The pros and cons of .NET

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tim Anderson
  • Start date Start date
JD,

I see a lot of xxCorxx.dll in your message however not what you said a "Its
a dll that gets", there are a lot DLL loaded by the OS consequently.

Did I say something else?

Cor
 
Cor Ligthert said:
This goes again far beside its context so I stop, I think that I made clear
with your additions that in my opinion there should not be downloaded a
runtimer however something else what I call an OS layer and you still stays
that it is an extended runtimer and you are of course free to call the Net
framework an extended runtimer, however
Click to expand...

One correction to your vocabulary (I thought it was a typo at first,
but by now it's clearly not): there's no such word as "runtimer". The
word is "runtime".
 
Jon,

Thank you for making me attent on that, a quick search on Google learned me
that I am not the only one in that, however I will keep it in mind.

The thank you is serious of course not sarcastic

Cor
 
10 and 20MB... its gonna be a 10 minute download if u are with slow
broadband...

UK is hardly and example for technology... I mean, you guys still have
monarchy installed.

I am from Brazil, and talk about 3º world country, and we got fewer and
fewer dialup users.

Besides, if a guy can´t afford a broadband link, do you expect him to pay
for software? hardly a good customer.

If you are targetting poor clients, people who can´t put out 50 bucks for
broadband, then yeah, those greedy fukers are not gonna want to download a
23.0001 MB runtime.
 
Cablito said:
10 and 20MB... its gonna be a 10 minute download if u are with slow
broadband...
Click to expand...

That's still fairly large for many people.
UK is hardly and example for technology... I mean, you guys still have
monarchy installed.
Click to expand...

Politics != technology...
I am from Brazil, and talk about 3º world country, and we got fewer and
fewer dialup users.
Click to expand...

Likewise we've got fewer and fewer dialup users - but that doesn't mean
that most people are on broadband.
Besides, if a guy can´t afford a broadband link, do you expect him to pay
for software? hardly a good customer.
Click to expand...
If you are targetting poor clients, people who can´t put out 50 bucks for
broadband, then yeah, those greedy fukers are not gonna want to download a
23.0001 MB runtime.
Click to expand...

a) What makes you think that all dial-up users can't afford broadband?
My parents don't have access to broadband in their area yet.

b) Teenagers may wish to buy your software (or download it for free -
there's nothing to say we're talking about commercial software here)
but don't have permission from their parents to get broadband
installed.

c) People may find your application very useful even if they don't need
broadband access for anything else.
 
Jon,

I agree with you that this part about your parents can be of regional
importancy, however as well in my opinion is the way you pay your
connection.

In Europe we pay with a dialup connection in ticks. In a lot of places on
the world you pay only for the connection or is the tick price very low. And
I get sometimes the idea that they never think about that in the US.

And to make it even nicer, in Holland and I assume more places in the world
we have now dialup ADSL paid per tick.

Just as addition to your message.

:-)

Cor
 
Cor Ligthert said:
I agree with you that this part about your parents can be of regional
importancy, however as well in my opinion is the way you pay your
connection.

In Europe we pay with a dialup connection in ticks. In a lot of places on
the world you pay only for the connection or is the tick price very low. And
I get sometimes the idea that they never think about that in the US.

And to make it even nicer, in Holland and I assume more places in the world
we have now dialup ADSL paid per tick.

Just as addition to your message.
Click to expand...

I think in the UK, the price of ADSL is now virtually insignificant.
You can get a 1MB ADSL link with a 1GB download cap for the same price
as a 56K unlimited dialup. Very few dialup users are going to download
more than 1GB in a month, so other than a bit of initial outlay for the
ADSL modem, and (as I said before) the problem that ADSL isn't
available everywhere (yet) there are no really good reasons not to get
ADSL, as far as I can see.
 
We obviously deal with different realities.

Where I come from, people need money to live, and free software usually does
not make that much money, unless its from speculation which isn´t all
uncommon in some countries.

Just as a comment, and do not come with an english fist against me, I am not
saying anything to cause disagreements just for the sake of it, how about a
java application, you´d need the "virtual machine" which really isn´t much
smaller if not bigger.

The point is, if you include crystal reports on a pure c++ project,
non-dotnet, you end up carrying a 10MB runtime from crytal anyway - of
course u may build your own reports with code, but hardly cost effective.

When Microsoft was building NT they were worried about how they´d ship 30
floppies and how it was too big. Now office ships in 10 CDs(jk). There was a
time when a website with images was considered bad because it took sooooo
long to load.
Politics != technology... lol.

a) What makes you think that all dial-up users can't afford broadband?
My parents don't have access to broadband in their area yet.
Click to expand...

They obviously don´t live in a "modern" or valuable area.

b) Teenagers may wish to buy your software (or download it for free -
there's nothing to say we're talking about commercial software here)
but don't have permission from their parents to get broadband
installed.

