -
But a few of the forums I've frequented over the years have discussed this exact thread and in most cases the newbies never actually came back to read the thread they'd started so we didn't find out their reasons.
In a few cases we did find out their reasons.
For example - they were given a project which contained source code in VB6 and they were expected to do some additional work on it. Not on a real VB6 IDE but they were expected to read the 'text' and debate it. Some students do of course want to actually run the code because they think it'll help them debate it.
And in some cases the students really were expected to develop in VB6 - Some poorer schools can't afford development tools so unfortunately they are still using Win2000 (or older) and VB6.
Also, some people get employed by a company who chucks a pile of vb6 source on their desks and tells them to work with it because their last slave just retired.
Sorry, but I could sit here all day quoting reasons for people to learn VB6
Didn't I just explain it ? The user is sat at his desk and downloads some software onto his computer. He IS NOT a computer expert so expects to be able to copy the small file onto a memory stick and walk 1000 yards down 10 flights of stairs to a machine where he installs my software. if my software then tells him:-Quote:
Originally Posted by gep13
Sorry mate, you need to go back up 10 flights of stairs to a networked PC so that you can download some framework - Now make sure you get the right one now, y'hear - By the way, what one do you already have ? if you don't have lower ones you'll need to get those too.
I agree, it's a one time only thing - but not "MY" time - when he installs MY stuff I don't want to distract him with ANYTHING.
I guess that's why I didn't wake up this morning to an alarm clock and, on a monday afternoon 4pm, I'm still sat here in my pyjamas wondering if I should get dressed and go fishing. This evening I'll go out with the missus knowing I just don't need to get out of bed in a hurry tomorrow.
I couldn't agree more.Quote:
Originally Posted by IanS
You can include the .Net Framework as part of your installation, so that when they download, they are downloading your application and the .Net Framework together.
Then they do not need to go up and down flights of stairs, although this will obviously increase the size of your download.
So you are still following this thread...Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
What about answering some of the questions which have been directed to you?
I really am prepared to take new ideas on board (I'm not just arguing for the sake of it - I do listen and I do learn) It just scares me.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
Size isn't too much a problem but it is a 'little bit' important.
I gather the FW's are stacked so if I develop for FW3.5 then I also need to deploy earlier versions too incase user doesn't have them. Isn't that very big?
Lets say I base my application on v2.0 of the framework (I read on this forum today that a lot of developers do deploy FW2) what versions of windows come with that FW pre-installed ?
Do I need to deploy previous version as well or just v2 ?
How big is the v2 installer ?
Anyone have a sample Inno script which checks for the FW and installs it ?
Thanks
Short and simple, the total file sizes to download and install all of the versions of the FW that'll need to go on their usb drives isn't a big deal as they wont exceed 1 GB, when you can buy an 8GB flash drive for less than $10, it's not a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by IanS
Inno, InstallSheild and Microsoft's MSI installers can all detect things like .Net FW versions.
The 2.0 FW is a core FW, you don't need to install the 1.0 or 1.1 FW's at all if v2.0 is what your app is targeting and if you do program for a higher FW than 2.0 then you only need to check for the version you need for your app, let the 3.5 installer detect the 3.0 FW and let the 3.0 installer detect the 2.0 FW
No. I have tried some previous versions, though. I think it's as powerful as Delphi, if it were not for that cumbersome virtual machine called .NET Framework.Quote:
Out of interest, esposito, have you tried the latest version of Visual Studio 2010?
Common sense and the market laws impose such a limit. If you want to be competitive on the market, you have to try to develop the best software in the smallest size possible.Quote:
Okay, so for the sake of clarity, why the 5MB limit? Who imposes that? It is more than possible to create an application that is under 5MB in size. Notice here that I am not talking about the .Net Framework Pre-Requisite which is a one off installation.
A few hundred users. The reason for not wanting to download the FW was the fact that they knew there was software produced by other developers which could do the same things in much less space.Quote:
When you say "tons", exactly how many are we talking about, and out of interest, what were their reasons for not wanting to install the Framework?
If I use a programming language, I want to use its latest version. Consequently, the FW will always be an issue due to its size.Quote:
I still think that as and when Windows 7 becomes the dominant Windows operating system this will cease to be an issue. It is only because XP and other older versions of windows do not come with the Framework as part of the standard installation.
