And what would that say about the rest of us?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
-tg
Printable View
And what would that say about the rest of us?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
-tg
I, for one, am laughing. These threads are usually hilarious to me.
I am going to go with recoiling in horror :)
Points of view. What is hilarious to me is using .NET to develop desktop applications. I am still waiting for a logical answer to the following question: why should I use a main battle tank to kill a mosquito? Isn't a swatter enough? Similarly, why should I force the user to download a 35MB Framework to make my application run when I can reach the same result without the overkill? Why should I pay thousands of euros to buy some software (such as Thinstall) which allows me to embed the FW within the executable when I can just tell the FW where to get off?Quote:
Originally Posted by JuggaloBrotha
esposito, I thought we had covered all of this, yet you still seem to want to go over the same ground again, and again.
Firstly, what is Thinstall, I have never heard of it, and I never had to use it for any of the applications that I have created?!?
I have never "forced" the user to download anything. Many of our customers are actually in the 21st Century, so they have both up to date software, and also Windows Updates enabled, which means that they already have the framework installed.
The sheer number of functions available within the Framework on its own makes it a popular choice. There are so many operations that are taken care of for me, and maintained by Microsoft, which means that I can use these classes, without having to run out my own version of it. Whether this is reading and writing to a file on the file system, making an FtpWebRequest, pinging a computer etc, all of these operations, and so many others (far too many to list here) are all there, waiting for me to use.
Gary
Please don't beat about the bush and, if you can, answer the following question: why should I use .NET to create a desktop application when I know that I can create the same identical application natively, without having to worry about the Framework?
About Thinstall, it is an expensive piece of software which takes advantage of those programmers who wanted to switch to .NET while continuing to develop desktop applications.
Because you get the benefit of literally thousands, if not hundred of thousands, of hours of programmers effort, which resulted in a reusable set of classes which do all the work that you need, rather than rolling your own code, which you as the developer need to maintain.
Your answer to my Thinstall question doesn't make sense. As I mentioned, I create Desktop Applications all the time, and I have never once had to use this "expensive piece of software", am I doing something wrong? I don't think so.
Gary
Recycling your code or existing classes is not a prerogative of .NET. Any programming language allows you to do the same. When I develop an application, I spend 80% of my time taking care of the graphic interface of the forms and 20% writing the code. Copying and pasting existing code and making some modifications is as easy as pie and you actually complete this operation before you can say Jack Robinson. To me, this is not a valid reason to switch to .NET and force my users to download the FW.Quote:
Originally Posted by gep13
If my answer did not make sense, Thinstall would not exist. On the contrary, that software house is making money exploiting those developers who are as afraid as I am that their software could not work on the final user's computer because the FW is not there.Quote:
Your answer to my Thinstall question doesn't make sense. As I mentioned, I create Desktop Applications all the time, and I have never once had to use this "expensive piece of software", am I doing something wrong? I don't think so.
Gary
Dude, you really have a hang up on this issue of "forcing" a user to download the .Net Framework. I wonder, have you actually checked with your tons of clients to see how many actually have a the framework already installed. I would hazard a guess that a good number already have it. Especially if they are security conscious and have enabled Windows Update on their machine.
I am not talking about recycling code. I am talking about using built in functions, as I have already mentioned. I haven't used VB6 in years, and I have never worked with Delphi, but from what I remember, there are so built in classes for some operations. Take for example, reading and writing to a file on the file system. From what I remember, I would had to write a routine which would open a pointer to that file, loop through all the lines, checking to make sure I am at the end of the file, read the line, put it somewhere, etc, etc, etc. Now given that I as an end user have had to create that, it is subject to errors, problems, and needs to be thoroughly tested. Do you agree with that?
However, if I instead use:
I get the entire contents of that text file, using a Class and a method in the .Net Framework that has already been tested, and known to work.Code:string path = @"c:\temp\MyTest.txt";
string readText = File.ReadAllText(path);
Surely you have to concede that this is a strong reason to use the .Net Framework.
And as for spending 80% of your time doing Graphics, I think if you were to at least try using Visual Studio, with it's auto align capabilities, routing lines, and snapping elements in place, this development time would drastically reduce.
