| Groups | Blog | Home |
dotnet general : If not .Net then what?
kept updated. That means you don't have to create an installer package. You can distribute the executable alone and it should work fine. Vista machines have the .NET framework pre-installed. The only objection to the .NET framework I've heard is from people who say they don't want some big runtime library installed on their pc's. But what do they think Windows itself is? It's a big runtime library that every windows application ever written requires to run. The .NET framework is just a few extra DLL's in the System32 directory. I use primarily use VB for all my development. Every now & then some dummy will email me and with "why don't you write a version of this program that doesn't require the .NET framework?" And I'll respond with "why don't you write it yourself?" I use VB not because i'm stupid, but because I'm lazy. I like that I can whip out a windows form in a few seconds and use the various built-in functions and classes to do the work that I want done. I've been known to get a quick app done in 15 minutes when someone says "I need a utility to do this...". Using a non-ide language like gcc or other command-line compilers doesn't make any sense to me. It's a time waster. If I need to make a program that works without the .NET framework (one that'll run on a BartPE bootable CD, for example) then I use BCX. But to design the form, I use VB6 to create the .frm file, and use a program I wrote to convert the .frm file into the BCX code needed to create the form at runtime. So it's up to you. Use whatever you're comfortable with and don't listen to people who have pre-conceived ideas about your language of choice. [quoted text, click to view] "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message news:Oz6dj.31741$Mu4.12235@bignews7.bellsouth.net... > In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and Xenocode, > it was pointed out that there may be better programming languages/IDEs to > use for the purpose of creating standalone, single executable apps. > > My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs that > are distributed as single executables that do not require traditional > install packages to run. > > I would like to use a drag and drop UI development tool like the .Net IDE > (or the old VB6) to make development as easy as possible. I am a hobbyist > programmer and would like to put out some useful apps, but I don't want to > have to become an expert at a complex language like C++ to do so reliably. > > More than one person responding to the previous thread held the opinion > that .Net was great for corporate environments where all PCs are strictly > regulated, but may not be the best option to develop the type of apps that > I would like to develop for the PC community at large. > > So what, in your opinion, would be a good alternative to use to develop > the type of applications that I am trying to develop? > > jim >
[quoted text, click to view]
> Bear in mind that this thread is cross-posted. What you say may well be > true in Windows, but it is not true of all computer systems, and > especially embedded systems, which might be the *only* software running. > The original post stated Windows XP or higher. The original post apparently was written differently on the non-dotNet groups.
Jim,
On top of what has been said already you have very little to lose trying ..NET since the Express edition is free. There should be no concerning about large required run times since they are most likely there already and if not 99% of users without the framework can install it quickly and easily. To be honest (coming from a former long time Delphi developer) at this moment in time .NET is an excellent, or should I say the best way to write desktop applications. For someone just beginning you should have only a short learning curve. As task become more complex you need look no farther then these newsgroups for resources to questions which come either in the form of expert responses or pointers to web sites which hold the key to your issue at hand. VB.NET or C#, that has already been hashed out high level. I like C# but my agency settled on VB. Either one will get the common task done. [quoted text, click to view] "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message news:Oz6dj.31741$Mu4.12235@bignews7.bellsouth.net... > In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and Xenocode, > it was pointed out that there may be better programming languages/IDEs to > use for the purpose of creating standalone, single executable apps. > > My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs that > are distributed as single executables that do not require traditional > install packages to run. > > I would like to use a drag and drop UI development tool like the .Net IDE > (or the old VB6) to make development as easy as possible. I am a hobbyist > programmer and would like to put out some useful apps, but I don't want to > have to become an expert at a complex language like C++ to do so reliably. > > More than one person responding to the previous thread held the opinion > that .Net was great for corporate environments where all PCs are strictly > regulated, but may not be the best option to develop the type of apps that > I would like to develop for the PC community at large. > > So what, in your opinion, would be a good alternative to use to develop > the type of applications that I am trying to develop? > > jim >
In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and Xenocode,
it was pointed out that there may be better programming languages/IDEs to use for the purpose of creating standalone, single executable apps. My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs that are distributed as single executables that do not require traditional install packages to run. I would like to use a drag and drop UI development tool like the .Net IDE (or the old VB6) to make development as easy as possible. I am a hobbyist programmer and would like to put out some useful apps, but I don't want to have to become an expert at a complex language like C++ to do so reliably. More than one person responding to the previous thread held the opinion that ..Net was great for corporate environments where all PCs are strictly regulated, but may not be the best option to develop the type of apps that I would like to develop for the PC community at large. So what, in your opinion, would be a good alternative to use to develop the type of applications that I am trying to develop? jim
On 28/12/2007 in message <eQ7dj.31776$Mu4.4081@bignews7.bellsouth.net> jim
[quoted text, click to view] wrote: >I've seen Delphi pop up a lot in these conversations, but I was kind of >afraid that it may not be that reliable since Borland couldn't make a go >of it. > >I'd hate to begin using a language/IDE and have the company supporting it >go under. It would just waste a lot of time that I could have spent >learning something else. Codegear is a subsidiary of Borland so they haven't given up yet :-) I have been following your thoughts with interest. I don't like Delphi and the IDE is not as good as VS. I've even started playing with C again, I could never get on with C++. There is definitely a need for an IDE to develop pure desktop applications, VS is much too web-centric. --
[quoted text, click to view]
jim wrote: > In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and Xenocode, > it was pointed out that there may be better programming languages/IDEs to > use for the purpose of creating standalone, single executable apps. > > My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs that > are distributed as single executables that do not require traditional > install packages to run. > > I would like to use a drag and drop UI development tool like the .Net IDE > (or the old VB6) to make development as easy as possible. I am a hobbyist > programmer and would like to put out some useful apps, but I don't want to > have to become an expert at a complex language like C++ to do so reliably. > > More than one person responding to the previous thread held the opinion that > .Net was great for corporate environments where all PCs are strictly > regulated, but may not be the best option to develop the type of apps that I > would like to develop for the PC community at large. > > So what, in your opinion, would be a good alternative to use to develop the > type of applications that I am trying to develop? I think you should stick to C# (or VB.NET if you so prefer). Just consider not targeting the latest and greatest .NET version. Since Win2003 Windows does come with .NET preinstalled and it is pushed out to Windows XP via Windows Update. I believe you can even distribute the runtime with your app. Unless your app specifically targets users with old Windows version and/or slow dialup internet connections, then I can not see a problem going with .NET !
