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:
Anonymous2005-05-08 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.