So let me see if I have this right, what you are saying is that people are willing to fork out thousands of pounds for a piece of software, rather than spending (let me count this up, might need a calculator) nothing on downloading a freely available .Net Framework and installing it on their machine?!? That is quite simply ridiculous, and I would ask (as you did earlier in this thread) to cite your references for this statement.
Gary
Obviously so does your prime minister.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
I have to retract my previous statement regarding the validity of your reasons. If you really wanted to adhere to your own statement, you should already be using Assembly and C only and not bother with anything else. Imagine the levels of perfection you could achieve if your downloads came down to 4.1MBs and you used up 400Kbs of memory instead of 800Kbs. Try re-examining your surroundings Esposito, it's 2010 and you're coding for the PC, not for an embedded or mobile platform. Your potential users are not looking for the smallest application that does the job but for the cheapest one. If your competitors wake up and charge €99 instead of your own €199 but require that your customers have the .Net FW or the Sun JVM, what do you think will happen?Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
As a business man you should be aware there are other variables that come in play except Size, like Quality and Time. What gary and others are trying to hint at is that you could use the framework and make products of higher quality in less time - not to mention eventually smaller size too, once you download and install the framework (which I'm sure most of today's Windows PC users have already done through Windows Update) your programs benefit from the huge class library and you need to write less code of your own, making your applications leaner.
You're saying that Thinstall exists therefore your argument is correct. Not true. Without making any judgment pointed at Thinstall, people are free to buy unnecessary and crappy products all they want, that doesn't mean that the reasons for buying these products are valid.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
Let just make this doubly clear you do not need any software to include the Framework as part of your setup. How do i know this because we have products that includes the framework as part of our setup.Quote:
Why should I pay thousands of euros to buy some software (such as Thinstall) which allows me to embed the FW within the executable when I can just tell the FW where to get off?
Without knowing the product what Thinstall may do is allow you to add the Framework directly into your msi Which is something you cannot currently do as standard, although i would have thought the situations were this is necessary are limited.
I think you misunderstood there Esposito, what Gary was saying is that the .Net Framework provides a large number of inbuilt functions that can simplify and greatly reduce the amount of code you have to write.Quote:
Recycling your code or existing classes is not a prerogative of .NET. Any programming language allows you to do the same.
I know that for instance one of the first programmes i converted from VB to VB.Net was greatly reduced in the lines of code i used to achieve the same result.
Once you get used to the .Net language(s) they can really speed up your development.
Yip, that is what I was getting at :)Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
I didn't even need to get used to .Net to be quicker.
The first app I did was a re-write of a small one I'd already done in VB6. The VB6 version took 3 days to write (in addition to the design of the app), and the .Net version took 2 days - even with the extra time needed to learn several things from first principles (including using API's).
Rather than keeping irrational fears, you would be better off learning the facts of the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by esposito
In this case, not even the owners of ThinStall (now ThinApp) claim that it can/should be used in that way. If that was a worthwhile or popular thing to do with their product, then not advertising it to the millions of .Net developers would be a very foolish move.
There are several valid options for ensuring the user has the apt framework installed, and most of the common/obvious ones will almost certainly be easier than using something like ThinStall - and many should be free.
If you don't want to use .Net then that is up to you (nobody has tried to force you, and I doubt anyone cares if you use it or not), but don't keep on making poorly thought out claims to justify your position.
Esposito - you're not going to talk us out of .NET any more than we're going to talk you out of Delphi. Where I work we've decided on .NET as our platform for a couple of reasons. Some of which are being able to draw on existing VB skills, large developer pool (since we could develop in either C# or VB), plus libraries can be reused for the web apps. In our case, the machines are built in-house with everything they need before they go out to the job sites.
So, can we all shut up, and get back to coding rather than rehashing AGAIN this same old tired argument. No one is saying anything new here. Quite frankly it's getting old.
-tg
Mods why not just close this thread.... It is the same old rehash of objections to .Net again and again.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryMazzone
Given that the OP left the thread a long time ago, and the overpowering feeling of deja-vu, those requests are good enough for me - thread closed.