| Groups | Blog | Home |
dotnet compact framework : Why Use .NET CF Instead Of Unmanaged Code
We'll be developing a real-time embedded app at my office running
under CE. Since I'm quite used to using desktop .NET, my thinking was to use .NET CF, with unmanaged DLLs to do the real-time work. However, I was talking to a coworker who's experienced at using .NET CF & unmanaged code under CE. He told me that .NET CF requires several seconds for the first load of each form (on an SH7760 platform). I'm wondering if this seems right, and, if it is right, whether there are demonstrated productivity or reliability advantages of .NET CF over unmanaged code.
The CF certainly can't be used for real-time code. If you are doing any form
of UI or data access it takes very little to argue that you certainly should consider C# or VB.NET, as it takes an order of magnitude longer to do that development in native code. There are a lot of other considerations, but I'll never do another UI in native code unless there's a specifically compelling business reason to do so (and I can't imagine one). -- Chris Tacke, Embedded MVP OpenNETCF Consulting Giving back to the embedded community http://community.OpenNETCF.com [quoted text, click to view] "LogicAl" <al@cobelle.org> wrote in message news:1194389813.675204.5170@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > We'll be developing a real-time embedded app at my office running > under CE. Since I'm quite used to using desktop .NET, my thinking was > to use .NET CF, with unmanaged DLLs to do the real-time work. > > However, I was talking to a coworker who's experienced at using .NET > CF & unmanaged code under CE. He told me that .NET CF requires > several seconds for the first load of each form (on an SH7760 > platform). > > I'm wondering if this seems right, and, if it is right, whether there > are demonstrated productivity or reliability advantages of .NET CF > over unmanaged code. >
[quoted text, click to view]
On Nov 6, 5:56 pm, LogicAl <a...@cobelle.org> wrote: > We'll be developing a real-time embedded app at my office running > under CE. Since I'm quite used to using desktop .NET, my thinking was > to use .NET CF, with unmanaged DLLs to do the real-time work. > > However, I was talking to a coworker who's experienced at using .NET > CF & unmanaged code under CE. He told me that .NET CF requires > several seconds for the first load of each form (on an SH7760 > platform). > > I'm wondering if this seems right, and, if it is right, whether there > are demonstrated productivity or reliability advantages of .NET CF > over unmanaged code. Your friend is correct about the loading time for .NET CF applications. Because of the limited memory footprint on these devices, the CF doesn't allow you to pre-compile the MSIL code as is an option for the full version of .NET. This means that when loading the .NET CF application, compilation is required (for the relevant sections of code required). Generally speaking, after the load time requirements, the performance itself isn't all that bad, but may not cut it for any real-time applications. This is also true for the full version of .NET since the Garbage Collection can kick in to disrupt the real-time requirements. - Jin
Chris is definitely correct about longer development time, but if you are
planning to distribute your application to external users, then you might consider native forms. I've found that the size of the Compact Framework discourages some customers from installing your application on their device. Windows Mobile 5 does not come with the CF 2 and requires the user to install it if they wish to run your application. Just my 2 cents. Regards, Rick D. Contractor [quoted text, click to view] "<ctacke/>" wrote:
> The CF certainly can't be used for real-time code. If you are doing any form > of UI or data access it takes very little to argue that you certainly should > consider C# or VB.NET, as it takes an order of magnitude longer to do that > development in native code. > > There are a lot of other considerations, but I'll never do another UI in > native code unless there's a specifically compelling business reason to do > so (and I can't imagine one). > > > -- > > Chris Tacke, Embedded MVP > OpenNETCF Consulting > Giving back to the embedded community > http://community.OpenNETCF.com > > > "LogicAl" <al@cobelle.org> wrote in message > news:1194389813.675204.5170@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > > We'll be developing a real-time embedded app at my office running > > under CE. Since I'm quite used to using desktop .NET, my thinking was > > to use .NET CF, with unmanaged DLLs to do the real-time work. > > > > However, I was talking to a coworker who's experienced at using .NET > > CF & unmanaged code under CE. He told me that .NET CF requires > > several seconds for the first load of each form (on an SH7760 > > platform). > > > > I'm wondering if this seems right, and, if it is right, whether there > > are demonstrated productivity or reliability advantages of .NET CF > > over unmanaged code. > > > >
It certainly boils down to knowing your customer base. For most of what I
