ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE.

Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Why the aversion to .NET Frameworks?

<< < (8/15) > >>

Yeah, the dotNET runtimes are huge, and sometimes I wonder if they have to be that huge. But there's lots and lots and lots of functionality in there.-f0dder (March 09, 2010, 01:08 AM)
--- End quote ---
the .net 3.0 include both the 32bit and 64bit version. This is the reason of it's massive size.-CoderOmega (March 09, 2010, 06:19 AM)
--- End quote ---
That really shouldn't affect things much, considering that .NET has machine-neutral MSIL rather than native binaries?

.net compile to msil, but I'm pretty sure it was written in c++.

.net compile to msil, but I'm pretty sure it was written in c++.-CoderOmega (March 09, 2010, 06:57 AM)
--- End quote ---
Parts of it definitely are, like the core VM and it's JITer. Large parts of the framework, however, are in MSIL form, with parts of it native compiled to x86/AMD64 (I wonder if it's using native C++ code, or "just" ngen'ed). Check c:\windows\assembly with explorer. Interestingly, a large amount of assemblies (notable Microsoft.DirectX.*) don't seem to specify Processor Architecture :-s

Ramesh Kumar:
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.
-CWuestefeld (February 17, 2010, 03:44 PM)
--- End quote ---

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  :)

Ramesh Kumar:
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 (February 17, 2010, 03:51 PM)
--- End quote ---

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 & 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  :)


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version