Hi Jim,
[quoted text, click to view] > More than one person responding to the previous thread held the opinion that kind of opinion is often offered by people jealously guarding their > that .Net was great for corporate environments where all PCs are strictly > regulated, but may not be the best option to develop the type of apps that > I would like to develop for the PC community at large. 'corporate' pond and perks it offers. No matter what environment you are developing for what matters is the quality and usefulness of your program. It is much easier to conceal lousy workmanship in a corporate environment where expressing an honest opinion may cost dearly. [quoted text, click to view] > I would like to use a drag and drop UI development tool like the .Net IDE Just don't it expect to think for you.> (or the old VB6) to make development as easy as possible. [quoted text, click to view] > In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and Xenocode, I never used Thininstall. Xenocode allows wrapping the whole application - > it was pointed out that there may be better programming languages/IDEs to > use for the purpose of creating standalone, single executable apps. executables, Dlls, ActiveX, databases, INI or XML, plus, when necessary, the whole .NET Framework, into a single executable. This executable can also wrap registry entries. You can simply copy such an executable onto the hard drive of the target machine without the traditional setup. This is especially handy when the application includes an ActiveX that normally would require registration on the target machine. I word of caution - if you do it as hobby, it may cost you some money, besides the time and effort. Michael [quoted text, click to view] "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message news:Oz6dj.31741$Mu4.12235@bignews7.bellsouth.net... > In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and Xenocode, > it was pointed out that there may be better programming languages/IDEs to > use for the purpose of creating standalone, single executable apps. > > My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs that > are distributed as single executables that do not require traditional > install packages to run. > > I would like to use a drag and drop UI development tool like the .Net IDE > (or the old VB6) to make development as easy as possible. I am a hobbyist > programmer and would like to put out some useful apps, but I don't want to > have to become an expert at a complex language like C++ to do so reliably. > > More than one person responding to the previous thread held the opinion > that .Net was great for corporate environments where all PCs are strictly > regulated, but may not be the best option to develop the type of apps that > I would like to develop for the PC community at large. > > So what, in your opinion, would be a good alternative to use to develop > the type of applications that I am trying to develop? > > jim >
Hi,
You can always use C++ and write unmanaged apps, if you only use win32 API you know for sure that it will run always. [quoted text, click to view] "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message news:Oz6dj.31741$Mu4.12235@bignews7.bellsouth.net... > In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and Xenocode, > it was pointed out that there may be better programming languages/IDEs to > use for the purpose of creating standalone, single executable apps. > > My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs that > are distributed as single executables that do not require traditional > install packages to run. > > I would like to use a drag and drop UI development tool like the .Net IDE > (or the old VB6) to make development as easy as possible. I am a hobbyist > programmer and would like to put out some useful apps, but I don't want to > have to become an expert at a complex language like C++ to do so reliably. > > More than one person responding to the previous thread held the opinion > that .Net was great for corporate environments where all PCs are strictly > regulated, but may not be the best option to develop the type of apps that > I would like to develop for the PC community at large. > > So what, in your opinion, would be a good alternative to use to develop > the type of applications that I am trying to develop? > > jim > -- Ignacio Machin http://www.laceupsolutions.com Mobile & warehouse Solutions.
Thanks!
I've seen Delphi pop up a lot in these conversations, but I was kind of afraid that it may not be that reliable since Borland couldn't make a go of it. I'd hate to begin using a language/IDE and have the company supporting it go under. It would just waste a lot of time that I could have spent learning something else. jim [quoted text, click to view] "Michael Moreno" <MyFirstName.MySurname@free.fr> wrote in message news:mn.e3607d7cfcf7bece.21643@free.fr... >> In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and >> Xenocode, it was pointed out that there may be better programming >> languages/IDEs to use for the purpose of creating standalone, single >> executable apps. > > Delphi 7 (newer versions are not as stable) does that very well. > > -- > Michael > ---- > http://michael.moreno.free.fr/ > http://port.cogolin.free.fr/ > >
[quoted text, click to view] "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message news:eQ7dj.31776$Mu4.4081@bignews7.bellsouth.net... > Thanks! > > I've seen Delphi pop up a lot in these conversations, but I was kind of > afraid that it may not be that reliable since Borland couldn't make a go > of it. > > I'd hate to begin using a language/IDE and have the company supporting it > go under. It would just waste a lot of time that I could have spent > learning something else. > > jim If by "Borland couldn't make a go of it" you mean "Borland has developed 10+ versions of it over the span of 10+ years" then I guess you're right. I started using Delphi 2.0 in 1997. People have been predicting the demise of Delphi for years. The reality is, it's a niche product that performs admirably for it's intended purpose. And I think it would be great for someone who wants to create "standalone" Win32 apps. I would gauge it as "far superior" to VS up until VS 2003. I agree with the previous poster who recommended Delphi 7. It's very stable. D8 was a complete nightmare - so much so that I haven't tried any version since. Further, you can supposedly port your code to linux fairly easily using Kylix (Delphi for Linux), though I've never tried it (and neither did anyone else, from what I can gather).
[quoted text, click to view] "Kerem Gümrükcü" <kareem114@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%23c9VakWSIHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Hi Richard, > >>Bear in mind that this thread is cross-posted. What you say may well be >>true in Windows, but it is not true of all computer systems, and >>especially embedded systems, which might be the *only* software running. > > yes, this was meant for windows systems, i dont talk about any other > system, > nor linux, nor vx, nor mac or other archtitecture. It was only meant for > Windows Systems, and i think the OP was talking about windows,... I've got to agree with Kerem. If you view .Net as a platform (as I do) then so-called ".Net Applications" are, in fact, "standalone". From reading Jim's other thread, he is apparently unhappy with the installed base of the .Net framework and therefore doesn't view it as a viable platform for his apps. No problem there, it's the same as not wanting to write apps for linux or Macs or Mainframes because there just aren't enough people who use those platforms. But unlike those other platforms, .Net can be installed "on top of" Win32 which *is* widely deployed. Also, unlike those other platforms, I personally believe that .Net *will* be ubiquitous in the next 3-5 years (if not sooner).
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:38:11 -0800, Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen
[quoted text, click to view] <lasse@vkarlsen.no> wrote: > Not to bring this entire discussion too far off-topic [...] It's already off-topic, due to the fact that "jim@home.net" does not appear to be able to restrain himself from excessive, inappropriate cross-posting. This is the second time in a day that the m.p.dotnet.languages.csharp newsgroup has been dragged into a lengthy off-topic thread because of his posting habits. I can't speak for comp.programming, but for sure the m.p.dotnet.languages.* groups are not appropriate forums for comparative discussions of various programming platforms. Those are for language-specific programming questions, and nominally also general .NET programming questions. _Maybe_ m.p.dotnet.general is appropriate, but even there I'm skeptical. Of course, it doesn't help that there are a number of people willing to perpetuate the problem. So we get these long drawn-out threads that have nothing to do with the newsgroup they're in. It would be very nice if others could show more restraint than the OP has.
[quoted text, click to view]
> I don't mean to run down Delphi (or Borland). I remember coding some > pretty cool apps with Turbo Pascal myself. I was simply commenting on the > fact that Borland spun off the developer tools section to a new company > called CodeGear. That makes me a little nervous as a developer. While I did use Delphi in corporate environments, it was really adopted more by hobbyists and freelancers. Borland decided to try to focus on enterprise markets (you may recall them changing their name to "Inprise" for a bit) and began to focus on non-Delphi tools. It was a bit perplexing to those of us who loved Delphi because some version of Pascal had always been their flagship product. I have no idea what they are doing now. [quoted text, click to view] > I called Borland about Kylix a year (maybe 2) ago, and the person that I > spoke to at Borland had never heard of Kylix. I had to show her the > website for it. At that point Kylix had not been upgraded in 3 years. Kylix was highly demanded and highly touted. I don't really know why it failed so miserably. I recall it getting fairly good reviews, and people chalked it up to "linux users don't want to pay for software".
[quoted text, click to view]
Ignacio Machin ( .NET/ C# MVP ) wrote: > You can always use C++ and write unmanaged apps, if you only use win32 API > you know for sure that it will run always. Only if you do not use features only available in newer windows versions. But admitteded the Win32 API is rather mature in not much is added these days.
I wish you weren't a troll.
