Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • October 01, 2016, 03:45:42 AM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Last post Author Topic: Is it wise for amateur to invest time in NET Framework languages?  (Read 6008 times)

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,214
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Is it wise for amateur to invest time in NET Framework languages?
« Reply #25 on: November 21, 2014, 05:43:10 PM »
The big drawback to .NET is people won't try your program if they have to install yet another framework.  It tends to make you use what you figure most people already have on like .NET 2.x features.

That might have been a consideration at one point... but that point is pretty far gone.  You can plan on .NET 4 at least currently (and that's what I code to).

+1

I'd go further though. I'd actively discourage people from using 2.0.

.NET 2.0 was just .NET 2.0, but later on MS split .NET into the .NET client profile and .NET full profile.

The problem there is that if you used some methods in .NET 2.0, they might not be in the client profile, and may require the full profile, making them no longer forward compatible for practical purposes for users who don't know the difference.

.NET 4.0 won't run on XP, but, sigh... something has to be sacrificed somewhere... :(
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

sujayg

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2013
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Is it wise for amateur to invest time in NET Framework languages?
« Reply #26 on: December 12, 2014, 12:25:55 AM »
I come from a background in C/++ with STL/ Win32 and MFC, and when I was told to learn C#, it seemed yuck. But I had to learn it , while at work, and now I find that C# can do stuff quicker than C++. And more over, C# is better supported by Microsoft in terms of usage with its future products, Offfice Development being an excellent example. Not that Office Development cant be done in C++, but C# makes it much easier to . So learning C# is advantageous . I cant comment on Java, as I have never worked on that , but .NET has its Java counterparts.

But Python should be a must on your list, it is easy and very powerful . I started with Python, and found it easy to pick up . Python has C# and C++ bindings and though I am not an expert in Python, but I see there is lots of potential in it.

Ath

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 2,752
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Is it wise for amateur to invest time in NET Framework languages?
« Reply #27 on: December 12, 2014, 01:46:37 AM »
.NET 4.0 won't run on XP, but, sigh...
That's a typo, right? 4.0 will run on XP, but 4.5 won't.

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,214
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Is it wise for amateur to invest time in NET Framework languages?
« Reply #28 on: December 12, 2014, 03:42:19 AM »
.NET 4.0 won't run on XP, but, sigh...
That's a typo, right? 4.0 will run on XP, but 4.5 won't.

You could be right.

IIRC 4.0 (pulling from memory here from a few years ago) needs XP SP3. Or something like that...
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

Ath

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 2,752
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Is it wise for amateur to invest time in NET Framework languages?
« Reply #29 on: December 12, 2014, 04:40:37 AM »
Running XP without SP3 seems like SM to me, but yes, that's a prereq. for .NET 4.0