topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

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

Login with username, password and session length
  • February 28, 2020, 04:40 PM
  • Proudly celebrating 14 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

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Ramesh Kumar [ switch to compact view ]

Pages: [1]
1
I have a different reason for so-far avoiding getting into dot net, as a programmer.

I really like a LOT of what they have done with it, but i'm not going to embrace a new giant powerful framework that doesn't have first-class cross platform support as one of it's main goals.

You are right.  :)
This is a major reason why .NET has not succeeded. .NET aka Microsoft has fought bitterly with too many players - both competitors & collaborators to truly become cross platform:-
1)Apple - competitor
2)Java - collaborator

Besides large players have now got stakes to compete both in software & also across computing devices aka hardware. So even if theoretically .NET can become cross platform practical difficulties & bitter memories would prevent it. Trying to strike technological friendship after bitter fights in the market place is just too little too late
Ramesh

2
Versus Java I intuit third party developers carry one more fear or apprehension in .NET

They worry that if they create an app & it happens to be in a genre where Microsoft also has an app then the .NET runtime while allocating computer resources would show partiality to a Microsoft app. Perhaps Java has managed this fear psychosis better
Ramesh  :)

3
Last spring I set up a netbook with Unbuntu linux, and the distro came with Mono in it. So it's not just pervasive on Windows, but common in linux as well. And from everything I read, current versions of Mono do a darned good job so long as the whole app is .Net without native code thrown in.

This is true as long as you target .Net 2.0 or lower (maybe 3.0/3.5 now).  But for current versions of .Net Mono is not there yet.  If they really want parity, they need to be working on the current .Net version along side Microsoft (which means they should be about to release .Net 4.0 compatible code).  I mean they already have the technology sharing license and are essentially partners (MS and Novell, the main project backers).  That said, I agree with most of what you are saying.

easily 90% of .NET app come with some type of installer. (and...) Not all installers are intelligent enough to stop and make sure the runtime package they're holding is necessary. So you install app A and app B explodes (I see this a lot). ...Becaused something got moved/changed/updated/tinkered with (what shouldn't).

.net 2.0 doesn't override .net 1, and .net 3 install .net 2.0 automatically because it needs it as it builds on top of it.
So all .net framework can and do coexist without problem on the same machine.

Not always; not entirely.  :)
Sometimes parts of earlier .NET version get discarded simply because a newer way gets seen to be better. That is why some .NET users express surprise over why a .NET app which used to run well on an earlier .NET version does not run on a later .NET version. But you are right for the most part!  :)
Ramesh  :)

4
VB runtimes gave the whole framework thing a bad taste, MFC didn't really help either (and .NET ... still fits the same bill).

Here's the thing, One .NET app is not a big deal, and two usually isn't either. But... When you start getting 4, 5, 6+ especially when different service pack levels are required ... Things tend to mire quickly.

easily 90% of .NET app come with some type of installer. (and...) Not all installers are intelligent enough to stop and make sure the runtime package they're holding is necessary. So you install app A and app B explodes (I see this a lot). ...Becaused something got moved/changed/updated/tinkered with (what shouldn't). Now if app A just so happens to be a mission critical vertical market management application (and it usually is...) You-Are-Screwed.

I'm usually looking for apps that are small, portable, and have as close to a zero presence foot print as possible. If I have to install framework anything to run an app, then I'm no longer troubleshooting (Just) the problems that existed before I got there - As I now have to deal with the very real possibility that there is now a new problem that I just created by installing X which is (conflicting with Y) now compounding the issue that got me called to the site in the first place.

Stoic Joker you are 110% right!  :)

Sadly enough .NET runtime has replaced non-.NET runtime before .NET technology got stabilized.

There is an interesting conjecture & solution I'd like to suggest. I can't say for sure but I think Java does it. *I think Java allows you to run more than one runtime build at a time!* Go to www.java.com & you will find that they never give you a plainspeak answer to the question - Does one need to uninstall the previous build of runtime before installing the latest runtime or can both co-exist.  :o

It would be nice if Windows works out a similar interim solution. Oh I am not referring to compatibility mode.

Till such time .NET technology stabilizes Windows OS should allow both .NET & non-.NET runtimes to run concurrently during a computing session with the proviso that the non-.NET runtime has the upper hand in deciding how computer resources would get allocated in case of a conflict. That's because presently non-.NET technology has stabilized more as compared to .NET technology!  :)

After .NET technology stabilizes worldwide subsequent OS's could shift to .NET.......but not before then. This approach looks practical to me. I know in the interim third party developers would face the added challenge of developing apps which get along with both runtimes.  ;)

Ramesh  :)

5
Last spring I set up a netbook with Unbuntu linux, and the distro came with Mono in it. So it's not just pervasive on Windows, but common in linux as well. And from everything I read, current versions of Mono do a darned good job so long as the whole app is .Net without native code thrown in.

If you're willing to target Vista or Win7, you should be willing to target .Net, because both of those versions of Windows come with .Net preinstalled.

There is a sad correlation in Windows OS I'd like to share:-
1) Vista & Win7 are preinstalled with .NET & both these OS's run fewer apps too as compared to Xp which is not pre-installed with .NET
2) In terms of mkt share Vista is presently one third of Xp & Win7 is less than one eighth of Xp

There are 4 conclusions:-
1) Quite obviously users & third party developers prefer non-.NET runtime over .NET runtime as of now  ;)
2) Win7 adoption rate is in fact half that of Vista. Adoption rate is mkt share in first 12 months of existence.  :o
3) .NET technology in Windows OS has to improve; stabilize  :)
4) Perhaps Linux has done better than Windows in this regard

Ramesh  :)

Pages: [1]