This is a great conversation to have, as there are a number of good options, all with their own unique set of pros and cons. .... but given, as evidenced from the other thread, that you're just trolling, it doesn't seem worth the time. Ah well. -- Chris Mullins [quoted text, click to view] "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message news:Oz6dj.31741$Mu4.12235@bignews7.bellsouth.net... > In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and Xenocode, > it was pointed out that there may be better programming languages/IDEs to > use for the purpose of creating standalone, single executable apps. > > My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs that > are distributed as single executables that do not require traditional > install packages to run. > > I would like to use a drag and drop UI development tool like the .Net IDE > (or the old VB6) to make development as easy as possible. I am a hobbyist > programmer and would like to put out some useful apps, but I don't want to > have to become an expert at a complex language like C++ to do so reliably. > > More than one person responding to the previous thread held the opinion > that .Net was great for corporate environments where all PCs are strictly > regulated, but may not be the best option to develop the type of apps that > I would like to develop for the PC community at large. > > So what, in your opinion, would be a good alternative to use to develop > the type of applications that I am trying to develop? > > jim >
[quoted text, click to view]
Richard Heathfield wrote: >[followups set to comp.programming, where I'm reading this thread] Changed back to include the groups more relevant for the question. [quoted text, click to view] > Terry Olsen said: >> The only objection to the .NET framework I've heard is from people who >> say they don't want some big runtime library installed on their pc's. > > Another objection is that it's slow. The first program I moved to .Net ran > around 60 times slower than native - way too slow to be useful. I think you should spend a bit more time studying .NET ! [quoted text, click to view] > A third objection is that it's non-portable. Since the original poster stated: #My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs Then that should not be a problem. [quoted text, click to view] >> I like that I can >> whip out a windows form in a few seconds and use the various built-in >> functions and classes to do the work that I want done. I've been known to >> get a quick app done in 15 minutes when someone says "I need a utility to >> do this...". > > What took you? My personal record for responding to such a request is 30 > seconds (including compilation) for the first version, and another 60 > seconds when the user suddenly decided to require some extra features. > Builder rocks like that. I am not particular impressed by either claim. If I had ever created an app that fast I would try to keep it a secret - if you get my point.
[quoted text, click to view]
Richard Heathfield wrote: > [F-Us set to c.p] Set back again. [quoted text, click to view] > Kerem Gümrükcü said: >>> for the purpose of creating standalone, single executable apps >> No application is standalone, every application has at least >> an reference to the kernel dll and maybe to advapi, gdi, netapi >> or user api. > > Bear in mind that this thread is cross-posted. What you say may well be > true in Windows, but it is not true of all computer systems, and > especially embedded systems, which might be the *only* software running. The original post said: #My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs So the assumption about Windows is fine. I just don't think the original poster should have included a group as general as comp.programming for a Windows specific question.
[quoted text, click to view]
Kerem Gümrükcü wrote: > read my post above,...;-) The one whre you for reasons unknown to me start to talk about MFC in a Win32 API discusssion and use the term "Sh***", which I have no idea about what means (the word that comes to my mind only has 4 letters not 5) ?
[quoted text, click to view] "Richard Heathfield" <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote in message news:Ob6dnVPdnNdTgujanZ2dnUVZ8q2dnZ2d@bt.com... > Arne Vajhøj said: >> Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> Terry Olsen said: >>>> The only objection to the .NET framework I've heard is from people who >>>> say they don't want some big runtime library installed on their pc's. >>> >>> Another objection is that it's slow. The first program I moved to .Net >>> ran around 60 times slower than native - way too slow to be useful. >> >> I think you should spend a bit more time studying .NET ! > > Let me explain the background. We were developing an analysis product for > a > UK bank, we already had working code, and we were asked to try our code > out under .Net - which we did. It ran sixty times slower. Our jaws > dropped, we laughed, and we didn't bother with .Net from then on. Ever. I'm not sure that your inability to write efficient code with .Net is necessarily and indictment against .Net. [quoted text, click to view] > If you're supposed to be hauling eight thousand tons of freight from > London > to Newcastle, and the boss suggests you try using a bicycle instead of > your existing freight train, well, you might give it a go (because it's > the boss asking), but when it doesn't work it would be very silly to blame > yourself for not studying the bicycle enough. You just go back to your > freight train. I think you may have been asked to use freight train with more dials and switches, and you couldn't figure out the controls, so you gave up. :) [quoted text, click to view] > Same with .Net - we came, we saw, we laughed - and left. You came, you couldn't figure it out, you left. ..Net is (eventually) compiled into native code, so there is no reason for it to be slower - other than lack of programmer skill, of course.
"Scott Roberts" <sroberts@no.spam.here-webworks-software.com> wrote in message news:%23XzX$kWSIHA.5164@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... [quoted text, click to view] > > "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message > news:eQ7dj.31776$Mu4.4081@bignews7.bellsouth.net... >> Thanks! >> >> I've seen Delphi pop up a lot in these conversations, but I was kind of >> afraid that it may not be that reliable since Borland couldn't make a go >> of it. >> >> I'd hate to begin using a language/IDE and have the company supporting it >> go under. It would just waste a lot of time that I could have spent >> learning something else. >> >> jim > > If by "Borland couldn't make a go of it" you mean "Borland has developed > 10+ versions of it over the span of 10+ years" then I guess you're right. > I started using Delphi 2.0 in 1997. I don't mean to run down Delphi (or Borland). I remember coding some pretty cool apps with Turbo Pascal myself. I was simply commenting on the fact that Borland spun off the developer tools section to a new company called CodeGear. That makes me a little nervous as a developer. [quoted text, click to view] > People have been predicting the demise of Delphi for years. The reality > is, it's a niche product that performs admirably for it's intended > purpose. And I think it would be great for someone who wants to create > "standalone" Win32 apps. I would gauge it as "far superior" to VS up until > VS 2003. I agree with the previous poster who recommended Delphi 7. It's > very stable. D8 was a complete nightmare - so much so that I haven't tried > any version since. I'll look into D7. [quoted text, click to view] > Further, you can supposedly port your code to linux fairly easily using > Kylix (Delphi for Linux), though I've never tried it (and neither did > anyone else, from what I can gather). I called Borland about Kylix a year (maybe 2) ago, and the person that I spoke to at Borland had never heard of Kylix. I had to show her the website for it. At that point Kylix had not been upgraded in 3 years. I really wish that companies that "retire" software (like Kylix and OS2) would make it open source. It would be a real help to everyone. Can you imagine what the world would be like if IBM open sourced OS2 instead of letting it rot on the vine? It was better than Windows back then...... jim
[quoted text, click to view] >> .Net is (eventually) compiled into native code, so there is no reason for >> it to be slower - other than lack of programmer skill, of course. > > I strongly disagree. Although I am no .Net expert, I am pretty adept at > the simple stuff. And, the simple .Net apps that I wrote had slower UIs > and presented data slower than their desktop counterparts. > > The sad thing is that the desktop counterparts weren't even C++ - they > were VB6. When you say "simple stuff" it makes me think that you probably used the built-in, drag & drop, "RAD" features of the IDE. I would contend that those features are not intended for use in enterprise applications.
Thanks Miha!