Again, where I come from, money is usually the goal.

c) People may find your application very useful even if they don't need
broadband access for anything else.

Very true. I liked CounterStrike 1.5 a lot, had to download it. 150MB
 
I listed some of the exact dlls that make up the runtime. I told you exactly
how the runtime gets loaded. Its built on top the operating system not part
of the operating system. I have the Mono runtime, the Rotor runtime, and the
MS CLR runtime on my machine right now that can all run the same programs
that I write. 3 seperate runtimes!

I have nothing more to say.
 
Cablito said:
We obviously deal with different realities.

Where I come from, people need money to live, and free software
usually does not make that much money, unless its from speculation
which isn´t all uncommon in some countries.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean that all software has to be developed for money
though. I work at an ISV, but I develop open source projects in my free
time. I'm far from being alone in that.
Just as a comment, and do not come with an english fist against me, I
am not saying anything to cause disagreements just for the sake of
it, how about a java application, you´d need the "virtual machine"
which really isn´t much smaller if not bigger.
Click to expand...

The same is certainly true of Java, although it *is* smaller (14MB on
Windows instead of 23MB for .NET).
The point is, if you include crystal reports on a pure c++ project,
non-dotnet, you end up carrying a 10MB runtime from crytal anyway - of
course u may build your own reports with code, but hardly cost effective.
Click to expand...

*If* you need Crystal Reports, of course. Not all software requires
reports...
When Microsoft was building NT they were worried about how they´d ship 30
floppies and how it was too big. Now office ships in 10 CDs(jk). There was a
time when a website with images was considered bad because it took sooooo
long to load.
Click to expand...

Sure, but that doesn't mean that the framework download isn't an
obstacle for some people. Not everyone, and just how much of a problem
it is varies immensely, but to imply that it's not an issue at all is a
mistake, IMO.
lol.
Click to expand...

Um, your point is? If you'd care to tell me just why you think that
having a monarchy prevents the UK from being technological, I'd be very
interested to hear your reasoning.
They obviously don´t live in a "modern" or valuable area.
Click to expand...

They have retired to the countryside for a generally better standard of
living. It has its downsides such as lack of broadband access though.
(I gather it's coming in February.)
b) Teenagers may wish to buy your software (or download it for free -
there's nothing to say we're talking about commercial software here)
but don't have permission from their parents to get broadband
installed.

Again, where I come from, money is usually the goal.
Click to expand...

So you aren't aware of free software? Interesting.
c) People may find your application very useful even if they don't need
broadband access for anything else.

Very true. I liked CounterStrike 1.5 a lot, had to download it. 150MB
Click to expand...

But if that was *all* you needed broadband for, that would have it
quite an expensive download...
 
Ok, so the 20MB download is not on the "Pros" list but rather on the "Cons"

As for politics and technology, just let it go...
 
Why do you do it, Jon?

Why do you respond to Cor?

He's clearly not on the same planet as the rest of the NG? He doesn't know
what he is talking about and he flaunts his ignorance at every turn.

No one is confused by him. You gain nothing by arguing with him. When you
and he both answer a question, everone reads your answer, because we know
that you have done something that Cor has not... you have taken the time to
learn the system.

By responding to him, you waste your time, and we (those of us who enjoy
reading your responses) are less fortunate for it.

--- Nick
 
I did not get it from this page, however I have now searched for this, when
Jon will call this a runtime that has to be downloaded he is free to do, I
did not answer Jon, Jon was answering me and I still disagree with him, I
agree with the documentation bellow.

http://www.microsoft.com/net/basics/framework.asp

An excuse would be normal, however that is not your style, we have really
not the same behaviour as you showed and I am very glad with that.

I hope that Jon does not agree with the behaviour of you.

Cor
 
Cor,

In science, terminology and vocabulary is very important. It is called a
runtime. Microsoft calls it a runtime. The link you provided calls it a
runtime, it even provides a link to download the runtime. The 20-30 some odd
books I read about .NET call it a runtime. The .NET experts employed by
Microsoft that I have seen speak call it a runtime.

The runtime provides these services: JIT, threads, garbage collection,
security, etc. Do not confuse these services with the same services provided
by the Windows operating system, they are different. Example, .NET managed
thread does not equal a Windows operating thread.

Just because the operating system comes with the runtime does not make it
part of the operating system. There are four runtimes that I know of: Rotor,
MS CLR, Mono, and DotGNU. They all refer to this "service layer" as runtime.
I can even compile an .exe by the MS VB.NET compiler and run it in the CLR,
Mono and Rotor runtimes.

Please, if you respond to this message at all, please answer at least this
one question. If you don't call it a runtime, then what do you call it
exactly?