What versions of windows have FW2 pre-installed ? ie without any updates or SP
Thanks
It doesn't take much to answer your question. The first version of Windows that was shipped with the FW preinstalled was Vista. Consequently, all subsequent versions have FW2.Quote:
Originally Posted by IanS
Vista, Win7, Server 2008 (both RC1 and RC2); All editions of windowsQuote:
Originally Posted by IanS
XP has all of the FW's pushed to it via Windows Updates, the 2.0 FW works on Win98 and up, but for those 3 OS's you'll have to deploy your app with the FW or have the user dl it as it's pretty much guaranteed that it wont be installed already (to play it safe). So for XP and newer, the 2.0 FW could be assumed that it's installed, but not 100% for XP like you can for Vista and newer.
I do understand some of your other reasons but that is just perverse. Have you ever looked at what the actual feature differences are between the different versions of the framework ?Quote:
If I use a programming language, I want to use its latest version. Consequently, the FW will always be an issue due to its size.
XP or earlier would have to be service packed to have the .Net Framework. Anyway what does it matter if you can deploy the framework as part of your installation ?Quote:
What versions of windows have FW2 pre-installed ? ie without any updates or SP
The 2.0 framework installer is only about 22 mb, which while that might be a lot for Esposito for many other people is just fine !
Also, there is a difference between the LANGUAGE advancements, and the FW changes. Using VB/VS2010, you get the latest version of the VB LANGUAGE, and yet still target FW2.0 functionality. A FW2.0 targets app that has Auto-Implemented Properties? Yes. And no line continuation? Yeppers. LINQ? -- ah, no... but you can use Lambdas and other LANGUAGE BASED advances.
-tg
If that's the case, you've got a big problem there Esposito. Just imagine what's going to happen if someone decides to compete with you but uses C++ and Assembly - you're never going to beat them on size. In your shoes, I'd try to beat my competition on features, not size, and the .Net framework can help you do that. Now, if your customers are extremely size-sensitive (in the age of €0,0001 per megabyte and a few seconds of download that seems strange but I'll take your word for it) then perhaps you should turn to C++/Assembly.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
C/C++ is the obvious language for Esposito, as I have noted before. Small size, more secure (always byte code), and not tied to a single company that will eventually break your heart. Of course, you might want a nice IDE...
For the time being, I am satisfied with Delphi, as it allows me to produce standalone applications the size of which is more than reasonable. I still have to maintain my "old" software that I developed in VB6, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Unfortunately, they are. It is not only the download size that makes them prefer native software but also the space that the Framework occupies on their hard disks when they install it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ntg
Personally, I don't agree with this at all. The cost of hard drives is trivial nowadays, I would much rather an application be good at what it does, be intuitive, and easy to use, I am not concerned about how much space it takes up on my hard drive, or how big a download it has.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
And yet you are still advocating that new programmers use VB6?!? Go figure!Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
I'm not saying that new programmers should use a dead language like VB6! I have already stated clearly that I would recommend Delphi, which is alive and kicking. What I have been trying to say for years is that it is not convenient for a desktop (non-Web based) piece of software to rely on a huge framework. In other words, if you can develop a certain application natively, I can't see why you should do it in managed byte code.Quote:
Originally Posted by gep13
Out of curiosity, how do you back this up? If books sold on specific topics are any indication, Dephi is dead according to this - well, ok, not exactly dead but it smells a bit funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
What market laws? Maybe in Somalia. Rarely any software I see/use today has limits like that. I mean, Nero Burning Rom alone is over 200MB (goes up to almost 1GB for the full/ultimate pack), Avast anti virus is 50, Firefox is 8MB, Chrome 18MB, Skype 22MB, Winzip 14MB...Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
Really? (or should I say O'Reilly?) You're going to use book sales to determine the deadness of a language? That's like trying to use the number of postings to determine if a language is dead or not. It's a BS statistic, and I don't consider it a measuring stick of anything. At best, all that can be construed is that the language is stable enough that books don't sell as old ones are still as good now as they were years ago (who can say the same about their FW1.0 books?) If I'm reading that graph right, am I to assume that T-SQL is dying as well? Even Ruby is showing a "decline"... I'm also pretty sure that doesn't count for the after market sales... it could be that people (myself included) are finding alternatives when buying books that the high-priced brand spanking new books. A couple months back, I spent $20.... got myself 3 books on AJAX and Web 2.0.... sure, they are a couple years old, but they are still just as relevant now as they were when published in '08.