[quoted text, click to view] "Miha Markic" <miha at rthand com> wrote in message news:OFCOs5WSIHA.5136@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Hi jim, > > In your case Delphi would me my choice, too. > At least when your requirements are an OS that doesn't have .net installed > by default (XP). > > -- > Miha Markic [MVP C#, INETA Country Leader for Slovenia] > RightHand .NET consulting & development www.rthand.com > Blog: http://cs.rthand.com/blogs/blog_with_righthand/ > > "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message > news:Oz6dj.31741$Mu4.12235@bignews7.bellsouth.net... >> In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and >> Xenocode, it was pointed out that there may be better programming >> languages/IDEs to use for the purpose of creating standalone, single >> executable apps. >> >> My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs that >> are distributed as single executables that do not require traditional >> install packages to run. >> >> I would like to use a drag and drop UI development tool like the .Net IDE >> (or the old VB6) to make development as easy as possible. I am a >> hobbyist programmer and would like to put out some useful apps, but I >> don't want to have to become an expert at a complex language like C++ to >> do so reliably. >> >> More than one person responding to the previous thread held the opinion >> that .Net was great for corporate environments where all PCs are strictly >> regulated, but may not be the best option to develop the type of apps >> that I would like to develop for the PC community at large. >> >> So what, in your opinion, would be a good alternative to use to develop >> the type of applications that I am trying to develop? >> >> jim >> >
"Scott Roberts" <sroberts@no.spam.here-webworks-software.com> wrote in message news:OJG3eNXSIHA.5264@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... [quoted text, click to view] > > "Richard Heathfield" <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote in message > news:Ob6dnVPdnNdTgujanZ2dnUVZ8q2dnZ2d@bt.com... >> Arne Vajhøj said: >>> Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> Terry Olsen said: >>>>> The only objection to the .NET framework I've heard is from people who >>>>> say they don't want some big runtime library installed on their pc's. >>>> >>>> Another objection is that it's slow. The first program I moved to .Net >>>> ran around 60 times slower than native - way too slow to be useful. >>> >>> I think you should spend a bit more time studying .NET ! >> >> Let me explain the background. We were developing an analysis product for >> a >> UK bank, we already had working code, and we were asked to try our code >> out under .Net - which we did. It ran sixty times slower. Our jaws >> dropped, we laughed, and we didn't bother with .Net from then on. Ever. > > I'm not sure that your inability to write efficient code with .Net is > necessarily and indictment against .Net. > >> If you're supposed to be hauling eight thousand tons of freight from >> London >> to Newcastle, and the boss suggests you try using a bicycle instead of >> your existing freight train, well, you might give it a go (because it's >> the boss asking), but when it doesn't work it would be very silly to >> blame >> yourself for not studying the bicycle enough. You just go back to your >> freight train. > > I think you may have been asked to use freight train with more dials and > switches, and you couldn't figure out the controls, so you gave up. :) > >> Same with .Net - we came, we saw, we laughed - and left. > > You came, you couldn't figure it out, you left. > > .Net is (eventually) compiled into native code, so there is no reason for > it to be slower - other than lack of programmer skill, of course. I strongly disagree. Although I am no .Net expert, I am pretty adept at the simple stuff. And, the simple .Net apps that I wrote had slower UIs and presented data slower than their desktop counterparts. The sad thing is that the desktop counterparts weren't even C++ - they were VB6. jim
[quoted text, click to view] "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message news:uEadj.31857$Mu4.3163@bignews7.bellsouth.net... > > "Scott Roberts" <sroberts@no.spam.here-webworks-software.com> wrote in > message news:%23daRfeXSIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> >>>> .Net is (eventually) compiled into native code, so there is no reason >>>> for >>>> it to be slower - other than lack of programmer skill, of course. >>> >>> I strongly disagree. Although I am no .Net expert, I am pretty adept at >>> the simple stuff. And, the simple .Net apps that I wrote had slower UIs >>> and presented data slower than their desktop counterparts. >>> >>> The sad thing is that the desktop counterparts weren't even C++ - they >>> were VB6. >> >> When you say "simple stuff" it makes me think that you probably used the >> built-in, drag & drop, "RAD" features of the IDE. I would contend that >> those features are not intended for use in enterprise applications. > > You would be right. But, that's what we used to build the VB6 apps before > .Net - so why the disparity in speed? I can't answer your question because I've never used the "RAD" (i.e. drag & drop data-binding) features of any IDE. [quoted text, click to view] > And, why would RAD not be a thing needed in enterprise development? In > all of my enterprise development (back a few years) RAD was a big reason > for using VB. It saved us time in development and mocking up new apps. I said it wasn't suited for enterprise apps. It's fine for prototyping, but you don't convert a prototype into a production app (by definition). Also, it would be false for me to say I don't use *any* RAD features. I obviously drag and drop controls onto forms and position them, set properties related to appearance, etc. But since disk I/O has always been the bottleneck for DB apps, I tend to roll my own data-binding so I know *exactly* what is going on and why.
[quoted text, click to view] >>> Same with .Net - we came, we saw, we laughed - and left. >> >> You came, you couldn't figure it out, you left. > > What's to figure out? .Net was as slow as syrup, when we already had > something as fast as fireworks. So obviously we dropped it. You can say > it's down to a lack of programmer skill if you like, but your claim > translates to ".Net is so difficult that it can't be used efficiently by > two programmers with over 40 years C++ experience between them" - which > doesn't bode well for .Net, does it? Did you bother to find out why it was so much slower? I'd be interested to know, just for my own edification.
"Scott Roberts" <sroberts@no.spam.here-webworks-software.com> wrote in message news:%23daRfeXSIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... [quoted text, click to view] > >>> .Net is (eventually) compiled into native code, so there is no reason >>> for >>> it to be slower - other than lack of programmer skill, of course. >> >> I strongly disagree. Although I am no .Net expert, I am pretty adept at >> the simple stuff. And, the simple .Net apps that I wrote had slower UIs >> and presented data slower than their desktop counterparts. >> >> The sad thing is that the desktop counterparts weren't even C++ - they >> were VB6. > > When you say "simple stuff" it makes me think that you probably used the > built-in, drag & drop, "RAD" features of the IDE. I would contend that > those features are not intended for use in enterprise applications. You would be right. But, that's what we used to build the VB6 apps before ..Net - so why the disparity in speed? And, why would RAD not be a thing needed in enterprise development? In all of my enterprise development (back a few years) RAD was a big reason for using VB. It saved us time in development and mocking up new apps. jim
Herfried!
Nice to see you around! jim [quoted text, click to view] "Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hirf-spam-me-here@gmx.at> wrote in message news:%23hywIkXSIHA.2376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > "Arne Vajhøj" <arne@vajhoej.dk> schrieb: >>> read my post above,...;-) >> >> The one whre you for reasons unknown to me start to talk about MFC in >> a Win32 API discusssion and use the term "Sh***", which I have no >> idea about what means (the word that comes to my mind only has >> 4 letters not 5) ? > > I assume it should refer to the word variant which has an "e" as its last > letter. > > -- > M S Herfried K. Wagner > M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/> > V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>
And, I wish you had answer.
