What's an example of a possible application that can be made with .Net?
What's a current example of an application using .Net?
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-15 1:32 (sage)
.Net is not a real thing, it's just Microsoft hype. Ignore it.
Name:
Christy McJesus!DcbLlAZi7U2005-03-15 6:20
It's MS's response to the Java API.
And yeah it's hype, but everyone who's hiring seems to have bought into it. Again.
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-15 16:10
I don't get it why do a single OS programming language when there's already a comparable one that's avaible on pretty much any platform.
i mean there are more guys that know Java then guys that know c#
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-15 18:20
>>1 What's an example of a possible application that can be made with .Net?
Something you can do with good old C, only it'll be slower and bloated in .NET (just like in Java, mind you).
What's a current example of an application using .Net?
Something that should have been written in C, Lisp, or maybe Assembly.
Oh, the .NET API is more or less ok though (compared to the Win32 hell anyways), as long as you're running the native one.
Remember: .NET: Non-portable Virtual Machines™ (so useful, I'm buying a new processor for it)
Name:
Christy McJesus!DcbLlAZi7U2005-03-15 20:18
>>5
I don't understand your usage of the term "bloat"
In both C# and Java you design in the knowledge that the target machine will also have the libraries you're using (read: gluing together with minimal creative effort) available. Both the sauce and the binary tend to be really small as a result.
There are plenty of reasons not to like Sun's "look we made another piece of crap" and Microsoft's "ours is a better piece of crap" but I can't understand "bloat" being one of them.
As a friend of mine who has the misfortune to work as a codemonkey put it:
"Also, the resulting binaries are exceptionally small because most of your codebase is already deployed to the user's computer (.NET). I built a full blown server app using public-private key encryption for the network transfer and a database backend, and the binary was 20 kbytes. Awesome."
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-15 20:57
>>6 Both the sauce and the binary tend to be really small as a result.
Small sauces? In Java?? You gotta be kidding me. All that OO crap will make the simplest hack a bunch of KBs.
The bytecode is reasonable, but you have to throw the dozens of megs of framework into the formula.
Besides, an awesomely short application won't be awesomely short once users discover they have to install (er, I mean deploy, this is serious business XD) an immense package to run it.
To me, bloat = needless crap. If something is good for speed, development speed, maintenance, reusability, etc., it's not bloat. But strict OO ends up doing more evil than good, and then you'll see yourself creating two or three instances of different classes just to open a freaking file, and you'll see yourself questioning what sense makes an "abstract Math class".
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-16 0:12
Well, you could argue that the same applies for actual executables. Gone are the days when we statically-linked in the supporting libraries. All those .dll's or .so's are already there on the system, just like (you hope, haha) the java runtime is.
Of course, reality is that the OS is already there, and Java often isn't. Memory consumptions is also an issue. Java just isn't meant for client-side.
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-16 0:16
This also applies to .NET too, at least for now. .NET will probably have more luck client-side since Microsoft will be sure to bundle the framework with future OS releases.
Whether anyone other than OEM's upgrade is another story...
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-16 4:12
>>9 Microsoft will be sure to bundle the framework with future OS releases
Yeah, that crap, they're gonna use it even for the frigging calculator, so we're forced to see .NET everywhere and have the bloat loaded all the time.
Whether anyone other than OEM's upgrade is another story...
Exactly, I lol'd at M$; now that they had made a quite solid, fast, great OS like Windows 2000, they are working hard to make it suck. No chance in hell I'm upgrading to Longcock or anything of the sort.
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-16 4:31
>>10
And I've heard something about going online to download apps, forms, and controls of the OS... I hope it's not true because:
1. That's retarded
2. Think about Internet latencies even in your own local OS
3. Think about waste of bandwidth and Internet usage
4. Think about needlessly complicated blOOated shit got worse - now even Windows Notepad uses distributed objects
5. Without piracy, how the fuck will that be popular besides gay corporations and OEMs who are forced by M$?
Name:
Christy McJesus!DcbLlAZi7U2005-03-16 6:11
>> Without piracy, how the fuck will that be popular besides gay corporations and OEMs who are forced by M$?
