.NET Framework ??
Genome wrote:
"Jim Thompson" wrote in message ... I downloaded a calendar program that also installed ".NET Framework" I uninstalled the calendar... pure crap. Does ".NET Framework" have any usefulness, or should I uninstall it as well? ...Jim Thompson No..... your computer worked before it was installed your computer will work after you get rid of it. I know three fifths of bugger all about this stuff but .NET is some new MicroCrap crap which is another layer of **** MicroCrap are layering on top of their other crap to 'consolidate' programming under Windows. It's essential a run-time library for the increasing number of applications that use it's features. If you use XP or Vista you will need .NET eventually. It does no harm. geoff |
.NET Framework ??
"Geoff" wrote:
I know three fifths of bugger all about this stuff but .NET is some new MicroCrap crap which is another layer of **** MicroCrap are layering on top of their other crap to 'consolidate' programming under Windows. It's essential a run-time library for the increasing number of applications that use it's features. If you use XP or Vista you will need .NET eventually. It does no harm. geoff ..NET is the stupidist crap MS has come up with. It clogs your system with unwanted files that cannot be moved. It compiles the application before running it. This increases the load time on first use. It has to do this again when you update the software, or any time it feels like it. The code is bloated and slow, and probably full of bugs. I don't need to waste my time finding out where they are. Anyone who writes software in .NET is demonstrating their amateur status and corresponding incompetence. I don't need to waste my time with code written by amateurs, and .NET clearly shows who they are. Whenever I'm looking for applications, I disregard any application written in .NET, and continue looking for code written by professionals. 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. Regards, Mike Monett |
.NET Framework ??
"Mike Monett" wrote in message ... "Geoff" wrote: I know three fifths of bugger all about this stuff but .NET is some new MicroCrap crap which is another layer of **** MicroCrap are layering on top of their other crap to 'consolidate' programming under Windows. It's essential a run-time library for the increasing number of applications that use it's features. If you use XP or Vista you will need .NET eventually. It does no harm. geoff .NET is the stupidist crap MS has come up with. It clogs your system with unwanted files that cannot be moved. It compiles the application before running it. This increases the load time on first use. It has to do this again when you update the software, or any time it feels like it. The code is bloated and slow, and probably full of bugs. I don't need to waste my time finding out where they are. Anyone who writes software in .NET is demonstrating their amateur status and corresponding incompetence. I don't need to waste my time with code written by amateurs, and .NET clearly shows who they are. Whenever I'm looking for applications, I disregard any application written in .NET, and continue looking for code written by professionals. 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. Regards, Mike Monett If you compile a DLL in the latest Visual Studio tools, you need to have ..Net loaded on the target machine. Better dll handeling. Cheers |
.NET Framework ??
Mike Monett wrote:
"Geoff" wrote: I know three fifths of bugger all about this stuff but .NET is some new MicroCrap crap which is another layer of **** MicroCrap are layering on top of their other crap to 'consolidate' programming under Windows. It's essential a run-time library for the increasing number of applications that use it's features. If you use XP or Vista you will need .NET eventually. It does no harm. geoff .NET is the stupidist crap MS has come up with. It clogs your system with unwanted files that cannot be moved. It compiles the application before running it. This increases the load time on first use. It has to do this again when you update the software, or any time it feels like it. The code is bloated and slow, and probably full of bugs. I don't need to waste my time finding out where they are. Anyone who writes software in .NET is demonstrating their amateur status and corresponding incompetence. I don't need to waste my time with code written by amateurs, and .NET clearly shows who they are. Whenever I'm looking for applications, I disregard any application written in .NET, and continue looking for code written by professionals. 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. Regards, Mike Monett now wait a second, you can make a net app look like xxxx.EXE on start up.. so, do you really know if it wasn't NET? And don't get me wrong, I write software my self, .NET is the biggest disappointment from MS I have ever seen. what a piece of crap. And I agree with you on the fact about wantabe programmers and those that really are. It's just a sorry way of saying "I'm not a VB programmer", you might as well be one, what's the difference. I haven't really check performance however, I would be willing to bet that VB is faster! at least it can compile to some what native code to some degree. I use C++ and Delphi mostly my self (Win32) on both. -- "I'm never wrong, once i thought i was, but was mistaken" Real Programmers Do things like this. http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5 |
.NET Framework ??
Just say Nyet to NET.
-- Paul Hovnanian ------------------------------------------------------------------ Due to recent budget cuts, the light at the end of the tunnel has temporarily been turned off. |
.NET Framework ??
"Mike Monett" wrote in message
Anyone who writes software in .NET is demonstrating their amateur status and corresponding incompetence. I don't need to waste my time with code written by amateurs, and .NET clearly shows who they are. In fairness to the programmers, it's probably their managers telling them to use it. -- Reply in group, but if emailing add another zero, and remove the last word. |
.NET Framework ??
"Jamie" t wrote in message ... I use C++ and Delphi mostly my self (Win32) on both. Hasn't Borland jumped aboard also? |
.NET Framework ??
"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. 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. ..Net certainly isn't "needed," but neither is Windows Vista or XP, or Microsoft Outlook or Word or any other program out there. How easy or hard it is to get rid of .Net is largely a function of the size, complexity, and scope of the program that's written -- "hello world" is trivially ported to any language/framework you want, after all. ----Joel |
.NET Framework ??
"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 |
.NET Framework ??
Try going away from microsoft and use some real software, written for
purpose other than taking your money. i |
.NET Framework ??