Is this what you do....troll around for threads to call people trolls in? If you have nothing to add to the discussion, then add nothing (i.e. don't post). jim [quoted text, click to view] "Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]" <cmullins@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:%230yhbHYSIHA.5160@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >I wish you weren't a troll. > > This is a great conversation to have, as there are a number of good > options, all with their own unique set of pros and cons. > > ... but given, as evidenced from the other thread, that you're just > trolling, it doesn't seem worth the time. Ah well. > > -- > Chris Mullins > > "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message > news:Oz6dj.31741$Mu4.12235@bignews7.bellsouth.net... >> In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and >> Xenocode, it was pointed out that there may be better programming >> languages/IDEs to use for the purpose of creating standalone, single >> executable apps. >> >> My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs that >> are distributed as single executables that do not require traditional >> install packages to run. >> >> I would like to use a drag and drop UI development tool like the .Net IDE >> (or the old VB6) to make development as easy as possible. I am a >> hobbyist programmer and would like to put out some useful apps, but I >> don't want to have to become an expert at a complex language like C++ to >> do so reliably. >> >> More than one person responding to the previous thread held the opinion >> that .Net was great for corporate environments where all PCs are strictly >> regulated, but may not be the best option to develop the type of apps >> that I would like to develop for the PC community at large. >> >> So what, in your opinion, would be a good alternative to use to develop >> the type of applications that I am trying to develop? >> >> jim >> > >
[followups set to comp.programming, where I'm reading this thread]
Terry Olsen said: <snip> [quoted text, click to view] > The only objection to the .NET framework I've heard is from people who > say they don't want some big runtime library installed on their pc's. Another objection is that it's slow. The first program I moved to .Net ran around 60 times slower than native - way too slow to be useful. A third objection is that it's non-portable. Even if I were of a mind to run .Net programs under Linux, I couldn't actually do so - at least, not yet. Mono promises to sort that out... oonnee ddaayy...... but in the meantime Linux users would rather have something that actually works. <snip> [quoted text, click to view] > I use VB not because i'm stupid, but because I'm lazy. Being even lazier than you, I use C++ Builder for those rare occasions when I need to write a Windows program. Because I'm so lazy, though, I prefer to use Linux, where almost everything is so much easier to do. (In the interests of balance and fairness, I will of course concede that there are some things that it's easier to do in Windows. But industrial-strength programming isn't one of them.) [quoted text, click to view] > I like that I can > whip out a windows form in a few seconds and use the various built-in > functions and classes to do the work that I want done. I've been known to > get a quick app done in 15 minutes when someone says "I need a utility to > do this...". What took you? My personal record for responding to such a request is 30 seconds (including compilation) for the first version, and another 60 seconds when the user suddenly decided to require some extra features. Builder rocks like that. I recommend it to you - and it doesn't need that silly .Net framework either. [quoted text, click to view] > Using a non-ide language like gcc or other command-line > compilers doesn't make any sense to me. It's a time waster. I don't like wasting my time, which is why I use the best tool for the job. Sometimes, that's an IDE tool like C++ Builder. But sometimes it's a command-line tool. If you think command line compilers are a waste of time, that suggests that you haven't much experience of life outside the world of pointy-clicky. <snip> [quoted text, click to view] > So it's up to you. Use whatever you're comfortable with and don't listen > to people who have pre-conceived ideas about your language of choice. There, at least, I can agree with you. -- Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk> Email: -http://www. +rjh@ Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
[quoted text, click to view]
> In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and Xenocode, it > was pointed out that there may be better programming languages/IDEs to use > for the purpose of creating standalone, single executable apps. Delphi 7 (newer versions are not as stable) does that very well. -- Michael ---- http://michael.moreno.free.fr/ http://port.cogolin.free.fr/
[quoted text, click to view]
Richard Heathfield wrote: > Arne Vajhøj said: >> Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> Terry Olsen said: >>>> The only objection to the .NET framework I've heard is from people who >>>> say they don't want some big runtime library installed on their pc's. >>> Another objection is that it's slow. The first program I moved to .Net >>> ran around 60 times slower than native - way too slow to be useful. >> I think you should spend a bit more time studying .NET ! > > Let me explain the background. We were developing an analysis product for a > UK bank, we already had working code, and we were asked to try our code > out under .Net - which we did. It ran sixty times slower. Our jaws > dropped, we laughed, and we didn't bother with .Net from then on. Ever. > Same with .Net - we came, we saw, we laughed - and left. You may benefit from looking again. A factor x60 is not a typical difference. I would expect a difference somewhere in the 0-60% range. Something went wrong in that port. Note that already having working code may actually be one of the reasons. Porting design 1:1 from language A to B can often result in poor design. [quoted text, click to view] >>> A third objection is that it's non-portable. >> Since the original poster stated: >> >> #My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs >> >> Then that should not be a problem. > > Agreed. But I wasn't answering the OP. Rather, I was answering the person > who said "The only objection to the .NET framework I've heard is..." - so > I was just giving him a couple more to chew on. I agree on that one. Mono is a very interesting project. But I would not recommend .NET as a portable solution based on Mono. [quoted text, click to view] > Yeah, I can understand that, although there is something to be said for the > rapid development of cheesy little toys. Sometimes, they turn into Real > Programs that can be a real benefit to lots of users (at which point it > becomes worth writing them more - um - carefully, shall we say?). Yep - it has happened many times !
[quoted text, click to view]
jim wrote: > I strongly disagree. Although I am no .Net expert, I am pretty adept at the > simple stuff. And, the simple .Net apps that I wrote had slower UIs and > presented data slower than their desktop counterparts. Hm. That text does not really make any sense. A win forms .NET app is a desktop app as well. And comparing a web app with a desktop app is at least when it comes to speed comparing apples with oranges.
[F-Us set to c.p]
Kerem Gümrükcü said: [quoted text, click to view] > Hi Jim, > >>for the purpose of creating standalone, single executable apps > > No application is standalone, every application has at least > an reference to the kernel dll and maybe to advapi, gdi, netapi > or user api. Bear in mind that this thread is cross-posted. What you say may well be true in Windows, but it is not true of all computer systems, and especially embedded systems, which might be the *only* software running. [quoted text, click to view] > The only standalone application you can say is a real > standalone application would be a BIOS Code, Bootloader, > oskernel and code working in that space,... It depends how pickily you're using the term "standalone". People nowadays have a fairly loose definition of "standalone", as in "all I have to ship is the .exe" - and under that definition, there's lots of scope for standalone applications, even under Windows, let alone under Linux, MS-DOS, and the Mac. [quoted text, click to view] > .NET Framework is just fine, some additional dlls and a little > pe modification for such a great framework is more than acceptable! Ah, but here we must agree to differ. :-) -- Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk> Email: -http://www. +rjh@ Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
