A
Abubakar
Hi,
i remember when I was in college using very old versions of c++, some
changes could be made by just directly accessing (writing to) the memory.
Than operating systems introduced proper apis, and now we couldnt do things
through direct memory access and there was an api for everything. Now there
is .net. I think its there system and they can dictate us how to use it.
but people all over the world are installing service packs for windows 2000
and windows xp for security reasons which already contain the runtimes.
I have seen the Mono project and the applications that are being made on it.
They never compaint on how slow the windows forms are or what features it
lacks so that it becomes absolutely rediculous to make any serious
appliction in windows forms. They are doing everything. Novell now uses
there own made .net (mono). I'm not talking about speed but the greate
obbject-oriented framework and executiong engine .net offers that make any
kind of application development (web or desk) extremely rad and easy. There
are project on sourceforge of desk apps made in windows forms and also made
in short time.
what u said about the OCX. When you move to .net, you get absolutely amazing
component based framework. Seriously there is no comparison with COM. Arnt
you happy that every one can learn to write there own components with out
learning how the heck IUnknown and IDispatch works. VB6 did make the
components writing easy but still the power of c++ on com could beat the
crap out of vb (i hope i used the english here correctly!!!!!!). Now in .net
its not that about you write components inC# or vb.net, its just the same
for every language.
well thats there, althought u do get some benefit from obfuscators (these
obfuscator vendors r making a lot of money it seems) but I do get your point
here.
nothing like that, (i'm not even an mvp!). For me, .net is just amazing.
Ab.
http://joehacker.blogspot.com
Some of us do. What's wrong with Win32?
Underneath your .Net classes, somewhere, is
an equivalent to Win32 level.
i remember when I was in college using very old versions of c++, some
changes could be made by just directly accessing (writing to) the memory.
Than operating systems introduced proper apis, and now we couldnt do things
through direct memory access and there was an api for everything. Now there
is .net. I think its there system and they can dictate us how to use it.
off the bat, because dial-up users are not going to
download 25 MB runtimes and 12MB specialty
programs. Then I lose another 25% because many
but people all over the world are installing service packs for windows 2000
and windows xp for security reasons which already contain the runtimes.
For one good explanation of why .Net doesn't fit well
on the Desktop see Mark Russinovich's article:
http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/04/coming-net-world-im-scared.html
I have seen the Mono project and the applications that are being made on it.
They never compaint on how slow the windows forms are or what features it
lacks so that it becomes absolutely rediculous to make any serious
appliction in windows forms. They are doing everything. Novell now uses
there own made .net (mono). I'm not talking about speed but the greate
obbject-oriented framework and executiong engine .net offers that make any
kind of application development (web or desk) extremely rad and easy. There
are project on sourceforge of desk apps made in windows forms and also made
in short time.
My own situation: I taught myself VB, starting
out leaning heavily on OCXs and gradually
learned better, leaner coding. I write "shareware".
What do I get if I move to .Net? First I lose
about half of my potential customer base right
what u said about the OCX. When you move to .net, you get absolutely amazing
component based framework. Seriously there is no comparison with COM. Arnt
you happy that every one can learn to write there own components with out
learning how the heck IUnknown and IDispatch works. VB6 did make the
components writing easy but still the power of c++ on com could beat the
crap out of vb (i hope i used the english here correctly!!!!!!). Now in .net
its not that about you write components inC# or vb.net, its just the same
for every language.
address the common complaints, such as the issue
of easily decompiled code and poor speed, the
well thats there, althought u do get some benefit from obfuscators (these
obfuscator vendors r making a lot of money it seems) but I do get your point
here.
using .Net keep hanging around here like religious
converts (or maybe MS plants) doing a .Net sales
pitch. I wish that people would try to just think for
nothing like that, (i'm not even an mvp!). For me, .net is just amazing.
Ab.
http://joehacker.blogspot.com
mayayana said:oh ok, now its clear. I thought everyone from vb6 wanted to stick to win32.
Some of us do. What's wrong with Win32?
Underneath your .Net classes, somewhere, is
an equivalent to Win32 level.
Is it not possible in vb.net to write desktop applications like vb6?
Not very. It strikes me that this point just doesn't
seem to come up in the minds of most .Net users.
If it were not for Microsoft's strategy and tactics then
it would not even occur to anyone to discuss VB vs.
.Net. They're not for the same thing. This whole argument
is happening out of context.
For one good explanation of why .Net doesn't fit well
on the Desktop see Mark Russinovich's article:
http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/04/coming-net-world-im-scared.html
]
My own situation: I taught myself VB, starting
out leaning heavily on OCXs and gradually
learned better, leaner coding. I write "shareware".
I don't make a lot of money at it but I enjoy coding
and I like making something that's useful to others.
My main program is an HTML and script editor
that's quick, light, free of dependencies (other
than the VB6 runtime) and has an installer of
about 800 KB. To my mind it's progress to cut
out the OCX middleman where that's feasible.
VB6 gives me the ability to do that, while still providing
easy methods where and when I want them.
What do I get if I move to .Net? First I lose
about half of my potential customer base right
off the bat, because dial-up users are not going to
download 25 MB runtimes and 12MB specialty
programs. Then I lose another 25% because many
people won't deal with the added complexity of
needing to download and install a runtime. I also lose
any ability to write for Windows 95. So now I've
got maybe 20% of my possible base left.
Beyond that, I'm
getting back into the bloat and inefficiency of objects
that are twice- or thrice-removed from the API. Why
would I want to do that? I like using the API. I like
using Windows. I don't want to be led gradually to some
sort of future X-Box/Vista crap hybrid that won't let me
access the system directly.
(And all of these reasons not to move to .Net don't even
address the common complaints, such as the issue
of easily decompiled code and poor speed, the
problem of continual changes that require new, giant
runtimes, and the question of how .Net will weather
the changes of Avalon, WinFX, etc. The thing is already
in its third rendition and now MS has plans for more
big changes with Vista.)
To my mind it borders on bizarre that so many people
using .Net keep hanging around here like religious
converts (or maybe MS plants) doing a .Net sales
pitch. I wish that people would try to just think for
themselves a bit, do what's best for their own case,
and not worry so much about what everyone else
is up to.
To anyone who says that the Desktop is old
hat and that I should be thinking about web-based
software: Maybe you're right, maybe you're not. Either
way, I have no intention of following such a path using
Microsoft software.