"Joel Kolstad" wrote:

"Mike Monett" wrote in message
.

Whenever I'm looking for applications, I disregard any
application written in .NET, and continue looking for code
written by professionals.

I'm willing to bet you a dollar that - at least if you're running
Windows XP or Vista - you're using plenty of .Net programs without
even knowing it.

Nope. Win98SE. No need for XP with all the problems. Biggest
advantage is I can use XCOPY32 and copy every file to a backup disk.
Takes only about 60 seconds, so I do it often.

Also, System File Checker is much better in Win98. I can verify
every critical file on the hard disk and ensure nobody downgraded a
dll of changed anything in the kernel.

You can argue that the overhead of .Net - and similar technologies
such as Java or (to a much lesser extent) Python - are not worth
their (sometimes quite significant) overhead, but there are some
objectives advantages to what .Net is attempting to do. Not that
that implies Microsoft has necessarily done a particularly good
job (I wouldn't really know, having only ever written "toy"
programs in .Net), but hey - at least they're trying to advance
technology while they take over the universe! :-)

One of the authors in the LTspice forum generated a MOSFET model
program using .NET. He recently changed it to a stand-alone exe.
This shows .NET is not needed, and how easy it is to get rid of
it.

Note that producing a stand-alone .exe doesn't imply that .Net is
gone it could have just been bundled up in the executable.

Not likely. The exe is about the same size as before. And it loads
much faster.

[...]

----Joel

MS .NET is junk. The concept sucks, and the execution is typical MS
crap.

I guess if you hire all these brilliant software jocks, you gotta
let them earn their keep. But if they'd only keep it amongst
themselves instead of forcing the rest of the planet to put up with
it.

Regards,

Mike Monett