How to add and compile a dll to VB.NET

**dnixons** · Dec 15th, 2003, 08:00 AM

Hi,

Does anyone know how to add a DLL (mscoree.dll) to a VB.NET project without using the Setup Wizard? So when you run the program independetly to another PC without .NET it will run properly

I have a made a quiz program in VB.NET but when I run it on another PC Windows 2000 it says it is missing a (mscoree.dll).

Any help will be much appreciated.

**crptcblade** · Dec 15th, 2003, 08:35 AM

You must install the .NET framework on the target machine. It won't run without it. To my knowledge, there is no way to bind the framework to an exe so that the app runs without the framework.

And even if you could, your app would go from, say 500 Kb, to 25.5 Mb.

**VBGangsta** · Dec 16th, 2003, 12:04 AM

I went thought the same thing..I did a lot of research and found that it is impossible to run a program with out the .net frame work,even if you include only the files you really need.

**Kasracer** · Dec 16th, 2003, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by crptcblade
And even if you could, your app would go from, say 500 Kb, to 25.5 Mb.

Wrong, the .NET consists of houndreds, thousands of functions and other misc things. If you only use 20 different elements, your exe (if you could compile into native, stripping the elements out of the .NET) would be very very small.

I have beta tested Salamander's mini-deployment programs and it will allow a program to run on another computer without the framework because it creates a minature framework. Usually, when RARed, a project can be baout 5MB or less.

**nemaroller** · Dec 16th, 2003, 03:19 PM

Truly Salamander is a project destined for failure. In short time, most existing window machines will have the framework. And all new OS's from MS include the framework.

I suspect by the time Salamander includes even half the functionality a big .Net application requires (let's give em2 years), it would have been found to be rather pointless if the majority of computers have it installed already.

**Kasracer** · Dec 16th, 2003, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by nemaroller
Truly Salamander is a project destined for failure. In short time, most existing window machines will have the framework. And all new OS's from MS include the framework.

UGH!

Don't knock it until you know what it actually does. By the time all Windows machines have the framework, they'll have updates needing another version of the framework, since a new version is coming out EVERY YEAR. That and do you think all the old people are going to udate to it? Doubtful.

The Salamander project is PERFECT for the VB.NET programmers here, I don't understand why you instantly hate it.

Originally posted by nemaroller
I suspect by the time Salamander includes even half the functionality a big .Net application requires (let's give em2 years), it would have been found to be rather pointless if the majority of computers have it installed already.

You have absolutely no clue what Salamander does, so don't even comment on it.

Salamander already can support the entire functionality of the .NET framework 1.0 and 1.1. All it does is make an interpreting DLL, points the application at that and then it gets all the needed functions, ect.. from the other DLLs it automatically includes that come DIRECTLY from the framework. There is no re-write like the Mono project.

Salamander has the mini-deployment down pretty damn well and a first release should be soon (I was beta testing). After that, they are going to go for a native compile so you won't even need to include everything.

**nemaroller** · Dec 16th, 2003, 11:58 PM

First off, you have the demeanor of a two-year old.

And I stand by my statement. At some point, once the old geezers install the next TurboTax, instant messenger, or any other software that needs part of the framework, it will be there on the CD, and then installed to the machine.

Now, once .Net programs become more mainstream... what would be the sense in having 10 applications on your machine each having snippits (some duplicating snippits) of the framework? At some point, they will cost more space than the original complete framework.

**Kasracer** · Dec 17th, 2003, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by nemaroller
First off, you have the demeanor of a two-year old.

No I just hate it when someone replies about something when they have no clue about what it does (you even estimated a time in which Salamander would have complete .NET functionality, when it already does).

Originally posted by nemaroller
And I stand by my statement. At some point, once the old geezers install the next TurboTax, instant messenger, or any other software that needs part of the framework, it will be there on the CD, and then installed to the machine.

Won't ever happen. More than likely, just Microsoft programs will include the .NET framework. Most other companies like to make software for the PC and other OSes so they avoid .NET, plus most companies have a TON of in-house functions and such, so there wouldn't even be any insentive to move to .NET.

After your TurboTax installs .NET, then what? It'll be an older outdated version of the framework and to use any software using a newer framework, you'll have to download the other version anyway.

Originally posted by nemaroller
Now, once .Net programs become more mainstream... what would be the sense in having 10 applications on your machine each having snippits (some duplicating snippits) of the framework? At some point, they will cost more space than the original complete framework.

Usually, a big project will require somewhere between 11-20MB for the mini-deployed framework (about 4-5MB when compressed). However, in your setup program you can just send all the DLLs to the system folder and register them. Now when you give someone your program, all they need to include is the DLLs created by Salamander. So you basically install a mini-framework on someone's system and anyone can use it using Salamander.

I'd rather download a 4MB file with a self-contained program inside, rather than a 300KB program and then a 25MB .NET framework update just so I can use it. It just makes everything so much easier.

**nemaroller** · Dec 17th, 2003, 09:05 AM

And again, you download five 4mb programs, and you have used the same time you spent downloading the framework.

The Java runtime is required for many web apps, but no one complains.

Again, by the time Salamander becomes a mainstream tool, the framework will exist on the majority of Window machines.

**Pirate** · Dec 17th, 2003, 10:19 AM

Salamander is good in point it boost application execution remarkably(as they promise)

Bad because it costs money and needs extra step before deployment .

This is my personal view point . Don't ***** me guys .