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. 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. .Net certainly isn't "needed," but neither is Windows Vista or XP, or Microsoft Outlook or Word or any other program out there. How easy or hard it is to get rid of .Net is largely a function of the size, complexity, and scope of the program that's written -- "hello world" is trivially ported to any language/framework you want, after all. Its better said that "hello world" is more easily ported to .NET and as the programs get larger and demand more services (think databases, specialized networking, etc.) the odds increase that .NET will _not_ have support for it. Any 'write once, run anywhere' apps have to target the lowest common denominator API set. With something like Java, which has a JRE for a wide range of platforms, it was worthwhile for developers to add the hooks for underlying services. For .NET, developers just asked "What's the point?" .NET originally ws planned to support only Windows (ignoring the Mono project). Its a 'write once, run in one place' runtime. So all the developers asked themselves, "If I've already got my stuff running on Windows (native .EXE), what does all that additional pain and suffering buy me?". -- Paul Hovnanian ------------------------------------------------------------------ The large print giveth and the small print taketh away. -- Tom Waits |
.NET Framework ??
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 02:55:56 GMT, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote: "Mike Monett" wrote in message Anyone who writes software in .NET is demonstrating their amateur status and corresponding incompetence. I don't need to waste my time with code written by amateurs, and .NET clearly shows who they are. In fairness to the programmers, it's probably their managers telling them to use it. I use .net, in fact i pushed it my last job. I told the managers to use it and I am a c++ programmer, go figure. I guess I am an amateur. What do you do for a living? |
.NET Framework ??
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 03:08:47 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
wrote: "Jamie" t wrote in message ... I use C++ and Delphi mostly my self (Win32) on both. Hasn't Borland jumped aboard also? Borland lost it years ago, its all reactive, a bit like linux these days actually. |
.NET Framework ??
"The Real Andy" wrote in message
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 02:55:56 GMT, "Tom Del Rosso" wrote: "Mike Monett" wrote in message Anyone who writes software in .NET is demonstrating their amateur status and corresponding incompetence. I don't need to waste my time with code written by amateurs, and .NET clearly shows who they are. In fairness to the programmers, it's probably their managers telling them to use it. I use .net, in fact i pushed it my last job. I told the managers to use it and I am a c++ programmer, go figure. I guess I am an amateur. Then go argue with the people making comments about programmers and have your manager meet me in the alley. What do you do for a living? -- Reply in group, but if emailing add another zero, and remove the last word. |
.NET Framework ??
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in message
... Any 'write once, run anywhere' apps have to target the lowest common denominator API set. With something like Java, which has a JRE for a wide range of platforms, it was worthwhile for developers to add the hooks for underlying services. The "hooks" for .Net come in the form of COM "objects." Pretty much every major Windows application out there has a COM interface available (including many of the fancier schematic capture/PCB layout tools, and even high-end RF design packages such as Microwave Office). So there's really a philosophical difference in design the Java tries to have a higher-level "base" API -- but you're left with a myriad of different protocols for interfacing to anything not included in that API --, whereas .Net tries to have a purposely lower-level API and Microsoft dictates than any extensions should come in the form of COM objects. :-) (This is perhaps the main reason Microsoft Office remains notably more powerful than OpenOffice, even though the VAST majority of MSO users will probably *never* use those features.) I do agree that how well these design philosophies work is largely a significant function of program size and complexity, though. So all the developers asked themselves, "If I've already got my stuff running on Windows (native .EXE), what does all that additional pain and suffering buy me?". The unfortunate answer to that is, "it meets some pointy-haired boss's checklist for acceptable software purchases." :-( I have a friend who's a programmer and he says they see this all the time -- they have a very nice software package (it's very much COM-enabled -- .Net apps can interface with it just as readily as Excel or Visual BASIC or Java can!) written in C++, and yet they'll see some company's checklist for software purchases that requires the software be written in some .Net language. Apparently PHBs attend some Microsoft .Net infomercial seminar and buy into the hype that anything written in .Net is good, anything else is junk... when in actuality, of course, there's plenty of junk to be found regradless of the language chosen. Said friend refers to "dot net" as "dot crap." :-) ---Joel |
.NET Framework ??
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 19:10:19 +1000, The Real Andy wrote:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 02:55:56 GMT, "Tom Del Rosso" "Mike Monett" wrote in message Anyone who writes software in .NET is demonstrating their amateur status and corresponding incompetence. I don't need to waste my time with code written by amateurs, and .NET clearly shows who they are. In fairness to the programmers, it's probably their managers telling them to use it. I use .net, in fact i pushed it my last job. I told the managers to use it and I am a c++ programmer, go figure. I guess I am an amateur. What do you do for a living? Solve Real-World Problems. :-) Thanks! Rich |
.NET Framework ??
"Mike Monett" wrote in message ... "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 Not come across the '.NET' rubbish until now. Bought a USB hard disc this afternoon. Had on it's CD a "One click backup!!" program. 240Mbytes of *.NET program crap later I find that this "program" can transfer no more than a whole single file at a time!. Hell I can do a whole directory via normal drag-n-drop. Deleted the whole mess. Yes. Rank amateurs all the way down the line. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
.NET Framework ??
John,
One of my favorite programs for "backup" is Beyond Compare, by Scooter Software. Even though it's really meant more of "synchronizing" than "backing up," it's powerful enough to do the later much better than many of junkware packages that come with, e.g., new hard drives. I'm quite confident it's not written in .Net. :-) ---Joel |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter