Is that a joke ?

[Ted Nicols]

Thats not going to happen.

That's exactly what I'm afraid...

IMO its way overdue that we should begin focusing on code SAFETY. .NET
forces overrun checking,
etc.. things that most native compiler developers turn off.

Hmm, I prefer well coded, optimized and debuged programs than a secure
environment that does those things.
If today's software developers ignore what coding quality really means, then
what will happen with future "point & clickers"

What WILL happen is improved performance and faster CPU's. And to be
honest - Given nearly
every program on my sysetm (Outlook, whatever..) I'd gladly trade a bit of
performance for less
crashing and less data loss.

You're right on that, Chad.

Ted

 

[Jim Hubbard]

Uh, you mean like Kylix which has been out for many years now?

Uh, no.....I mean something that is actually supported......something with
continuing revisions.

If you look at when Kylix 3 was released
(http://www.borland.com/resources/en..._develop_applications_with_borland_kylix3.pdf
is the closest I could get on their site - OCTOBER 2002!) it seems that
development has stopped.

I called Borland today and the sales rep said that she didn't know (and
couldn't find) when Kylix 3 was released. She said that she hasn't heard
anything about Kylix development or whether Borland is continuing Kylix
development at all.

Kylix is dead, and that's too bad.

Jim

 

[Mike Margerum]

I had high hopes for kylix but alas Borland seems to be letting it
whither on the vine. I sincerely hope they go back to it and better yet
move C++ builder to linux.

I'm still try to justify doing anything with .net because frankly I dont
see much of an improvement for the developer and a huge runtime dependency.

 

[Mike Margerum]

The thing that is really bad is the VM isnt shared so as more apps are
written in .net, each of them is going to load its own VM. This is
going to blow your memory up pretty quickly.

 

[Mike Margerum]

garbage collection just trades one problem for another. while you get
memory managed for "free", you lose deterministic destruction and easy
managing of native resources like GDI handles, file handles, etc. I
guess the "using" hack helps this in C# and .net 2.0 looks like it may
give C++ determinstic destruction?

With shared pointers, smart pointers, stack based and copyable objects,
I dont have to do very much memory management in native c++ anyhow so
what am I really getting from .net?

 

[Patrice]

Why would you have to "justify" doing something with .NET ?

If you have no use for .NET just don't use it and pick what your prefer.
It's as simple as that...

Patrice

--

I had high hopes for kylix but alas Borland seems to be letting it
whither on the vine. I sincerely hope they go back to it and better yet
move C++ builder to linux.

I'm still try to justify doing anything with .net because frankly I dont
see much of an improvement for the developer and a huge runtime

dependency.

 

[nobody]

Hi,
Some of dotNet MVPs and MS engineers are not honest here. My own
observations show that dotNet decreases non-web software quality a lot in
performance and consuming resources. Particularly, dotNet remoting is bad,
and should be ditched and re-written with more careful consideration! dotNet
serialization is bad!! dotNet is 5 years old now, but there is no
outstanding (core) application like IE6, MS Office, SQL server and IIS
written from dotNet in this world to prove it yet!!! dotNet MVPs and MS
engineers don't treat us like an idiot. It would be better to both MS and
us!

On the surface, dotNet is super, but it is not so nice internally to
use except web development. At this point, dotNet is very good with web
development only.

 

[Ross Presser]

Hmm, I prefer well coded, optimized and debuged programs than a secure
environment that does those things.

How much more does it cost in programmer time -- including training time,
development time, debugging time -- to come up with "well coded, optimized
and debugged programs" that were written from the ground up?

You think the business world is going to wait around for a million Ted
Nicols to be educated and trained?

Enabling lesser programmers to build the apps that business wants, is a
SMART MOVE. Programmer time is WAY more expensive than CPU time.

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Ross,

Enabling lesser programmers to build the apps that business wants, is a
SMART MOVE. Programmer time is WAY more expensive than CPU time.

Sometimes programs are for computers where peoples lives are in involved.
Although I agree with your general statement, has Ted not told his whys in a
general way, moreover he has denied that.

In my opinion is the live of a human more important than the time of the
programmer.

However you may disagree with me, it is just my opinion,

Cor

 

[Ross Presser]

Ross,


Sometimes programs are for computers where peoples lives are in involved.
Although I agree with your general statement, has Ted not told his whys in a
general way, moreover he has denied that.

In my opinion is the live of a human more important than the time of the
programmer.

However you may disagree with me, it is just my opinion,

Oh, certainly I agree. .NET, and Java, and virtual machines in general,
are NOT for all situations. But bringing them into the mix to widen the
pool of programmers was a great idea, just like FORTRAN was a great idea
since it allowed programmers to write programs that had a measure of
portability.

 

[Jim Hubbard]

How much more does it cost in programmer time -- including training time,
development time, debugging time -- to come up with "well coded, optimized
and debugged programs" that were written from the ground up?

You think the business world is going to wait around for a million Ted
Nicols to be educated and trained?

Enabling lesser programmers to build the apps that business wants, is a
SMART MOVE.

It sure was. Unfortunately, that was called Visual Basic 6.

Wonder why Microsoft took such a huge step backwards? (WARNING Wil
Robinson......this is a trap! Jump in it at your own risk.)

Jim Hubbard

 

[Guest]

..Net is just another tool. You use the right tool for the right job. If you
are using .Net for 3D graphics, real-time applications, scientific
engineering or any time-of-execution-critical applications, then you are
using the wrong tool. You should be using unmanaged C++ perhaps enhanced
with assembler.

If you are trying to use .Net to build parts of the OS, COM components, or
device drivers then you are using the wrong tool. You should be using
unmanaged C++ and Win32.

If you using .Net to build web applications or enterprise reporting systems,
or client-server applications then you have chosen a worthy tool for the job,
because few of these applications require the critical real-time performance
that .Net can never give you. For these applications, written by the
majority of corporate enterprise programmers, then the development time and
money saved by .Net overcomes the performance burden almost every time.

You use the right tool for the right job. People who think Microsoft is
going to rewrite all their legacy OS and COM components in .Net are living in
a fantasy world. Sure, there are plenty of trivial samples and tutorials for
using .Net in DirectX gaming and 3D applications, but nobody in the real
world will ever use .Net for these applications because it cannot deliver
sufficient performance to compete in the marketplace with similar
applications written in native code.

If you have to write to the metal, then .Net is not for you. If you want to
serve up web pages showing the quarterly sales results, then .Net is terrific
becasuse it will save you loads of programming time, which translates
directly into money.

Swifter

 

[Ted Nicols]

Some of dotNet MVPs and MS engineers are not honest here. My own
observations show that dotNet decreases non-web software quality a lot in
performance and consuming resources.

I believe that MS representers, including some MVPs, just follow company's
policy. We should not blame them for that. I've seen much worst behavior
from people representing much smaller companies.

On the surface, dotNet is super, but it is not so nice internally to use
except web development. At this point, dotNet is very good with web
development only.

I admit that .NET is very good for web development, but that's not the
point. As you said, desktop applications is a different case and .NET isn't
that fast especially for performance critical coding. I really hope that
will change in the future, although I'm not that optimistic.

Ted

 

[Jim Hubbard]

If you're going to develop in .Net, do yourself a favor and read the book
".Net Gotchas" (O'Reilly).

It not only shows you where .Net is not mature yet, it shows you how to
avoid getting slapped around by .Net gotchas.

Jim

 

[Nick Malik [Microsoft]]

Hi,
Some of dotNet MVPs and MS engineers are not honest here.

I wonder who you could be referring to? hmmmm.

As my tag line professes, the opinions I type are my own, not that of my
employer. I have not written anything that I do not firmly believe. I am
also fallable and have been proven wrong on many occasions by my peers on
this newsgroup. I welcome the opportunity to do better. However, I have
been honest with you. To the best of my knowledge, the other responders
have been as well.

My own observations show that dotNet decreases non-web software quality a
lot in performance and consuming resources.

"a lot" huh? Interesting statistic. I have seen a decrease in performance,
usually where the initial load occurs. Personally, I have not seen that big
of a decrease of performance overall. The number of memory leaks is down
dramatically. If you use the system well, it is very fast. Perhaps your
observations are as unscientific as mine.

Particularly, dotNet remoting is bad, and should be ditched and re-written
with more careful consideration!

It is what it is. New mechanisms for communication have been announced for
future products. I'm sure that they will help resolve this.
The mechanisms that existed before Remoting still exist. You are free to
use them instead.

dotNet serialization is bad!!

Interesting. I've found it to be quite powerful when used properly.
Perhaps you are using it for some odd things? Note that Java Serialization
is no faster. If you compare apples to apples, and use the tool wisely, you
will find that it solves some very interesting problems.

dotNet is 5 years old now, but there is no outstanding (core) application
like IE6, MS Office, SQL server and IIS written from dotNet in this world
to prove it yet!!!

Nonsense. Biztalk 2004 is an expesive and very high performance server
product written in .Net. It takes time to move large code bases.

dotNet MVPs and MS engineers don't treat us like an idiot. It would be
better to both MS and us!

I assure you that I, for one, have not treated you or anyone else with
anything but the most honest desire to simply assist. If you feel that my
words are condescending, then I am sorry for anything that I have done to
make you feel that way. It was not intentional, I assure you.

On the surface, dotNet is super, but it is not so nice internally
to use except web development. At this point, dotNet is very good with web
development only.

We must respectfully disagree on this point.

--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Ted,

I admit that .NET is very good for web development, but that's not the
point. As you said, desktop applications is a different case and .NET
isn't that fast especially for performance critical coding. I really hope
that will change in the future, although I'm not that optimistic.

I respectful disagree with you.

The speed for desktop applications developed with dotNet is more than high
enough for most common business applications.

I know that there in countries as the USA are people who have two sitter
Ferrari's. However, because the driving laws in the USA is every avarage
modern car more than fast enough for most of the people.

I have understand that the average guy/girl in the USA is driving a car
with which he can take his whole family with him and feels very comfortable
with that car.

dotNet is not a Ferrari however in my opinion very much better than average.

Just my thought,

Cor

 

[Ted Nicols]

I know that there in countries as the USA are people who have two sitter
Ferrari's. However, because the driving laws in the USA is every avarage
modern car more than fast enough for most of the people.

I would agree with you if I was a highway patrol officer. Unfortunately I'm
just a developer,

I have understand that the average guy/girl in the USA is driving a car
with which he can take his whole family with him and feels very
comfortable with that car.
dotNet is not a Ferrari however in my opinion very much better than
average.

The real problem is, that previously I was driving alone in a fast car, and
I liked that. Now, with .NET I have to take the whole family with me,
includimg my mother-in-law

Ted

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Ted,

I would agree with you if I was a highway patrol officer. Unfortunately
I'm just a developer,

I don't understand this, does that mean that everybody goes in the USA as
fast as on the oval in Indianapolis or only a few people?

I assume that a lot of people want to go at least once that fast, however
the majority wants a trustable reliable comfortable above average car like
the Net is in development?

In my opinion is that where we are talking about in this thread.

Cor

 

[Ross Presser]

The real problem is, that previously I was driving alone in a fast car, and
I liked that. Now, with .NET I have to take the whole family with me,
includimg my mother-in-law

Nothing is preventing you from continuing to use VB6, or any other tools
you prefer to VS.NET. It seems to me that you enjoy bellyaching about .NET
more than you dislike .NET.

 

[Guest]

To Jim and Ted:

You're just another bunch of Anti-Microsoft fools. You're the kind of
fellows who start uproars in enterprise environments because you're so
concerned with performance that it blinds you from getting the job done. It's
a shamed that guys like you will always exist. I'm not doubting you guys as
being very smart people. However, from a business perspective....you're
F.U.C.KING STUPID.

Regards