No .NET Framework, no problem!

[wraith808]

Writing code in C# .NET means that the end users machine also needs to support the .NET Framework.  This also means that you can't really make .NET portable applications.

With the latest update introduced (still in preview mode) this restriction will disappear for x64 and ARM Windows Store applications. x86 and regular Windows Application support is on the charts. It still doesn't support advanced features such as WCF but is a good first step.

Applications compiled with .NET Native will have better performance as there is no JIT involved but will still have the advantages of GC.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dotnet/archive/2014/04/02/announcing-net-native-preview.aspx​

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-US/vstudio/dn642499.aspx

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn600165(v=vs.110).aspx​

[Renegade]

It's about time. Mono has had a similar capability for a while now - package all required binaries with the distributable.

[ewemoa]

This sounds promising!


Didn't know Mono had a similar capability!  Nice

Is it what's hinted at here?

Mono and applications that embed Mono can be deployed without an installer (you can "xcopy" deploy your application and the required Mono files without installing the .NET runtime).

[Stoic Joker]

My biggest objection to C#/.NET has always been the runtime shenanigans. So this to me is incredibly interesting, especially if the produced .exe is as small as the typical C# project output but still completely portably non runtime dependent.

[40hz]

It's about time. Mono has had a similar capability for a while now - package all required binaries with the distributable.

Mono exists purely at the pleasure of the Gnomes of Redmond.

If ever there was a FOSS project ripe for being hit and taken down by a massive IP legal assault, it's Mono.

So much so that most Linux developers avoid it, fearing that Microsoft's current inaction indicates it's pursuing a Trojan Horse legal strategy with Mono.

[attach]

[mouser]

My biggest objection to C#/.NET has always been the runtime shenanigans. So this to me is incredibly interesting, especially if the produced .exe is as small as the typical C# project output but still completely portably non runtime dependent.

I'm not so concerned with size but agree whole heartedly that there is some real pain associated with having to worry if the user has the right version of .net stuff installed, so this would be a big improvement.

[wraith808]

I don't think you can get independence and size in the same package.  It's going to at least increase with the number of libraries you have linked- just common sense there.  I guess the thing to see is the size of the base libraries.

[Stoic Joker]

I guess the thing to see is the size of the base libraries.

Yepper, that was my question.

@mouser - Understood, but I'm a bit hung-up on the absurd notion that a small utility should actually be small. Most of my C++ stuff is under 100KB, Page Countster for example for all it does is only 282KB, Got Space is 158KB...and most of that is the icon. Now if I go with C#/.NET I can get a binary that is 6-10KB, but that is going to be dependent on a runtime that may be as high as 40MB ... Which means that my supposed to be tiny little utility is now a 40MB behemoth that can't be used in a clean in-and-out zero presence fashion. That for me is a deal breaker.

[zenzai]

An alternative is CrossOver:

http://www.codeweavers.com/products/

[zenzai]

My biggest objection to C#/.NET has always been the runtime shenanigans. So this to me is incredibly interesting, especially if the produced .exe is as small as the typical C# project output but still completely portably non runtime dependent.

I'm not so concerned with size but agree whole heartedly that there is some real pain associated with having to worry if the user has the right version of .net stuff installed, so this would be a big improvement.

Win 8 (and AFAIR also Win 7) automatically offers to download the correct version if it isn't installed, when you run a .NET program.

[Stoic Joker]

An alternative is CrossOver:

http://www.codeweavers.com/products/

While I'm not entirely clear on how this related to the thread, it does look like it might be a real nice fit for a Windows software needed on a purely Mac OSX network issue that just got dropped into my lap last Friday.

Thanks!