JD
 
JD,

Before I start do not misunderstand me I find your contribution to this
thread very well done.
In science, terminology and vocabulary is very important. It is called a
runtime. Microsoft calls it a runtime. The link you provided calls it a
runtime, it even provides a link to download the runtime
Click to expand...

In that page is spoken about (just copied.)
"The .NET Framework consists of two main parts: the common language runtime
and the .NET Framework class library."
Here is not written constist only of two parts or is a runtime.

I do not reference furthermore to your text, because all those discusions
where people are telling that the other one is wrong leads to nothing,
nobody is wrong the only thing I try to do here is to get a better
understanding and when you can convince me, that that is a benefit for me.
And when I can convience you, do with it what you want.

In my opinion and all times I had to do with a runtime was a runtime one dll
which translated the intermidiate code (in the same way you showed the
layers, however than only one) to machine code(or API's).

I have myself often called the .Net a runtime, because that is much easier
to understand. (You can check the newsgroups from dotNet on Google and you
will see that I told that often).

However in my opinion did I not tell it right and I knew that I was wrong,
it is in my opinion more than only a runtime.

I will be glad when you can show me a link from Microsoft (not an MVP page
or whatever) where Microsoft tells that .Net is abolute nothing more than a
runtime. Not that there is a runtime integrated that I know of course very
good, but that is not that important, because in my opinion is the
difference between a runtime and an API as well quit quick disputable.
However with such a text on an official Microsoft page you can convince me
completly.

By the way talking about Microsoft employees does not say much, Microsoft is
not a company from only dotNet experts you know.

To answer your last question, I have nowhere spoken that net is an Operating
System. I have consequently only spoken about a layer which can be used upon
the OS. (Not from myself by the way, just from a book)

I hope this gives an idea why I wrote this.

Cor
 
Cor,

Your memory is short, considering that you can check this thread for
references to your statements.

This is the quote that started most of this thread:

"The fact of the "Ägainst a large runtime needed", is really for
laughing, there is no runtimer needed with dotNet programs. It shows that
you are not know what you are writing."

You later added this bit of nonsense.

"However that is not an installable runtimer. It is a part of the OS
layer which has the name Net framework. "

You contradicted this last statement in a later posting.

"I am glad you understood that part of the text I wrote in this thread,
it is a layer uppon the OS"

At no point did anyone suggest that the .NET framework consists ONLY of a
runtime or that the runtime was the ONLY requirement to make .NET apps run.
However, your first statement does not state that. You first statement
suggests that there is NO runtime needed with .NET programs, which is
absurd. You stated yourself, in a later message, that the CLR is part of
the .NET framework, and that the framework had to be installed in order for
..NET apps to run...

To say that the CLR is not an installable runtime is also absurd. It is
part of a package that is installable, and it is a runtime. You cannot
"independently" install it, but you can install it. In fact, many apps now
bootstrap the installation to install the framework from the MS site when
the app is being installed.

To say that the .NET framework is part of "the OS layer" is also absurd.
The use of the article "the" implies, correctly, that you are discussing the
OS as a single layer, onto which applications are installed. Your statement
does not differentiate between layers within the OS. You stated,
incorrectly, that the framework was part of THE OS LAYER.

It is not.

Perhaps the real problem here is simply language.

In addition, the following statement is similarly flawed:
"In my opinion and all times I had to do with a runtime was a runtime one
dll which translated the intermidiate code (in the same way you showed the
layers, however than only one) to machine code(or API's)."

You are describing a JIT compiler. That is part of a Runtime, but is not
all of it. A JIT compiler is executed BEFORE the app is run. It is not
normally running WHILE an app is running. The runtime, on the other hand,
is running while the app is running, and includes features like garbage
collection, thread pools, and other useful assistance to the running
program. Also, JIT compilers are occasionally delivered as a single DLL,
but not always. To the best of my knowledge, in the .NET framework, the JIT
compiler is delivered in one assembly.

Once again, it is probably a language thing.

--- Nick
 
Cor,

Thanks for replying.

I do not think .NET is only a runtime and I never stated that, but my
concern was when you said there is no runtime and then go on further to say
its part of OS layer. Both of which I strongly disagree. But like Nick said
it may be a language thing.

JD
 
JD,

I wrote "there is no runtimer needed with Net", While that is placed related
to the text from Tim's page "Against: Large runtime needed"

When the Net is installed there is no need to download a runtimer.

You told that the Net was a runtimer, telling now that it has to do with my
language, while you understood every word of me and not really answer my
questions is in my opinion very low.

I asked you:
I will be glad when you can show me a link from Microsoft (not an MVP page
or whatever) where Microsoft tells that .Net is abolute nothing more than a
runtime.

When you do not understand tell me what is unclear in this message than I
state it in another way.

And otherwise be a man (or woman) and tell that your statetement.
DotNetFramework==Runtime

As is often in your messages in this thread, was wrong.

Cor
 
Back
Top