already not supported
.NET is great because it allows you all new sorts of bugs and you get to install 7 CDs to run it (on ym VS architech that is).
No really i dunno...
But your remark about the one environment virtual processor is quite valid...
Why .NET?
Originally posted by Weedpacket
And what's stopping one from writing a whole bunch of utilities now in whatever langauge(s) turns one on the most, and reducing other scripts to a series of calls to those utilities without .NET?
not a thing but with .NET there is already a lot prebuilt for you, that you would have to build with a different architecture.
Believe me I'm not a proponent of .NET. Mater of fact I went toe to toe with my crypto professor about 10 weeks ago when he stated that he would take points of if we didn't code in .NET and I pointed out that unless he was willing to either buy me a copy of .NET or pay for my gas to run into the uni to code at 3 in the morning he had better accept 6.0 code or expect to be taken up on academic review.
The only point that I am making is that there is a time and a place for .NET. Just as there is a time and a place for all technologies.
Okay, I'm not saying you are; I'm just saying it seems pointless to do all that with a virtual platform instead of the native platform if you're only implementing it on one native platform anyway.
Originally posted by Weedpacket
Okay, I'm not saying you are; I'm just saying it seems pointless to do all that with a virtual platform instead of the native platform if you're only implementing it on one native platform anyway.
What about the new 64 bit machines that are coming out. It'll allow portablity between those and current systems. I do agree though that it's pretty pointless.
Originally posted by goldbug
It gives the developers the advantage to use the language most comfortable to them or best suited to the task, albeit without platform neutrality.
Best suited for the task? God help.
Who are we writing the applications for? The end users who generally are lame (not a bad assumption if they use only Windows ). They want applications that work fast and don't require them to upgrade their PCs every 3-6 months.
The requirements of the .NET and applications that have been made using it are pretty high, and yet still they run pretty slow specially during the loading time.
Its not quite fair but if I were to compare Artifact Desktop (artifact.com, uses .NET) and Adobe PhotoShop, I find that Artifact takes just a little more time to load than Adobe PhotoShop (with has Kai's Power Tools, 127 other plugins and 500 fonts to load).
I will call Artifact just a browser than fetches content in XML and shows it to you.
Also if you access the URL accessed(or to be accessed) by Artifact in Internet Explorer, it loads pretty quickly.
The advantage of .NET comes like when I am writing a program for desktop, I can use the same on the web like a script, but obviously something thats slower.
If I were to give my user, good XP (eXPerience) I will make two seperate applications, one for desktop (in C++/VC++) and other for web (in PHP/Perl/ASP)
There is work going on to port the VM to linux. How sucessful it will be remains to be seen. I would imagine that Microsoft will eventually want .NET apps to run on mobile platforms such as phones.
Originally posted by ahundiak
There is work going on to port the VM to linux. How sucessful it will be remains to be seen. I would imagine that Microsoft will eventually want .NET apps to run on mobile platforms such as phones.
Hm, a 23MB download coming soon to a cellphone near you.
I am sure they will keep it under 20. Actually, the Java micro machine shows that it is feasible to run some fairly complex stuff on tiny machines. And Microsoft is pretty good at copying other people's stuff.
Originally posted by ahundiak
I am sure they will keep it under 20. Actually, the Java micro machine shows that it is feasible to run some fairly complex stuff on tiny machines. And Microsoft is pretty good at copying other people's stuff.
and bloating with uneccessary stuff too.
I have a friend who work with M$. He told me Windows 2000, still has code of Windows 1.0 in it. They always write the code above the code of the last OS.
Everyone knows M$ also likes to insert lots of comments which are nothing less than chapters of novels written by Shakespeare (go to some easter eggs site, and you will know how to see that.)
I've got one little doohickey from Microsoft; among other joys it contains six menus, one icon group, 21 string tables (including one that consists entirely of 16 copies of "Open the document"), 6 cursors, and 16 dialogues (including eleven that are completely blank except for a bit of static text that says "TODO: layout property page") all of which do nothing whatsoever in the program. Is it any wonder the executable is over 800kB in size? (And any wonder that Microsoft disowns it?)
Yes; I also cited DotGNU in the original post. Mono is a .NET clone, DotGNU goes a fair bit further.