[quoted text, click to view] "Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hirf-spam-me-here@gmx.at> wrote in message news:u2R%23rhYSIHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > "Scott Roberts" <sroberts@no.spam.here-webworks-software.com> schrieb: >>> I've seen Delphi pop up a lot in these conversations, but I was kind of >>> afraid that it may not be that reliable since Borland couldn't make a go >>> of it. >>> >>> I'd hate to begin using a language/IDE and have the company supporting >>> it go under. It would just waste a lot of time that I could have spent >>> learning something else. >>> >>> jim >> >> If by "Borland couldn't make a go of it" you mean "Borland has developed >> 10+ versions of it over the span of 10+ years" then I guess you're right. >> I started using Delphi 2.0 in 1997. >> >> People have been predicting the demise of Delphi for years. > > Well, yes, but on the other hand Classic Visual Basic (Version 1.0 to 6.0) > was a flagship product and it has been "killed" too without providing an > acceptable upgrade path. If preservation of assets is important, make > sure there exists more than one implementation of the programming language > and the libraries used by applications developed using it. In addition, > the programming language should be widely adopted, so you are not alone if > one vendor suddenly decides to stop further development. Sure, there are > many other factors to be taken into account too for choosing the right > programming language. > >> The reality is, it's a niche product that performs admirably for it's >> intended >> purpose. And I think it would be great for someone who wants to create >> "standalone" Win32 apps. > > Delphi is now developed by another company than Borland. I am not sure > about support for older versions of Delphi like Delphi 7. Applications > developed using older versions may not be guaranteed to work properly on > future versions of Windows. That's what will finally kill VB6 too. > >> Further, you can supposedly port your code to linux fairly easily using >> Kylix (Delphi for Linux), though I've never tried it (and neither did >> anyone else, from what I can gather).´ > > Is Kylix still supported and developed further? Not by Borland. The last time they posted a download for it was for a debugger patch for Linux 2.4 kernel on 01/23/2002 (according to their site at http://info.borland.com/devsupport/kylix/downloads/). I had called the company (in 2005 I think) and inquired about Kylix. The girl answering the phone had never heard of it and I had to lead her to her company's Kylic pages on their site. She tried to find out something, but was unable to find anyone that knew anything about it then. CodeGear (the offshoot of Borland that took all of the developers tools) doesn't mention it on their site, and any attempts to contact the usergroups (listed on http://newsgroups.borland.com/cgi-bin/dnewsweb?cmd=listall&group=borland.public.kylix.&utag= ) failed to bring back any posts. It would have been nice if they donated it to open source instead of just letting it rot. jim
[quoted text, click to view] "Arne Vajhøj" <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote in message news:477550ae$0$90267$14726298@news.sunsite.dk... > jim wrote: >> I strongly disagree. Although I am no .Net expert, I am pretty adept at >> the simple stuff. And, the simple .Net apps that I wrote had slower UIs >> and presented data slower than their desktop counterparts. > > Hm. That text does not really make any sense. A win forms .NET app > is a desktop app as well. And comparing a web app with a desktop app > is at least when it comes to speed comparing apples with oranges. The .Net apps I was refering to here were all desktop apps. The one database access app that I wrote in VB.Net 1.0 as a webform that queried an Oracle database perfomed even worse. jim
[quoted text, click to view] "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message news:vrcdj.31909$Mu4.11052@bignews7.bellsouth.net... > > "Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hirf-spam-me-here@gmx.at> wrote in message > news:u2R%23rhYSIHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> "Scott Roberts" <sroberts@no.spam.here-webworks-software.com> schrieb: >>>> I've seen Delphi pop up a lot in these conversations, but I was kind of >>>> afraid that it may not be that reliable since Borland couldn't make a >>>> go of it. >>>> >>>> I'd hate to begin using a language/IDE and have the company supporting >>>> it go under. It would just waste a lot of time that I could have spent >>>> learning something else. >>>> >>>> jim >>> >>> If by "Borland couldn't make a go of it" you mean "Borland has developed >>> 10+ versions of it over the span of 10+ years" then I guess you're >>> right. I started using Delphi 2.0 in 1997. >>> >>> People have been predicting the demise of Delphi for years. >> >> Well, yes, but on the other hand Classic Visual Basic (Version 1.0 to >> 6.0) was a flagship product and it has been "killed" too without >> providing an acceptable upgrade path. If preservation of assets is >> important, make sure there exists more than one implementation of the >> programming language and the libraries used by applications developed >> using it. In addition, the programming language should be widely >> adopted, so you are not alone if one vendor suddenly decides to stop >> further development. Sure, there are many other factors to be taken into >> account too for choosing the right programming language. >> >>> The reality is, it's a niche product that performs admirably for it's >>> intended >>> purpose. And I think it would be great for someone who wants to create >>> "standalone" Win32 apps. >> >> Delphi is now developed by another company than Borland. I am not sure >> about support for older versions of Delphi like Delphi 7. Applications >> developed using older versions may not be guaranteed to work properly on >> future versions of Windows. That's what will finally kill VB6 too. >> >>> Further, you can supposedly port your code to linux fairly easily using >>> Kylix (Delphi for Linux), though I've never tried it (and neither did >>> anyone else, from what I can gather).´ >> >> Is Kylix still supported and developed further? > > Not by Borland. The last time they posted a download for it was for a > debugger patch for Linux 2.4 kernel on 01/23/2002 (according to their site > at http://info.borland.com/devsupport/kylix/downloads/). > > I had called the company (in 2005 I think) and inquired about Kylix. The > girl answering the phone had never heard of it and I had to lead her to > her company's Kylic pages on their site. She tried to find out something, > but was unable to find anyone that knew anything about it then. > > CodeGear (the offshoot of Borland that took all of the developers tools) > doesn't mention it on their site, and any attempts to contact the > usergroups (listed on > http://newsgroups.borland.com/cgi-bin/dnewsweb?cmd=listall&group=borland.public.kylix.&utag= ) > failed to bring back any posts. > > It would have been nice if they donated it to open source instead of just > letting it rot. > > jim Then again, it would have been nice to see OS2 and Visual Basic open sourced. jim
[quoted text, click to view] "Richard Heathfield" <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote in message news:6ridnRGA467ixujanZ2dnUVZ8rOdnZ2d@bt.com... > Scott Roberts said: > >> >>>>> Same with .Net - we came, we saw, we laughed - and left. >>>> >>>> You came, you couldn't figure it out, you left. >>> >>> What's to figure out? .Net was as slow as syrup, when we already had >>> something as fast as fireworks. So obviously we dropped it. You can say >>> it's down to a lack of programmer skill if you like, but your claim >>> translates to ".Net is so difficult that it can't be used efficiently by >>> two programmers with over 40 years C++ experience between them" - which >>> doesn't bode well for .Net, does it? >> >> Did you bother to find out why it was so much slower? I'd be interested >> to know, just for my own edification. > > Ah, I approve. :-) > > Okay - *at the time*, no, we didn't bother. We simply showed the boss the > comparative figures, and he agreed that there was no point in continuing > with .Net. After all, everyone has deadlines, and we'd already beaten > ours. The last thing anyone wanted was to add another three months to the > project while we fiddled around trying to figure out how to get Yet > Another Microsoft Technology to do as it's told. It was that or deliver > fast code, early, within budget. We chose the latter. Wouldn't you? I'm curious why your boss even wanted to investigate .Net since the project was already complete. Don't you generally choose a platform *before* you begin such a project? [quoted text, click to view] > Later on, however, one or other of us (I forget which) discovered (I'm not > sure how authoritatively) that, apparently, .Net is not good at heavily > recursive code, and since our code did little else *but* recurse (its > function was to extract dependency relationships from source code, and > much of this was achieved by parsing the source to look for stuff like > #include "foo.h", <a href="yadayadayada.html">, etc etc - and parsing is > an inherently recursive process), this may go some way towards explaining > the huge performance disparity between .Net and native code. Yes it does. I learned something today too. From http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms998574.aspx "Common Performance Issues During your code reviews, pay particular attention to the following areas: Frequent code paths. Prioritize your code review process by identifying code paths that are frequently executed and begin your review process in these areas. Frequent loops. Even the slightest inefficiency inside a loop is magnified many times over depending on the number of iterations. Specifically watch out for repetitive property access inside your loops, using foreach instead of for, performing expensive operations within your loops, and using recursion. Recursion incurs the overhead of having to repeatedly build new stack frames. " Of course we all know that any recursive routine can be rewritten as an iterative routine. So I still contend that the "problem" was with your code (specifically, it's lack of optimization for the new platform).
