.NET Framework ??

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:15:43 -0500, Jamie wrote:

The Real Andy wrote:
....
Its the same as java.

Sorry it's not.
but that doesn't mean it's any good either.

It was made by MICRO$~1, and therefore is crap by definition.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Chuck Harris]

The Real Andy wrote:

.net is robust in the same sense as java. Sure you can write unsafe
code (in fact MS even use the term unsafe in the languages) but then
you are being plain mad.

Java runs in a safe and secure "sandbox" it cannot gain access to anything
you don't give it access to. It is safe by design... that said, I don't
write Java, or C#... I prefer the embedded world.

Cripple and Slow? You quite clearly have never used it in a commercial
environment. I do, in an enterprise environment, and I can assure you
it not cripple and slow.

Microsoft loves people like you, easy brain washing.

Microsoft love people like me because we spend money on their
products. I don't buy the MS marketing, I buy the products because I
can develop in a shorter timeframe and my code is a lot more robust.
In a commercial environment that means a lot, the business gets what
they want on time, I get paid and they then give me more work because
I can deliver. Its pretty simple.

I never found that to be true. I have found that Microsoft's applications
tend to confound my efforts to write good software. I would much rather work
with opensource.

The problem as I see it, is MiracleSlop has such a monopoly on seats in
the computer world that finding opensource work is difficult. It is worth
the effort, though, as it is so much easier and more reliable.

-Chuck

 

[Jamie]

The Real Andy wrote:

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:15:43 -0500, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:


Its the same as java.

Sorry it's not.
but that doesn't mean it's any good either.


The code behind maybe different, but the model is essentially the
same. Both are managed languages, both compile to an intermediate
language, both are JIT compiled at runtime.
Crap , crap and double crap.

.NET is not the same in the background.

.net is robust in the same sense as java. Sure you can write unsafe
code (in fact MS even use the term unsafe in the languages) but then
you are being plain mad.

Cripple and Slow? You quite clearly have never used it in a commercial
environment. I do, in an enterprise environment, and I can assure you
it not cripple and slow.
Typical young coder.. I've been around the barn far longer than

you think.
I feel sorry for people like you getting lead down that dark
path.

Microsoft love people like me because we spend money on their
products. I don't buy the MS marketing, I buy the products because I
can develop in a shorter timeframe and my code is a lot more robust.
In a commercial environment that means a lot, the business gets what
they want on time, I get paid and they then give me more work because
I can deliver. Its pretty simple.

Yeah i know, it's pretty simple. MS loves simple users.
glad you finally admitted it.

Borland Delphi just wraps up MFC anyway, so therefore it is just a
layer of crap sitting upon windows. Might as well just do it in c#.
You can get the Visual Studio Express for free now too, and you are
even allowed to write commercial code with it. If you dont want .net,
then use the free Visual STudio express c++ edition and write an
unmanaged c++ MFC application.

Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about. Now you may be
talking about the VCL. That is Borlands class library and it has no
MFC what's so ever.


Sorry, I meant Win32. However in saying that, when Borland dropped OWL
they began paying MS a licence fee to use MFC. I have not touched
Borland for some time now, so I don't really know what the deal is
these days.
Borland has never implemented any of MFC in any of the produces to the

end user. I don't know where you got this information from but it's
clearly incorrect. Borland has there own set of class libraries that
simply sprang from the early days of OWL. they call it the VCL now.
VCL = Visual Control Library.

I did just knock back a job that involved Borland C++ however. Also
knocked back a Delphi job too, both in preference for a job doing
enterprise .net systems.

Don't feel bad, you did them a favor by not letting them hire you.

You must be Borland user.
Yes i am , i'm also a MS VC++, VS , user.

write code for Windows Mobile etc..
I've been in the field sense the day's of
punch card computers and have fallow the
product line's of Borland, MS, Symantic, Watcom
to say a few.
Now that we're done with our pissing contest, go back
to your slow .NET MS controlled applications. and hope
you have fun writing slow bloated code.
Just think, since you're suck a good MS customer, maybe they
won't make you wait for months to fix a crash/serious bug that
arises in your code due to a frame work error that only MS can
fix.



--
"I'm never wrong, once i thought i was, but was mistaken"
Real Programmers Do things like this.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5

 

[MassiveProng]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:05:59 +1000, The Real Andy
<therealandy@nospam.com> Gave us:

Ahh, remember when Borland dropped OWL, they licenced MFC? Remeber
that there was some condition regarding the approval that prevented
Borland from continuing with MFC? It was about this time that everyone
stopped using broland products. VCL is completely different.