-tg
Cool, I have a bunch of old books on graphics programming in DOS. I could make you a real deal on them. I'd sell by the pound.
Yeah. I had that problem until somebody stole the computer that had the source code on it (I won't mention the backups, as I don't want to maintain that stuff any longer (and when I say "stuff", that isn't quite the word I meant to use)).Quote:
I still have to maintain my "old" software that I developed in VB6, though.
For all your old book buying and selling needs: http://www.halfpricebooks.com/Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
As for the alleged stolen computer... was it the salmon or the rainbow trout?
-tg
As a fellow developer I understand, as a businessman I would fire you for not willing to maintain "the stuff". ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Compared to multi-billion dollar enterprises, small software businesses are in a very different position when it comes to software development. They have other needs and expectations of their development tools. For a big software corporation like Symantec, it doesn’t matter much if a software product is a small download or not. They sell their products either through retail stores or send their corporate customers media kits. As long as the software fits on a CD or DVD, the file size doesn’t matter.
For small software businesses who often sell their products online, it is important that their applications and trial version can be easily downloaded over the internet. Points such as download size should play a big role in the decision for or against a software development tool in the eyes of a small software business owner.
Small software businesses might not be aware of the advantages of Delphi and I would like to highlight the pros and cons of Delphi for small software businesses.
Delphi is both a RAD (rapid application development) IDE and a programming language (formerly known as Object Pascal). The IDE itself supports additional languages like C# and C++.
Delphi is more than just the IDE and the programming language. The feature-rich standard library of Delphi, the Visual Component Library (VCL), abstracts the Windows API with a nicely designed hierarchy of classes, components and controls. The VCL contains many useful classes and graphical controls to build great Windows applications in a short time.
I will start with pointing out the advantages of using Delphi for small software businesses.
Easy to learn
Learning Delphi is easier than learning most other languages. The Pascal-oriented language is clear and easy to read and you can learn the language very fast by just looking at other people's code. As small software businesses often don’t have the resources to put a developer in learning mode for half a year, this point might be one of the most important.
Win32 and .NET
Delphi contains a compiler and a base class library for both Win32 and .NET. This means that you can develop native Windows and .NET applications with the same language, class library and IDE. This can be an advantage if you have to develop for both platforms or just want to be sure there is an upgrade path in case you want to switch to .NET later. If you only use the VCL classes and controls, it is even possible to write applications that can be compiled to native Windows code or .NET programs. Without changing a line of code.
Small file size
One nice attribute of applications that are built with Delphi is the small file size. This is possible because Delphi applications are independent of a big runtime library like the .NET framework. A simple graphical Delphi application is just about 300KB in size and can be downloaded even over a 56k modem quite fast. Because the files of a Delphi application are so small, software businesses can target customers over the internet much easier. Especially if a software business is targeting consumers, they should keep the file size and dependencies like the .NET framework in mind when choosing a development tool.
Performance
Delphi applications that are compiled as native Win32 programs are almost as fast as natively compiled C++ applications. This makes Delphi well-suited even for graphic-heavy and math-intensive applications. Additionally, graphical interfaces developed with Delphi are much more responsive than their counterparts in .NET and Java and just feel better.
Safe future
Even applications that were written in Delphi 1.0 still work with only minor modifications in Delphi 2010. While Microsoft stopped supporting Visual Basic 6 and let Visual Basic developers down without an easy upgrade path to .NET, Delphi’s future has never been brighter.
Big third-party market
One of the best things about Delphi and its community is the big number of third-party tools and components. There are many high-quality free and commercial graphical components and libraries that can be plugged right into your applications. The good component model of Delphi encourages building reusable code and leads to this amount of ready-to-use components. Are all components of good quality? No, of course not. Like for all development tools, there are components and libraries of good and bad quality.
Highly productive RAD environment
The Delphi IDE contains a powerful GUI designer, refactoring tools, file versioning and other neat features that make writing code and designing great GUIs very productive and straightforward. Especially the GUI designer is very well designed and so intuitive that no other IDE can match the ease of use of Delphi.
Disadvantages of Delphi
No development tool is perfect and you should know the disadvantages of the tools to make the right decision when choosing one.
Fewer developers to choose from
Delphi is not as mainstream as C++, Java or C#. This fact leads to fewer developers when selecting employees for your software business. This point can be important if you plan to grow fast and want to have a large pool of potential developers to choose from. Fortunately, as Delphi is quite easy to learn, any developer knowing object oriented programming will be productive with Delphi in a short period of time.
When to use Delphi
The following list of software product types is a prime example of where Delphi gives small software businesses an advantage over their competitors.
Windows desktop applications
Windows desktop applications benefit by far the most of the unique advantages of Delphi. Desktop applications should be responsive, often use feature rich controls and benefit of the RAD nature of Delphi. In my opinion, there is no better tool when it comes to developing generic Windows desktop applications.
Server applications
If you have to develop a server application, Delphi scores with its great database support, rich communication libraries like Indy and general high performance execution. Developing Windows services is very easy with Delphi too, which is often a requirement when it comes to Windows server applications.
When not to use Delphi
Although you can theoretically write almost all kinds of applications with Delphi (maybe except device drivers), there are some areas where other tools are better suited. For example, if you want to develop applications for a Palm, a PocketPC PDA or mobile phone, Delphi is currently not the product to use.
I hope this article was helpful to you in deciding if Delphi is the right choice for your next product or if you should take a deeper look at Delphi. Delphi is often overlooked when choosing a development tool and it could give you a competitive advantage for your next product.
Yeah, I'm finding it much easier understanding .net than I did learning vb6.0.Quote:
Originally Posted by HowTo
I don't think you're reading it right. SQL and Ruby both appear in the Major titles. T-SQL appears in the Minor titles. In both cases, it's a good indication that there's an active enough interest in these topics that people are willing to spend $ on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
I think that it's not a BS statistic at all. A living and active language gets new people. Some of them are going to educate themselves through articles or used books, like you indicated. Eventually, some of them will get a new book. Book counts do not provide an accurate statistic everytime, MySQL for example has excellent online material, hence the low book counts. On the other hand, the same is true for C# but you can see that it sold almost 300.000 books in 2008. Compared with the less than 1000 sold for PL/I, Cobol, Ada, QBasic, RealBasic and Delphi, I'd say that it's a fairly good indication that Delphi has an uptake a few orders of magnitude less than C# or VB.Net. Unless of course Delphi and the like have a completely different audience that get their books someplace else or read used books exclusively or do not read anything that is not free.
In any case, I haven't found a solid fact or even indication that Delphi is "alive and kicking" except posts of Delphi users claiming just that. I've once met with people using Oberon who confessed that it was a great language - that doesn't translate to Oberon being alive and kicking.
I disagree with most of this. Most non corporate Anti Virus is downloaded from the internet these days. In fact i download most of my programmes, and most people i know do also. Only really large software comes on disk these days.Quote:
Compared to multi-billion dollar enterprises, small software businesses are in a very different position when it comes to software development. They have other needs and expectations of their development tools. For a big software corporation like Symantec, it doesn’t matter much if a software product is a small download or not. They sell their products either through retail stores or send their corporate customers media kits. As long as the software fits on a CD or DVD, the file size doesn’t matter.
For small software businesses who often sell their products online, it is important that their applications and trial version can be easily downloaded over the internet. Points such as download size should play a big role in the decision for or against a software development tool in the eyes of a small software business owner.
The one things i wonder is what the Internet infrastructure is like in Italy Esposito ? You often mention Dial up connections ? In England the large majority of people can get broadband and generally businesses will have broadband. Is this not true in Italy ?
I download even the large apps, like Office 2007 (600MB), Office 2010 (500 MB), VS 2008 (2.3 GB), VS 2010 (4.1 GB) and have no problem with that download size. Those larger one's may take a little while (2 hours or less) for me to download, but even then it's much faster than going to a store and buying it or ordering it online and waiting 4 days for it to come. Last September I downloaded 3 editions of Windows7 (both x86 and x64 images), which is 6 files, all 2.4 GB or more each.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
Compared to that, the 270 MB total to download ALL of the .Net Frameworks is a really petty download, takes maybe 20 minutes and I'm good to go. That and since it comes with Windows (all but the 4.0 FW) a 40 MB download for that Framework is nonsensically small.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by RhinoBull
I was a fish biologist, not a programmer. In this business, if you admit to computer skills, they WILL be put to use. The programs were written for one job, then just kept following me around. A couple are still in common use, thirteen years after they were written, and two job changes for me (same organization, though). A third one is still in use even though it is now doing things it was never intended to do...and now I it is my actual job to re-write it correctly...in .NET.