do, I dictate the version and customers are happy to oblige (often I control what's on the device). In other, broader instances it might make sense to roll back to CF 1.0. Native for UI development would still take a *lot* of argument to win me over for any new project. -- Chris Tacke, Embedded MVP OpenNETCF Consulting Giving back to the embedded community http://community.OpenNETCF.com [quoted text, click to view] "Hilton" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:RsoYi.67763$YL5.60508@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > ...or write the app using CF 1. > > "dbgrick" <dbgrick@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:C7D8A531-42F2-4460-A77E-A5D1379A37A7@microsoft.com... >> Chris is definitely correct about longer development time, but if you are >> planning to distribute your application to external users, then you might >> consider native forms. I've found that the size of the Compact Framework >> discourages some customers from installing your application on their >> device. >> Windows Mobile 5 does not come with the CF 2 and requires the user to >> install >> it if they wish to run your application. Just my 2 cents. >> >> Regards, >> Rick D. >> Contractor >> >> "<ctacke/>" wrote: >> >>> The CF certainly can't be used for real-time code. If you are doing any >>> form >>> of UI or data access it takes very little to argue that you certainly >>> should >>> consider C# or VB.NET, as it takes an order of magnitude longer to do >>> that >>> development in native code. >>> >>> There are a lot of other considerations, but I'll never do another UI in >>> native code unless there's a specifically compelling business reason to >>> do >>> so (and I can't imagine one). >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Chris Tacke, Embedded MVP >>> OpenNETCF Consulting >>> Giving back to the embedded community >>> http://community.OpenNETCF.com >>> >>> >>> "LogicAl" <al@cobelle.org> wrote in message >>> news:1194389813.675204.5170@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... >>> > We'll be developing a real-time embedded app at my office running >>> > under CE. Since I'm quite used to using desktop .NET, my thinking was >>> > to use .NET CF, with unmanaged DLLs to do the real-time work. >>> > >>> > However, I was talking to a coworker who's experienced at using .NET >>> > CF & unmanaged code under CE. He told me that .NET CF requires >>> > several seconds for the first load of each form (on an SH7760 >>> > platform). >>> > >>> > I'm wondering if this seems right, and, if it is right, whether there >>> > are demonstrated productivity or reliability advantages of .NET CF >>> > over unmanaged code. >>> > >>> >>> >>> > >
....or write the app using CF 1.
[quoted text, click to view] "dbgrick" <dbgrick@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:C7D8A531-42F2-4460-A77E-A5D1379A37A7@microsoft.com... > Chris is definitely correct about longer development time, but if you are > planning to distribute your application to external users, then you might > consider native forms. I've found that the size of the Compact Framework > discourages some customers from installing your application on their > device. > Windows Mobile 5 does not come with the CF 2 and requires the user to > install > it if they wish to run your application. Just my 2 cents. > > Regards, > Rick D. > Contractor > > "<ctacke/>" wrote: > >> The CF certainly can't be used for real-time code. If you are doing any >> form >> of UI or data access it takes very little to argue that you certainly >> should >> consider C# or VB.NET, as it takes an order of magnitude longer to do >> that >> development in native code. >> >> There are a lot of other considerations, but I'll never do another UI in >> native code unless there's a specifically compelling business reason to >> do >> so (and I can't imagine one). >> >> >> -- >> >> Chris Tacke, Embedded MVP >> OpenNETCF Consulting >> Giving back to the embedded community >> http://community.OpenNETCF.com >> >> >> "LogicAl" <al@cobelle.org> wrote in message >> news:1194389813.675204.5170@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... >> > We'll be developing a real-time embedded app at my office running >> > under CE. Since I'm quite used to using desktop .NET, my thinking was >> > to use .NET CF, with unmanaged DLLs to do the real-time work. >> > >> > However, I was talking to a coworker who's experienced at using .NET >> > CF & unmanaged code under CE. He told me that .NET CF requires >> > several seconds for the first load of each form (on an SH7760 >> > platform). >> > >> > I'm wondering if this seems right, and, if it is right, whether there >> > are demonstrated productivity or reliability advantages of .NET CF >> > over unmanaged code. >> > >> >> >>
[quoted text, click to view]
Chris wrote: > Native for UI development would still take a *lot* of argument to win me > over for any new project. I agree with Chris 100%. I wonder if there has been any (unbiased) research on the productivity gains of using C# over C/C++ (or perhaps Java over C/C++). And by 'productivity' I include development and QA time, cost, increased revenues, maintenance, etc. However, there are numerous reasons such as multi-OS support, existing code base including build processes, standards in a company, knowledge/experience/familiarity of engineers, ... There are some things I don't like about C#, but they are very trivial compared with the extraodinary increase in productivity gained by using C#. Hilton
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
|
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
| home · blog · groups | Questions? Comments? Contact the dn |