That's probably your most important point, because it touches on the iceberg of a much larger point.
.NET is more than just an inferior imitation of Sun's work. It's MS's plan to move from a product-based business model to a service-based model. As a direct result of open sauce software, this is the way the industry is moving, and MS doesn't intend to be left behind the way they almost did with the internet.
Problem is MS's success is largely based on the principle of proprietory lock-in. Make your customers so dependent on you that switching vendor would be unthinkable. With .NET they can do this to the software companies as well. When you write programs for the .NET framework, MS essentially owns a large part of your program.
That's dangerous as hell and that is why I will never code in C#.
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-16 10:19
>>12 move from a product-based business model to a service-based model
Yes, this is what they want to do, but they'll have a little problem. Today everybody has Windows to run the stuff Microsoft and the guys who depend on Microsoft do, but if they finally find a way to end with piracy, I bet they'll get 10% the userbase. And if people don't use their platform, people won't depend on their stuff so much...
an inferior imitation of Sun's work
For what I've heard, C# is a better language than Java and the C# API is better than Java's (then again, that's not saying much in terms of design, simplicity and efficiency).
I will never code in C#.
I'm not particularly interested in C#, but I've heard there are people doing C# compilers that regardless of their platform (I've heard Windows and Linux) and opensauceness (I've heard they are, but even if they weren't) they do not depend on anything from Microsoft so you're free to use the language.
(Likewise, when you do something in Java, Sun owns a lot of it, only I'd trust Sun more than Microsoft... for now.)
Name:
Christy McJesus!DcbLlAZi7U2005-03-16 11:51
>>13
More or less true about piracy, except for the large population of newbies who buy from OEMs and pay for Windows without realising they're doing it. Then again, as hardware prices plummet and Windows accounts for more and more of the sale price of the PC, the OEMs are starting to turn around and threaten MS with Linux. At the moment they're mainly doing it to get MS to give them a better deal, but as Linux adoption accelerates it's likely more of them are going to start being serious.
Which is exactly why MS needs to switch to a service model and lock both users and developers in tighter before they lose their loyal following of pirates and OEMs.
Re Sun, it's difficult to know how far to trust them. They've got some brilliant hackers but at times they seem to be acting like a mini-microsoft. You wouldn't suspect them of planning to leverage corporate dependence on their API but you can never be sure, which is the precise reason that many open sauce hackers won't touch Java (that and also they're fully aware that there are far better languages). Eric Raymond expounded on this in his open letter to Sun.
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-16 16:57
Nobody in this thread seems to know how to spell "source" properly. Come on, people, this isn't /b/.
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-16 18:52
>>14 at times they [Sun] seem to be acting like a mini-microsoft
Yes, that's why I said "for now". And I'd rather not have to trust them, of course.
Security reasons, crashing reasons, java, "a better c" and several other things that you can do with virtual machines and other such things is why MS made C#.
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-25 23:37
Security reasons, crashing reasons, java, "a better c" and several other things that you can do with virtual machines and other such things is why MS made C#.
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-30 9:45
i can't tell the difference between c# and java source help :(
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-30 17:16
Does anyone actually use C#?
I took one look at the syntax and said to myself "I am NOT learning that."
I'd definitely take C over C# any day of the year, any time of day, including nights and weekends.
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-31 11:52
.NET is good if you compare it to VB6, and C# is better than VB.NET because I prefer to use C like syntax over VB syntax.
If it's better than Java, I couldn't say, but all Java programs have always felt really slow for me.
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-31 23:03 (sage)
Java isn't meant for client-side. Some people will argue otherwise, but they're usually the zealous.
Name:
Christy McJesus!DcbLlAZi7U2005-04-01 7:23
Software in general is moving away from the client side.
Name:
Anonymous2005-04-01 13:24
Languages don't take long to learn, and some take longer to master than others.
Language wars are for noobs. Use a specific programming language for a specific task.
Ever try running some java source through a JIT compiler? I doubt you'll be saying its slow after that.
Java is normally an interpreted language (unless run through a JIT). That will always lead to slow responsiveness.