And it's lots of fun.
Broadband is also widespread here in Italy but this is not the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
A user in search of an accounting piece of software would never download tens of megabytes to get it because he knows very well that elsewhere on the Internet he will surely find a much smaller application that will do the same job.
Once again, I firmly believe that, if you want to be competitive on the software market, you have to offer the best product asking your customer to make the least effort possible.
This is simply beyond my ability to comprehend but I'll bite. Are you saying that if your users find a piece of software that perfectly suits their needs but is 10MBs in size they'll actively look for something that's 9MBs?Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
No. What I'm saying is that my users wouldn't even download my software if they saw that it requires a 35MB virtual machine to work.Quote:
Originally Posted by ntg
And the magic number is 5MBs or less?Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
Just let it go, no matter how insignificant esposito's reasons are for avoiding .Net, he will continue to avoid using it. Delphi might not the optimum choice language for migrating from vb6, but it is much better than vb6 and will live on for probably quite a while as vb6 continues to die out, gotta give him that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ntg
C++ maybe better suited for his ridiculous requirements, but again he may not be all that interested in learning c++ since he's immersed in Delphi and there's nothing that any of us can tell him or prove to him to convince him anyways.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is, granted we've all pointed out (and threw in some links here and there) why .Net isn't anywhere near as bad as esposito's saying, there's nothing anyone here can do or say to convince him anything other than what he already believes. If a program's size exceeds 5MB and therefor is way to big of a program to even think about using and he thinks his customers/clients are with him on that point, then let it be because for esposito that's how it is and at this point that's probably the only way it ever will be, of course I can't say that with any certainty but I would like to think that it's a good guess.
I'm past thinking that Esposito is just a brainless VB6 clueless die-hard. Having taken a look at his site and products, I genuinely feel that there is a valid argument for his reasoning even though I don't get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuggaloBrotha
I've worked with Italians in the not too distant past and I've seen a trend to focus on small size so that's not new to me. I have to confess, however, that Esposito has taken that tendency to its limit. I'm betting that some of his customers are using Firefox, Winamp, Avast or some other common free piece of software that's more than 5MBs and they didn't mind the download size. Assuming that Esposito's obsession with size is valid, I'm just trying to understand if his problem with .Net is just the perception of his customers that "10MBs is too large for this".
Bottom line is this: Use the right tool for the right job for the right reason. I've read enough of esposito's posts to know that for him Delph is the right tool for the job he does. And it works for him, and he's happy with it. Fine. Seriously. Who are we to judge. I see his points. And to be honest, most of us know exactly nothing about the apps he puts out or his users. Clearly he has something that works for him and his users - because if it didn't I'm sure he'd find a way to adjust as needed - and in the end, that's what truly matters, delivering the right application to the users. Isn't that what we're all trying to do here?
But then I came from a Pascal background... so maybe I'm biased.
-tg
In Italy, we pursue the principle of economy. According to that principle, Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora [It is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer].Quote:
Originally Posted by ntg
With reference to programming languages, we Italians believe that it is futile to do with more resources (those required by the .NET Framework) that which can be done with fewer (those required by a standalone native application).
So the smaller an application is, the better, on condition that it does everything you want it to do. The 5MB limit simply represents perfection.... at least according to the Italian way of thinking! :)
Honestly, I don't think it takes much to understand what my apps do. Even if you don't understand Italian, just take a look at the screenshots on my Web site and you will have an idea about who my potential users are and what my software is designed for.Quote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
What do you think the application in the picture below does?
And aside from all that, Bastyoneal, who started the thread, showed up one other time to say thanks, then resolve the thread. That was back on the first page in the first dozen posts. From there it has gone on to three pages and growing.
He's either laughing, recoiling in horror, or fleeing in disgust, depending on his nature.