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

DonationCoder.com Software > N.A.N.Y. 2012

NANY 2012 RELEASE: Portable Extension Warlock

<< < (5/13) > >>

kyrathaba:
Looks OK, but the public comp I often use does not have .NET installed.
--- End quote ---

Unfortunately, there's not really anything that can be done about this.  Even those few companies that purport to offer software that obviates the need for the .NET runtimes don't really succeed, except in the simplest programs having relatively few assemblies.  Even in such cases, the software to produce such standalone .NET apps is usually prohibitively expensive for the hobbyist .NET programmer.

Your best bet is to ask the admin of the public PC to install the .NET runtimes.  However, they may not be willing to install them, because then anyone who walked in with a .NET app could run it on the machine, and who knows what nefarious executables might get executed on the public PC?

fenixproductions:
Looks OK, but the public comp I often use does not have .NET installed.
--- End quote ---

Unfortunately, there's not really anything that can be done about this.-kyrathaba (November 20, 2011, 03:32 PM)
--- End quote ---

Although .NET framework is still needed, it would be nice to see if this requirement can be lowered a bit with framework version number.
Maybe this application does not utilize full potential of .NET 4.0 or even 3.0 and can require 2.0 only (or better: separate EXE files for 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0 if it is possible).

The reason behind this suggestion: I saw few public computers with .NET 2.0 available thanks to ATI Catalyst Control Center.

wraith808:
Looks OK, but the public comp I often use does not have .NET installed.
--- End quote ---

Unfortunately, there's not really anything that can be done about this.-kyrathaba (November 20, 2011, 03:32 PM)
--- End quote ---

Although .NET framework is still needed, it would be nice to see if this requirement can be lowered a bit with framework version number.
Maybe this application does not utilize full potential of .NET 4.0 or even 3.0 and can require 2.0 only (or better: separate EXE files for 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0 if it is possible).

The reason behind this suggestion: I saw few public computers with .NET 2.0 available thanks to ATI Catalyst Control Center.
-fenixproductions (November 20, 2011, 06:41 PM)
--- End quote ---

Speaking as a .NET programmer, it's not just the potential, it's the way you program.  I look back to even .NET 3.5 with trepidation, because a lot of the constructs that I use now wouldn't work.  It's the same way as WPF vs WinForms... I could go back, but it would be a major adjustment.  A lot of people think it's just feature set or bells and whistles, but it's not as simple as that IMO.

kyrathaba:
I look back to even .NET 3.5 with trepidation, because a lot of the constructs that I use now wouldn't work.
--- End quote ---

True.  The saving grace, IMHO, is that 99% of code can be up-converted to a higher edition of .NET painlessly. 

Update: I tried PEW on that comp and works fine. It appears that .NET is installed after all.
--- End quote ---

@panzer: Good deal!

hamradio:
GENERAL UPDATE:
1. Very few changes.

See first post for download link. :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version