Can I build non-.NET apps with VS.NET?

  • Thread starter Thread starter deko
  • Start date Start date
D

deko

I'm confused about what I can use C# and VS.NET for.

I have both Visual Studio 6.0 and Visual Studio .NET - which one do I use?

If I want to build a basic VB app, I assume I can use the VB 6 component in
Visual Studio 6.0. But If I want to build a C# application - does that mean
I have to use VS.NET? And if I do write an application in C# does that mean
it can only run on a Windows box with the .Net Framework? Do all C# apps
require the .NET Framework? Is that why there is no C# component for
VS.NET?

any enlightenment welcome...
 
deko said:
If I want to build a basic VB app, I assume I can use the VB 6 component in
Visual Studio 6.0
Click to expand...

Correct, although in 6.0 they're really different products (VC++, InterDev,
VB). You'd use Visual Basic 6.0.
. But If I want to build a C# application - does that mean
I have to use VS.NET? And if I do write an application in C# does that mean
it can only run on a Windows box with the .Net Framework? Do all C# apps
require the .NET Framework?
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, yes.

Actually you don't require the VS.NET IDE to write C# applications - you can
do that with the .NET SDK and a text editor.
Is that why there is no C# component for
VS.NET?
Click to expand...

There's no "component" per se, C# is just a target language supported by
VS.NET. What you have are C# _projects_, but there's no separate IDE for
them. If you have VB.NET and VJ#, for example, you have project types for
each of them as well.
 
Thanks for the reply. That clears things up a bit.

But I'm wondering what advantage a C# app has over a VB app. Is it just a
matter of how it's developed? It would seem that a VB 6 app would be easier
to distribute since it does not require the .NET framework. Or is there
something about managed code that makes it better?
I assume that if you want a web service you need to use C#
And how does Windows Server 2003 fit in the picture? Do you need a 2003
server to run VS.NET apps? Or is a 2003 server just for web apps - i.e.
ASP.NET ?

thanks again...
 
well, theres a lots of advantages over VB apps, if you dont want to lean a
new language, then you can use VB.NET for .NET Framework, like C# for .NET
Framework.Well, VB.NET is now fully Object Oriented programming language
which was not before in its earlier versions like VB 6.0 or less, now
whatever new operating system is coming into the market from Microsoft is
coming bundled with the .NET Framework already installed, and theres a lots
of advantages of managed code over unmannaged code. Well, Windows Server
2003 supports COM+ very nicely, but if you want you can develop applications
in Windows XP or Windows 2000, you just need IIS to be installed on your
computer, and the application which you develop in .NET Framework will work
on all windows versions provided .NET Framework is installed, but .NET
Framework won't install on Windows 95, so .NET Framework applications will
not work on Windows 95, and the application which you develop using .NET
Framework will work apart from the Windows OS also, as its now using Virtual
Machine thing, right now theres one project going on, for Linux which is
called mono project, which enables .NET Framework applications to run on
Linux OS, http://www.go-mono.com

you will get some components from http://msdn.microsoft.com for web services
for VB 6.0, so you can make your applicatins Web Service enabled.

ASP.NET will also work on Windows XP, Windows 2000 provided IIS is isntalled
and .NET Framework is installed, no need of Windows Server 2003, but tell
you, Windows Server 2003 rules.

Hope this helps.
 
It would seem that a VB 6 app would be easier
to distribute since it does not require the .NET framework. Or is there
something about managed code that makes it better?
Click to expand...

I would say .NET apps are easier to distribute! Sure, you need the .NET
Framework, but in VB6 you need the VB6 Runtime. But VB6 components (ActiveX
for example) need to be registered on your client pc's. In general .NET
components don't need to be registered on your client pc's, so you can use
XCOPY deployment, or no-touch-deployment. Trust me, deployment makes a
developer's life much nicer in a .NET world. :-)
But I'm wondering what advantage a C# app has over a VB app.
Click to expand...

Additionally I want to stress that VB.NET applications are the same as C#
applications, so I would compare .NET applications with VB6 applications. If
you write your code in VB.NET (which probably will be a little bit easier
since you know VB6) you'll have all the advantages C# has too, because they
use the same IL.
 
Hi Dhaval,

I appreciate your comments.

I'm learning C# now and coming up to speed on VS.NET. I've been programming
in VB, but feel it's time to jump into C#. I have a couple of Windows
Server 2003 boxes in my lab and would agree that the OS is great - stable,
easy to add server roles, etc. I've not fully explored all the features,
but I know there are a lot of administration tasks that can be done remotely
from the command line - this is a big plus.

one quick follow up:
Windows Server 2003 supports COM+ very nicely,
but if you want you can develop applications
in Windows XP or Windows 2000, you just need
IIS to be installed on your computer, and the application
which you develop in .NET Framework will work.
Click to expand...

So I would install IIS on my Windows XP workstation? What I think you are
saying is that IIS is required (in addition to the .NET framework) to run a
..NET app locally. It would seem strange to install IIS on a workstation
(that is not a web server). Perhaps you mean IIS is required on the local
machine to run a *web-based* .NET app?
 
You don't need IIS on all your client PC's, but if you want to develop web
applications you'll need IIS on your client pc's that your developers use
(in order to be able to develop web apps).
 
You don't need IIS on all your client PC's, but if you want to develop web
applications you'll need IIS on your client pc's that your developers use
(in order to be able to develop web apps).
Click to expand...

Hi Jan,

That makes sense.

So, if I'm developing an application - a standard client .exe application -
to run locally on an XP box, I can develop it with VS.NET and C# (or
VB.NET) -- the only joker in the pack is that the client PC needs to have
the .NET Framework. For a development box, it sounds like Windows Server
2003 is a good choice, which can be loaded with IIS and/or SQL Server (if
needed).

The bottom line is that any stand-alone (or client-server) application
developed with VS.NET will require the .NET Framework; apps developed with
VB 6.0 will not. Does this sound about right?
 
Hi Deko
So, if I'm developing an application - a standard client .exe application -
to run locally on an XP box, I can develop it with VS.NET and C# (or
VB.NET) -- the only joker in the pack is that the client PC needs to have
the .NET Framework. For a development box, it sounds like Windows Server
2003 is a good choice, which can be loaded with IIS and/or SQL Server (if
needed).
Click to expand...

XP pro has also IIS (5.1) and can connect to the SQL server
(I think XP pro is better as a development box than a server because of a
simpler less

The bottom line is that any stand-alone (or client-server) application
developed with VS.NET will require the .NET Framework; apps developed with
VB 6.0 will not. Does this sound about right?
Click to expand...
Apps developed with VB 6.0 needs a runtimer that is not standard in windows

In future Net will probably be standard
(It is already a standard update component).

Cor
 
I agree with Cor: I'd use XP Pro as development OS for sure! You really
don't need a full blown W2K3 server, that's something to use as your
development server.
 
Back
Top