Jim,
Honestly the application that you want to develop is from the previous millennium from the time that Dos was reigning. Now user's wants (while they tell that they do not), all kind of advanced behaviour. That needs a lot of extra software for which the Net framework is, it seems to me, the best solution today. You alone cannot create all the classes which help us to make software today. The runtime of that software (however not only that runtime, there is much more) is now in the Net assemblies. Another advance from Net related software is that it is easy to deploy because the real application can be relative small because most people have already the .Net versions and a Windows OS on their computer. The advance from the Net versions is that it is undependable from the Windows OS that is running. However not small as not any OS part is (and every runtime for windows is). Be aware that there never were really small applications that could run on windows OS systems. An average VB6 was by instance much huger to deploy and absolute not deployable with dialup connections. In past every (non assembler type) program language had its own runtime even when big parts were included in the OS (like in mainframes) If you don't know why runtimes are build: First they appeared to overcome every time repeated simple instructions as adding, which can be, without a runtime, need real a lot of instructions, while in fact it is endless times done in a program. This can be used of course for everything and is every time done more. I hope that this explains something to you. Cor
Hi Jim,
[quoted text, click to view] >for the purpose of creating standalone, single executable apps No application is standalone, every application has at least an reference to the kernel dll and maybe to advapi, gdi, netapi or user api. The only standalone application you can say is a real standalone application would be a BIOS Code, Bootloader, oskernel and code working in that space,... ..NET Framework is just fine, some additional dlls and a little pe modification for such a great framework is more than acceptable! Regards Kerem -- ----------------------- Beste Grüsse / Best regards / Votre bien devoue Kerem Gümrükcü Microsoft Live Space: http://kerem-g.spaces.live.com/ Latest Open-Source Projects: http://entwicklung.junetz.de ----------------------- "This reply is provided as is, without warranty express or implied."
[quoted text, click to view] "Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen" <lasse@vkarlsen.no> wrote in message news:%23B6$T1YSIHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > I'm going to break my habit here and place a reply/post to the original > post you made. > > jim wrote: >> In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and >> Xenocode, it was pointed out that there may be better programming >> languages/IDEs to use for the purpose of creating standalone, single >> executable apps. > > There's plenty. As evident in other posts here, Delphi is one of them. Be > sure to evaluate carefully which version you *need* though, as the latter > versions have gotten steadily more buggy/unstable, at least that has been > my experience. Well, that's pretty much takes Delphi out of the running then. I create enough bugs myself - don't really need much help in that area. [quoted text, click to view] >> My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs that >> are distributed as single executables that do not require traditional >> install packages to run. > > I would very much like to know why you have this criteria. While I can > understand the wish to not having to include, or force the download of, a > multi-megabyte runtime engine, everyone I've talked to (all levels of > users) seems to prefer an installation program to take care of things like > correct location on disk, start menu items, uninstallation, etc. > > There's installer applications that doesn't add that much to the final > size as well so size should not be a big deal in that respect either. The idea (in addition to avoiding denpendencies wich can change on a user's sytem) was to also be able to run the single exe apps from USB drives or even from websites. The idea being that the more places you can run the apps, the more people can (and hopefully will) run the apps. [quoted text, click to view] >> I would like to use a drag and drop UI development tool like the .Net IDE >> (or the old VB6) to make development as easy as possible. I am a >> hobbyist programmer and would like to put out some useful apps, but I >> don't want to have to become an expert at a complex language like C++ to >> do so reliably. > > You'll pretty fast find out that any development engine worth its own cost > will be a complex endeavour. If you pick Delphi or C#, just to take two > examples, you'll find that most of your time will not be spent learning > the language, although C# with its latest 3.0 version is rapidly building > up speed in the complex arean. Instead, most of your time will be spent > either looking through the runtime classes to figure out which ones to use > and how to use them, or online googling for 3rd party libraries or > examples of what you need to do. > > This holds true for VB, Delphi, C#, Java, and C++ and many other systems. > > Your best option against this uphill battle is to pick one development > tool and get good at it. When you're good at one of them, switching isn't > going to be that tough since a lot of things are similar enough for you to > find them more easily once you've learned how to find them in one system. I've considered C# (since a lot of examples are written in it and they'd help me to learn more quickly), but I used to code in VB and feel more comfortable with that language. Anothe plus for C# is that the syntax is similar to C++ - another language I'd like to learn. [quoted text, click to view] >> More than one person responding to the previous thread held the opinion >> that .Net was great for corporate environments where all PCs are strictly >> regulated, but may not be the best option to develop the type of apps >> that I would like to develop for the PC community at large. > > This still holds true, to a certain degree. I've found that the best > option to combat this is to do one of the following: > > 1. bundle the .NET runtime with your installer (making it bigger) > 2. make the installer download and install the runtime, if necessary > 3. add a link on your download page to the runtime downloads > > To be honest, I prefer solution 1, with two installers, one with the > runtime and one without. This way the downloadee (?) can pick the right > one for his machine, and even install it offline. Since these apps are mostly free (being a hobbyist coder and all) I would choose option 2. That option would keep things as simple as possible for most users and still dl the framework if needed. [quoted text, click to view] >> So what, in your opinion, would be a good alternative to use to develop >> the type of applications that I am trying to develop? > > Personally I would go with C#, but I already know C#. I don't know if this > is a good enough answer for you though. If you absolutely cannot use .NET, > I would pick another system, but each system have its pros and cons, > you're going to have to pick the ones you care about. I may take the plungs and go C#. I always have hated the syntax of C#/C++, but the vast amount of examples written in C# and the power of C++ are mighty compelling. Thanks for your post. jim
Hi Ignacio,
[quoted text, click to view] >You can always use C++ and write unmanaged apps, if you only use win32 API >you know for sure that it will run always. as long as you use apis that are downward compatible and do not depends on sh*** like mfc (anf if soyou need the rigth runtime) and you target the right cpu (32/64), then you can run your code on any windows,...if you target windows,.. But if you need indipendend runtimes then go write generic x86 asm and store it in libs ond objectcode that you can compile into single exe image. But i see only need for this if you need fast algo's and dont want to depend on any runtime (c-runtime, mfc, msvb, et al,....) Regards Kerem -- ----------------------- Beste Grüsse / Best regards / Votre bien devoue Kerem Gümrükcü Microsoft Live Space: http://kerem-g.spaces.live.com/ Latest Open-Source Projects: http://entwicklung.junetz.de ----------------------- "This reply is provided as is, without warranty express or implied."
