Damien, the features may be new and shiny, and I agree they are,
but nonetheless there is a lot of overlap for example between
WinForms and WPF. The class hierarchies have many similarities
and in many instances achieve the same features (WPF does it
in a neater way). The Microsoft story regarding where to use WPF
versus WinForms is everything but clear, not to mention whether
they are going to stick with this "interoperability" workaround or
whether they have a consistent strategy moving forward. What
about WCF versus .NET remoting, do they share implementation ?
Overlap in features means overlap in implementation means code
bloat ?
Now regarding the framework size and to respond to Chris, 50MB
may be fine in an Enterprise environment, or in places where
high-bandwidth Internet is available, but I have been trying for
the last couple of years to convince my clients in Asia to agree to
download the .NET 2.0 framework, and they are reluctant for
a number of reasons, framework size being one them. In lots
of places in Asia 20Mb download is huge as bandwidth is not
what you know about in western cities, so now that MS gives
us a 50Mb FW I will have to wait for everyone to move to
Vista (years !), which is tremendously annoying, even more
annoying than the fact that MS did not include .NET in XP.
Don't get me wrong, I think .NET 3.0 is great, but frankly
the 'more than double' increase in size feels like it was
rushed to the market without taking this issue into account.
And that may be deliberate... But what next:: 100 MB for
..NET 4.0 ?...
[quoted text, click to view] Damien wrote:
> rolf.matreskova@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > rm> 50 MB, over 22 MB for 2.0.
> > >
> > >
> > > Maybe WCF, WPF, WWF ...
> >
> > Vadym, of course, but I was looking for a bit more technical
> > detail here... Who's the hog ? Why ? It seems quite a large
> > increase for features which were already part, in other forms,
> > of a framework that contains much more than just those.
> >
> > Cheers
>
> To save you the minute of effort of opening the \Framework\v3.0
> directory, right clicking on each subdirectory, bringing up properties
> and looking at the sizes...
>
> WCF is 18MB on disk
> WF is ~3MB on disk
> WPF is 20MB on disk
>
> To be honest, I'm surprised at how small WF is.
>
> And to describe them as features that were already part of the
> framework is erroneous. They're new, and shiny, and one day I might get
> to use them. Still on 1.1 for active development here :-(
>
> Damien
..Net 3.0 'includes' the .Net 2.0 redistributable so that's 20 of the 50MB.
And WPF is a completely different animal to WinForms. We have to keep
WinForms and .NET 2.0 for backward compatibility but thank goodness there is
now the beginnings of a decent SmartClient framework and UI that enable the
creation of truly stunning interfaces.
--Michael
[quoted text, click to view] "rolf.matreskova@hotmail.com" wrote:
>
> Damien, the features may be new and shiny, and I agree they are,
> but nonetheless there is a lot of overlap for example between
> WinForms and WPF. The class hierarchies have many similarities
> and in many instances achieve the same features (WPF does it
> in a neater way). The Microsoft story regarding where to use WPF
> versus WinForms is everything but clear, not to mention whether
> they are going to stick with this "interoperability" workaround or
> whether they have a consistent strategy moving forward. What
> about WCF versus .NET remoting, do they share implementation ?
> Overlap in features means overlap in implementation means code
> bloat ?
>
> Now regarding the framework size and to respond to Chris, 50MB
> may be fine in an Enterprise environment, or in places where
> high-bandwidth Internet is available, but I have been trying for
> the last couple of years to convince my clients in Asia to agree to
> download the .NET 2.0 framework, and they are reluctant for
> a number of reasons, framework size being one them. In lots
> of places in Asia 20Mb download is huge as bandwidth is not
> what you know about in western cities, so now that MS gives
> us a 50Mb FW I will have to wait for everyone to move to
> Vista (years !), which is tremendously annoying, even more
> annoying than the fact that MS did not include .NET in XP.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I think .NET 3.0 is great, but frankly
> the 'more than double' increase in size feels like it was
> rushed to the market without taking this issue into account.
> And that may be deliberate... But what next:: 100 MB for
> ..NET 4.0 ?...
>
>
> Damien wrote:
> > rolf.matreskova@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > rm> 50 MB, over 22 MB for 2.0.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Maybe WCF, WPF, WWF ...
> > >
> > > Vadym, of course, but I was looking for a bit more technical
> > > detail here... Who's the hog ? Why ? It seems quite a large
> > > increase for features which were already part, in other forms,
> > > of a framework that contains much more than just those.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> >
> > To save you the minute of effort of opening the \Framework\v3.0
> > directory, right clicking on each subdirectory, bringing up properties
> > and looking at the sizes...
> >
> > WCF is 18MB on disk
> > WF is ~3MB on disk
> > WPF is 20MB on disk
> >
> > To be honest, I'm surprised at how small WF is.
> >
> > And to describe them as features that were already part of the
> > framework is erroneous. They're new, and shiny, and one day I might get
> > to use them. Still on 1.1 for active development here :-(
> >
> > Damien
>
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