**Kasracer** · Dec 17th, 2003, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by nemaroller
And again, you download five 4mb programs, and you have used the same time you spent downloading the framework.

And again, if a person downloads a .NET program and they download a salamander mini-deployed version, the framework can be thrown in C:\Windows\System and then for now on someone can just download the executable and salamander DLL and it'll work (unless something wasn't included in the previous one, but there can be custom installers to figure that out very easily).

I don't know why you're so resistant to this, you seem to like the framework so I would think you'd like Salamander because it makes it very easy to deploy an application.

Originally posted by nemaroller
The Java runtime is required for many web apps, but no one complains.

I complain, hell many people complain. I don't use Java and I really hate it.

However, Java does have an advantage to .NET in that it's cross-platform compatable out of the box. Just a simple compile and boom it works on another OS. The same cannot be said for a .NET program.

Originally posted by nemaroller
Again, by the time Salamander becomes a mainstream tool, the framework will exist on the majority of Window machines.

Salamander is already a mainstream tool (you do realize mini-deployment isn't the only thing it does and a version is out for free, right?). When the mini-deploy comes out, a simple upgrade to your program and many people will be using it.

The majority of Windows machines will never have the framework installed onto them. You have way too much faith in people and companies. I would bet money (if I had a job right now) that Microsoft will be the only major company bundling .NET with their products.

**Kasracer** · Dec 17th, 2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Pirate
Bad because it costs money and needs extra step before deployment .

If you were a Beta tester you could have gotten it for free

But it isn't like it makes alot of work to deploy an application, just open all your components that were made using .NET, make the application the main part and the rest private and click mini-deploy (I don't think you need to mark things private or main, just been a while since I've used it. I formatted and haven't installed any .NET tools onto my system)

**nemaroller** · Dec 17th, 2003, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by kasracer
The majority of Windows machines will never have the framework installed onto them. You have way too much faith in people and companies. I would bet money (if I had a job right now) that Microsoft will be the only major company bundling .NET with their products. [/B]

Well, lets just say I disagree, and strongly believe you would lose that bet.

**PT Exorcist** · Dec 17th, 2003, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by nemaroller
Well, lets just say I disagree, and strongly believe you would lose that bet.

I agree, in the beggining with the java runtime i bet it was the same thing, only some OS had it, but eventually now every OS have it(or almost all) so it will be the same with .NET...

also with the growing of internet, each time more people can download the new .NET framework, more people run windows update, people will move from 56k to adsl/cable/isdn/whatever having faster connections that allow them to download faster, etc

**Kasracer** · Dec 17th, 2003, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by PT Exorcist
I agree, in the beggining with the java runtime i bet it was the same thing, only some OS had it, but eventually now every OS have it(or almost all) so it will be the same with .NET...

Microsoft had legal problems and cannot include the Java Runtimes in Windows XP (and it may have been the same for 2K).

Users have to download it.

**nemaroller** · Dec 17th, 2003, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by kasracer
Microsoft had legal problems and cannot include the Java Runtimes in Windows XP (and it may have been the same for 2K).

Users have to download it.

No.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,840790,00.asp

and then MS lost the appeal:

http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0...a=36537,00.asp

**PT Exorcist** · Dec 17th, 2003, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by kasracer
Microsoft had legal problems and cannot include the Java Runtimes in Windows XP (and it may have been the same for 2K).

Users have to download it.

read the almost all

**Kasracer** · Dec 17th, 2003, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by nemaroller
No.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,840790,00.asp

and then MS lost the appeal:

http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0...a=36537,00.asp

I am not using Windows XP, but last time I used it (about a month ago) There was no SP1b with Sun's runtimes, nor was it on Windows Update like it says it would be in that article.

The court ordered Microsoft to remove its own JVM. I have yet to see Sun's offered for download or bundled with XP.

Doesn't matter, you have to download the Java runtimes for Windows XP. It doesn't ship with Windows XP SP1b, you still will have to download the runtimes.

**Kasracer** · Dec 17th, 2003, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by PT Exorcist
read the almost all

Windows XP covers a HUGE chunk of users, I wouldn't even call it almost all.

**PT Exorcist** · Dec 17th, 2003, 06:59 PM

What's the point anyways? I think here you are the one who refuses to see that .NET is going to be BIG. With each time more people using Windows Update in a few years most of people that will use .NET applications -> companies, etc will have access to internet and probably with connections fast enough to make windows update with no problems. Maybe in the following years your salamander thing can be usefull but eventually it will lose all it's advantages. I admire the project as it can lead to a better understand of how the .NET framework works , so and such but that's all..

**Kasracer** · Dec 17th, 2003, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by PT Exorcist
I think here you are the one who refuses to see that .NET is going to be BIG.

I refuse to believe such lies.

**PT Exorcist** · Dec 17th, 2003, 07:25 PM

Such be it. Go to pscode.com and compare the number of jobs on there for .NET and for other languages, that can serve as just one example

**nemaroller** · Dec 17th, 2003, 07:32 PM

An article from Software Development magazine(http://www.sdmagazine.com/) released a Oct 2003 survey from 300 respondants (project managers) where:

17 % were using .Net technologies
31% were initiating .Net development by Q2 2004
42% were classified as not planning to implement .Net technologies in the coming year.
10% -uncertain

I believe that is quite an embracement.

Thread: How to add and compile a dll to VB.NET

Thread Tools

Display

Hybrid View

How to add and compile a dll to VB.NET

Posting Permissions