Arne Vajhøj said:
[quoted text, click to view] > Richard Heathfield wrote: >> Terry Olsen said: >>> The only objection to the .NET framework I've heard is from people who >>> say they don't want some big runtime library installed on their pc's. >> >> Another objection is that it's slow. The first program I moved to .Net >> ran around 60 times slower than native - way too slow to be useful. > > I think you should spend a bit more time studying .NET ! Let me explain the background. We were developing an analysis product for a UK bank, we already had working code, and we were asked to try our code out under .Net - which we did. It ran sixty times slower. Our jaws dropped, we laughed, and we didn't bother with .Net from then on. Ever. If you're supposed to be hauling eight thousand tons of freight from London to Newcastle, and the boss suggests you try using a bicycle instead of your existing freight train, well, you might give it a go (because it's the boss asking), but when it doesn't work it would be very silly to blame yourself for not studying the bicycle enough. You just go back to your freight train. Same with .Net - we came, we saw, we laughed - and left. [quoted text, click to view] >> A third objection is that it's non-portable. > > Since the original poster stated: > > #My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs > > Then that should not be a problem. Agreed. But I wasn't answering the OP. Rather, I was answering the person who said "The only objection to the .NET framework I've heard is..." - so I was just giving him a couple more to chew on. [quoted text, click to view] >>> I like that I can >>> whip out a windows form in a few seconds and use the various built-in >>> functions and classes to do the work that I want done. I've been known >>> to get a quick app done in 15 minutes when someone says "I need a >>> utility to do this...". >> >> What took you? My personal record for responding to such a request is 30 >> seconds (including compilation) for the first version, and another 60 >> seconds when the user suddenly decided to require some extra features. >> Builder rocks like that. > > I am not particular impressed by either claim. If I had ever created > an app that fast I would try to keep it a secret - if you get my point. Yeah, I can understand that, although there is something to be said for the rapid development of cheesy little toys. Sometimes, they turn into Real Programs that can be a real benefit to lots of users (at which point it becomes worth writing them more - um - carefully, shall we say?). -- Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk> Email: -http://www. +rjh@ Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
Arne Vajhøj said:
[quoted text, click to view] > I just don't think the original poster should have included > a group as general as comp.programming for a Windows specific > question. Precisely. I agree entirely. -- Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk> Email: -http://www. +rjh@ Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
[quoted text, click to view] "Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen" <lasse@vkarlsen.no> wrote in message news:uforjQZSIHA.2000@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > jim wrote: >> "Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen" <lasse@vkarlsen.no> wrote in message >> news:%23B6$T1YSIHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>> I'm going to break my habit here and place a reply/post to the original >>> post you made. >>> >>> jim wrote: >>>> In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and >>>> Xenocode, it was pointed out that there may be better programming >>>> languages/IDEs to use for the purpose of creating standalone, single >>>> executable apps. >>> There's plenty. As evident in other posts here, Delphi is one of them. >>> Be sure to evaluate carefully which version you *need* though, as the >>> latter versions have gotten steadily more buggy/unstable, at least that >>> has been my experience. >> >> Well, that's pretty much takes Delphi out of the running then. I create >> enough bugs myself - don't really need much help in that area. > > Well, to be honest, I'm perhaps a bit vauge here. What I mean to say is > that latter versions of Delphi is unstable in themselves. The code they > produce seems fine though. > >> >>>> My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs >>>> that are distributed as single executables that do not require >>>> traditional install packages to run. >>> I would very much like to know why you have this criteria. While I can >>> understand the wish to not having to include, or force the download of, >>> a multi-megabyte runtime engine, everyone I've talked to (all levels of >>> users) seems to prefer an installation program to take care of things >>> like correct location on disk, start menu items, uninstallation, etc. >>> >>> There's installer applications that doesn't add that much to the final >>> size as well so size should not be a big deal in that respect either. >> >> The idea (in addition to avoiding denpendencies wich can change on a >> user's sytem) was to also be able to run the single exe apps from USB >> drives or even from websites. The idea being that the more places you >> can run the apps, the more people can (and hopefully will) run the apps. > > Running the application from a external drive without installing it is a > good goal, but doesn't necessarily mean that you need to limit yourself to > one file in total. FireFox comes to mind and requires a whole host of > files and directories to be present. > > Running it from the web is an entirely different ordeal though and will > likely involve either using ClickOnce deployment or running the app with > severly limited rights. Unless you mean that you want to click the > Open/Run button in the IE/FireFox download dialog and run the program from > the cache, in which case the program might be gone later. ClickOnce deployment over thw web really got me excited....then I found out how limited it was.... jim
Hi Richard,
[quoted text, click to view] >Bear in mind that this thread is cross-posted. What you say may well be >true in Windows, but it is not true of all computer systems, and >especially embedded systems, which might be the *only* software running. yes, this was meant for windows systems, i dont talk about any other system, nor linux, nor vx, nor mac or other archtitecture. It was only meant for Windows Systems, and i think the OP was talking about windows,... [quoted text, click to view] >It depends how pickily you're using the term "standalone". Oh yes, it really depends and the the transition from monolithic to modular or in our case from standalone 2 library dependency is also very vague,... [quoted text, click to view] >People nowadays >have a fairly loose definition of "standalone", as in "all I have to ship >is the .exe" - and under that definition, there's lots of scope for >standalone applications, even under Windows, let alone under Linux, >MS-DOS, and the Mac. I asume you are a experienced developer so the term "standalone" is truly very "loose". I think if we start a discussion here what can be told standalone or modular could end up in a book of software architecture. I have really a lot of experinence in writing code for a bunch of OS's and architectures from (not kidding) binary over asm till completely OOP even functional PL, and i know that something can be for some developer a closed library but for the other a complete stackable, modular, reusable component, e.g. when you thing about functions, exports, code segements, just the COFF&PE Format is just a piece of reusable (binary) data structure/code when it comes to e.g. hooking binaries just to give an example,... [quoted text, click to view] > .NET Framework is just fine, some additional dlls and a little > pe modification for such a great framework is more than acceptable! >Ah, but here we must agree to differ. :-) Suum Cuique ;-) Each to his own dude,... Regards Kerem -- ----------------------- Beste Grüsse / Best regards / Votre bien devoue Kerem Gümrükcü Microsoft Live Space: http://kerem-g.spaces.live.com/ Latest Open-Source Projects: http://entwicklung.junetz.de ----------------------- "This reply is provided as is, without warranty express or implied."
Hi Arne,
read my post above,...;-) Regards Kerem -- ----------------------- Beste Grüsse / Best regards / Votre bien devoue Kerem Gümrükcü Microsoft Live Space: http://kerem-g.spaces.live.com/ Latest Open-Source Projects: http://entwicklung.junetz.de ----------------------- "This reply is provided as is, without warranty express or implied."
[quoted text, click to view]
jim wrote: > Thanks! > > I've seen Delphi pop up a lot in these conversations, but I was kind of > afraid that it may not be that reliable since Borland couldn't make a go of > it. > Delphi, older versions, was a very very good development system, well able to stand on its own against Microsofts tools. The main problem was userbase and the decision to go for .NET which meant Borland would be stuck in catch-up mode for a foreseeable future. They lost the battle, however, mostly because they slipped on the stability criteria and started shipping really buggy software. Couple that with a low userbase and the future suddenly didn't look too bright. If Borland had stuck to what it did best, produce a Win32 compiler, they might've still had a competing product. These days Delphi is more like roadkill. (note, this is an opinion from a long-time Delphi and .NET user) -- Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen mailto:lasse@vkarlsen.no
Hi jim,
In your case Delphi would me my choice, too. At least when your requirements are an OS that doesn't have .net installed by default (XP). -- Miha Markic [MVP C#, INETA Country Leader for Slovenia] RightHand .NET consulting & development www.rthand.com Blog: http://cs.rthand.com/blogs/blog_with_righthand/ [quoted text, click to view] "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
news:Oz6dj.31741$Mu4.12235@bignews7.bellsouth.net... > In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and Xenocode, > it was pointed out that there may be better programming languages/IDEs to > use for the purpose of creating standalone, single executable apps. > > My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs that > are distributed as single executables that do not require traditional > install packages to run. > > I would like to use a drag and drop UI development tool like the .Net IDE > (or the old VB6) to make development as easy as possible. I am a hobbyist > programmer and would like to put out some useful apps, but I don't want to > have to become an expert at a complex language like C++ to do so reliably. > > More than one person responding to the previous thread held the opinion > that .Net was great for corporate environments where all PCs are strictly > regulated, but may not be the best option to develop the type of apps that > I would like to develop for the PC community at large. > > So what, in your opinion, would be a good alternative to use to develop > the type of applications that I am trying to develop? > > jim >
[quoted text, click to view] "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message news:dQddj.31954$Mu4.14910@bignews7.bellsouth.net... > > "Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen" <lasse@vkarlsen.no> wrote in message > news:uforjQZSIHA.2000@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> jim wrote: >>> "Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen" <lasse@vkarlsen.no> wrote in message >>> news:%23B6$T1YSIHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>>> I'm going to break my habit here and place a reply/post to the original >>>> post you made. >>>> >>>> jim wrote: >>>>> In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and >>>>> Xenocode, it was pointed out that there may be better programming >>>>> languages/IDEs to use for the purpose of creating standalone, si |