Borland died because their main products, Paradox and Quattro Pro
could not compete with Foxpro or Excel.

They could not get themselves out of the DOS world cleanly, and was
never able to catch up in a Windows based realm.

 

[MassiveProng]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:18:52 +1100, "Michael Brown"
<see@signature.below> Gave us:

/how Borland "lost" the C++ market

They were unable to compete in the "visual" based development realm.

 

[The Real Andy]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 18:28:28 -0800, MassiveProng
<MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:18:52 +1100, "Michael Brown"
see@signature.below> Gave us:

/how Borland "lost" the C++ market


They were unable to compete in the "visual" based development realm.

I agree, and that is when most people gave up on Borland. MFC was
always ahead (even if it was crap) and the OWL compatibility debacle
in the early 90's (IIRC) was just a plain fucken pain in the arse.

 

[Joel Kolstad]

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:xZvBh.84639$Y6.80597@edtnps89...

Removing and reinstalling software may lead to corruption.

True enough, although when that happens it's an easy way to know that the
piece of software is crap and you shouldn't bother using it if at all
possible!

 

[The Real Andy]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:06:28 +1000, The Real Andy
<therealandy@nospam.com> wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 03:21:06 +1100, "Michael Brown"
see@signature.below> wrote:

The Real Andy wrote:
Michael Brown wrote:
[...]

%<

BTW: WCF was microsofts benchmark test for using c# internally. WCF
was written completely in managed code. Its only a matter of time
before your PC will have to run the .net framework as MS ramps up
internal development in .net. It would be interesting to know if Vista
uses any .net framework, because I cant see it load. Vista starts
pretty quickly too, and .net apps seem to boot fast on vista.

 

[Frithiof Andreas Jensen]

"Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12tjrntkv4p6fa6@corp.supernews.com...

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:xZvBh.84639$Y6.80597@edtnps89...
Removing and reinstalling software may lead to corruption.

True enough, although when that happens it's an easy way to know that the
piece of software is crap and you shouldn't bother using it if at all
possible!

If the software is crap to begin with, why do you expect the uninstaller to
work??

 

[MassiveProng]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:48:49 +1000, The Real Andy
<therealandy@nospam.com> Gave us:

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 18:28:28 -0800, MassiveProng
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:18:52 +1100, "Michael Brown"
see@signature.below> Gave us:

/how Borland "lost" the C++ market


They were unable to compete in the "visual" based development realm.

I agree, and that is when most people gave up on Borland. MFC was
always ahead (even if it was crap) and the OWL compatibility debacle
in the early 90's (IIRC) was just a plain fucken pain in the arse.

Paradox was one hell of a relational database.

 

[Geoff]

Genome wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote
in message news:k61ct2t60icdg2geptsgpg9uevea065jn8@4ax.com...
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 shit 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

 

[Mike Monett]

"Geoff" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote:

I know three fifths of bugger all about this stuff but .NET is some
new MicroCrap crap which is another layer of shit 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

 

[Lionel]

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 22:40:18 +0000, Mike Monett <No@email.adr> wrote:

"Geoff" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote:



I know three fifths of bugger all about this stuff but .NET is some
new MicroCrap crap which is another layer of shit 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.

<applause>

Damn right.

--
W "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them."
. | ,. w ,
\|/ \|/ Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Martin Riddle]

"Mike Monett" <No@email.adr> wrote in message
news:Xns9905BDEFF407FNoemailadr@208.49.80.251...

"Geoff" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote:



I know three fifths of bugger all about this stuff but .NET is some
new MicroCrap crap which is another layer of shit 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

 

[Jamie]

Mike Monett wrote:

"Geoff" <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote:


I know three fifths of bugger all about this stuff but .NET is some
new MicroCrap crap which is another layer of shit 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

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

Just say Nyet to NET.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailtoaul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to recent budget cuts, the light at the end of the tunnel has
temporarily been turned off.

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

"Mike Monett" <No@email.adr> wrote in message
news:Xns9905BDEFF407FNoemailadr@208.49.80.251

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.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote in message
news:g2ZPh.116$xB7.92@newsfe12.lga...

I use C++ and Delphi mostly my self (Win32) on both.

Hasn't Borland jumped aboard also?

 

[Joel Kolstad]

"Mike Monett" <No@email.adr> wrote in message
news:Xns9905BDEFF407FNoemailadr@208.49.80.251...

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

 

[Mike Monett]

"Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Mike Monett" <No@email.adr> wrote in message
news:Xns9905BDEFF407FNoemailadr@208.49.80.251.

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