I've seen some very good, scalable C# projects. The first one that comes to my head was this one Ultima Online server (In Por Ylem). It ran exceptionally well. I haven't played for awhile, but considering it had 1000+ users on one machine (Intel P4) and the lag was negligable, I was impressed.
Name:
Anonymous2005-04-01 20:00
>>25
I agree with your statement about useing the right tool for the job.
However, I do have to counter your assertion that Java is fast with a JIT. Yes, I've seen the benchmarks. I've also seen how programs behave in actual usage. Even if you carefully avoid making unnecessary object and avoid making the GC work overtime, the difference between benchmarks and reality is significant.
Java has its own assets, but speed is not one of them.
Yes java is definitely not as fast as a language like C since a JIT compiles java source into java bytecode (unlike C (ex. gcc) which compiles directly to machine code). However, you can get it running pretty fast.
Name:
Anonymous2005-04-02 4:40
>>27 JIT is NOT compiling from source to bytecode, n00b!
Name:
Christy McJesus!DcbLlAZi7U2005-04-02 12:52
JIT would be compiling bytecode to binary executable. It doesn't take long because bytecode is already quite close to binary.
gcc can actually compile Java sauce/bytecode to binary if you ask it nicely.
Flyweight programming can vastly reduce the overhead of objects. This is why Swing is so fast.
Something I would like very much would be access to the garbage collector so I could turn it on and off during speed critical sections of the code. Most other garbage collected languages give you this ability.
It's worth noting that raw execution speed is becoming less important than expressive power - that is to say as processing speed tends towards infinity, the time it takes to write, debug and maintain the program is becoming more important. It's now far more desirable to have a program that is 10 times shorter than one that is 10 times faster.
Name:
Anonymous2005-04-02 20:37
One problem with gcj is that the resulting executables are slower than most JITs.
As for expressiveness, Java isn't particularly expressive. It's the COBOL of the modern era. Nor does expressiveness have to come at the price of speed - witness certain dialects of FORTH and Ocaml.
Java could have been a whole lot better if they didn't make such a mess of the libraries. The language itself is just fine.
Name:
Anonymous2005-04-03 13:58
the language itself wasn't that fine either
the main thing that irritated me was the casting from ints to integers to objects back to integers and then to ints (apparently with 1.5 that will be solved)
Name:
Christy McJesus!DcbLlAZi7U2005-04-04 10:10
>>31
Also in 1.5 they've finally introduced a NaN value so I can divide by 0 without fear. Functions such as atan() work correctly with NaNs too, so I don't have to code in my own special cases.
Which is nice.
>>30
Some of the libraries are nice; most are hideously over complicated. Such is the price of not having first class functions and lexical closures.
"No problem, just wrap it in a class or ten. That's good programming practice!"
Name:
Anonymous2005-04-11 19:06
who cares about C# and Java? we should all be coding in Objective-C anyway. ;)
>>30
gcj will be getting a speed boost in 4.1, especially if it gets replaced with gcjx
Go to the gcc.gnu.org wiki and look around for builtin bounds checking stuff in future ideas or 4.1 Projects, I'm too rushed to provide a link
Name:
Anonymous2005-04-29 22:13
As someone who likes both Java and C#, I have to say C# has a lot more niceties. You have property support built into the language, for example, instead of having to call getter and setter methods. You can write your own operations. You have indexers for convenience, and the index doesn't even have to be an integer. Ref and out variables for easy working with object references. You actually mark methods virtual and overridden instead of losing performance on all of them. In general marking up works better, there have been cases in Java when I've been forced to make classes into singletons just because inheritance is screwed up for static classes.
It's very easy to learn C# if you are a Java person so you might as well take a look. Only regret I have is that VisualStudio lacks the refactoring capabilities of Eclipse.
Name:
Anonymous2005-04-30 10:13
>>33
What's wrong about Objective-C? I never used it in real life but it seems to be a good OO "compiled" subset of C...
I love refactoring. There's nothing better than telling your boss you're cleaning up code and refactoring (it's better than saying you've just been changing method or variable name for the last hour.)
Name:
Anonymous2005-05-01 5:36
>>37
Absolutely nothing, from what I hear. It's just that so few use it. (There's also the runtime penalty)
Hehe, well extracting methods also counts, which can do a lot of good. Since I started doing that refactoring more often not only are my methods smaller, but I'm building up a nice library of general functions I can often reuse later.
If I took more time before writing I could probably figure out what they were beforehand, though.
Name:
Anonymous2005-05-08 0:43
I was trying to find a program that could make a jpg thumbnail of flash movies the other day (for a server, so anything with a GUI is out). Apparently the only way this has been done so far is on .NET (create flash player OCX control on server, programmatically capture jpg of control).
So in terms of supporting proprietary web crap like flash, .NET is apparently a step ahead of Linux for what it's worth.
Name:
Anonymous2005-05-11 10:01
>>41
just because someone has made that program using .NET doesn't mean that it's impossible without .NET.
the SWF file format is open, but it seems that nobody has implemented a complete renderer yet.
I never said it was impossible. Your comment is rather specious. You can program anything in assembler, that doesn't mean I'm not going to recommend C and its standard libraries for most things.
Well, I'd definitely take C over pretty much anything else any day of the year, any time of day, including nights and weekends. Only save for PHP for productive scripting.
>>24
Software in general is moving away from the KISS principle to the realm of blOOatware. Especially now that there's a lot of open sauce solutions, commercial solutions are made ridiculously cOOmplex on purpose so they can justify the huge amount of mOOney they cOOst.
>>31
Exactly. Java type handling sucks monkey balls. The Java compiler is able to annoy the hell out of me for the simplest things. IIRC even short x = 3 requires casting. This is really fucking stupid.
We're talking about OO, but he/she probably misunderstood what I meant. I said OO was making commercial software bloated and kittens getting killed.
Every model has its advantages, and suits different problems. What's retarded is to use OO for everything, like an abstract Math class, functions which convert from one type (object) to another (object) which are inherently functions, string classes with crap like .equals(), overgeneralized, poorly desgined APIs like Java's, etc.
>>25
But with a JIT, you're basically compiling every time you have to execute, and since they can't afford to make the compiler too complex because it'd become too slow, the JIT compiler can't optimise as much as a normal one.
>>29
2 years later, processing speed seems to be starting to level off.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-07 21:20
the JIT compiler can't optimise as much as a normal one.
It'd be more accurate to say it's more amenable to different kinds of optimizations. Until feedback for static compilation becomes common, there isn't much overlap between the two.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-07 23:44
but JIT is compiling bytecode, which afaik is much simpler and straight forward than compiling high level stuff. most of the optimizations should be done when translating high level to bytecode. I'm speculating though.
>>36
Java 1.7 will probably get properties, another case of both languages copying off each other.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-08 8:45
.Net can do everything. Put succinctly it's AWESOME. Any programmer who has not checked it out yet is a bit ``old tech'' and missing out on some greatness.
Recently I made a .net program in two weeks, the same program in any other language (including Java) would have taken me from twice as long to around 10x as long (using my past experiences as a base for estimation).
C# simply makes it easier to do most of the common things you try to do while using othe programming languages.
I still believe programming languages have a long way to go, but .Net is a step closer.
Microsoft is awesome
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-08 9:22
>>64
True that. Microsoft .NET increased my productivity ten-fold compared to old languages such as Java or Python, and it's fun to develop with! Knowing that what you write will run everywhere.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-08 9:56
C# is actually pretty cool, a shame the .net libraries suck.
A friend of mine works at an insurance agency and they found out that the development time for a C# application is about twice the time as the same application in COBOL.
Cobol is designed. C# is just some random features. It got fixed later on by some real language designers, but it didn't save it.
Working in C# is like working with a hammer, which has 20 aggressively looking cancerous handles and you need to touch it. But if you touch it, it will eat away at your skin.
That is C# | Sharp Cancer.
Name:
Anonymous2013-03-12 15:48
I like C#. It's what Sepples should have been (except for being .NET and CLR exclusive of course).