tell more about .net framework

[milind]

tell more about .net framework

EggHeadCafe.com - .NET Developer Portal of Choice
http://www.eggheadcafe.com

 

[Phill W.]

tell more about .net framework

Once upon a time, we VB "Proper" Developers had a comfortable 6[-ish] MB
VB Run-time library that supported our applications. We were happy with
this because, having grown out of deploying our applications on floppy
disks, we could now pull files this size across even relatively slow
network links without /too/ many upsets.

Then, Our Friends in Redmond decided to go all '.Net'y on us and tried
to replace the run-time libraries for /all/ their various development
languages with a single "one-fits-all", run-time that supported all of
them.

This became the (20+ MB) ".Net Framework", although I'm not actually
sure we should call it that any more; ".Net" is old news and Our Friends
in Redmond have dropped it from their product names. Perhaps the
"Common Language RunTime" (CLR) is the more correct term these days -
it's hard to keep pace.

Regards,
Phill W.

 

[Robinson]

Once upon a time, we VB "Proper" Developers had a comfortable 6[-ish] MB
VB Run-time library that supported our applications. We were happy with
this because, having grown out of deploying our applications on floppy
disks, we could now pull files this size across even relatively slow
network links without /too/ many upsets.

VB "proper" developers were developing applications with the handicap of a
truely awful language. VB "proper" was originally developed as a quick way
of prototyping GUI's, not for full blown project work. However, it was so
easy to learn, even monkeys could do it (...cue tumble-weed...) and it sold
like hot-peanuts.

Then, Our Friends in Redmond decided to go all '.Net'y on us and tried to
replace the run-time libraries for /all/ their various development
languages with a single "one-fits-all", run-time that supported all of
them.

Not a bad idea imho.

This became the (20+ MB) ".Net Framework", although I'm not actually sure
we should call it that any more; ".Net" is old news and Our Friends in
Redmond have dropped it from their product names. Perhaps the "Common
Language RunTime" (CLR) is the more correct term these days - it's hard to
keep pace.

Regards,
Phill W.

20mb? That's like 14 3.5" disks! (I haven't seen one of those for 5 years).
Are you still deploying on floppy?

Honestly, I get the impression that you have been in a coma for the last 20
years and have recently woken up (what do you think about mobile phones, the
internet, the microwave oven?). Either that or you are having trouble
picking up such modern software techniques as "object orientation", "type
safety", "generics", "data structures" and are struggling with the .NET
universe. Learn to be a Software Developer first, then specialise in a
language. That is the problem with some VB 6 developers. They never
learned the basic theory behind software and so struggle with each new
language. With the proper foundations, you can code in C, C++, Visual Basic
(6), Modula 2, Oberon, Eiffel, C#, J#, Java, Prolog (a few extra classes for
that one), Assembler and "Z" - all in the same day (if you are a masochist)
and you can choose which language to go with depending on whether it'll fit
on your 3.5" disk.


(I know, I know, I'm happily feeding the trolls today - I apologise, I think
it's my hormones...........)


Robin

 

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

tell more about .net framework

=> <URL:http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/netframework/>

 

[Phill W.]

Once upon a time, we VB "Proper" Developers had a comfortable 6[-ish] MB
VB Run-time library that supported our applications. We were happy with
this because, having grown out of deploying our applications on floppy
disks, we could now pull files this size across even relatively slow
network links without /too/ many upsets.

VB "proper" developers were developing applications with the handicap of a
truely awful language. VB "proper" was originally developed as a quick way
of prototyping GUI's, not for full blown project work. However, it was so
easy to learn, even monkeys could do it (...cue tumble-weed...) and it sold
like hot-peanuts.

It is just /so/ easy to wind people up around here ... they're so
/defensive/ ...

"awful" - OK, so it's not a "real" Algol derived language with curly
things everywhere, but it did the job.

"not for full-blown project work" - it's been keeping me off the streets
for a decade or so ...

"easy to learn" - agreed

"even monkeys could do it" - probably, although it takes a "Real
Programmer" to write some of the truly /abominable/ code I've seen
produced with it. Mind you, you can write badly in /any/ language. Some
actively /encourage/ it - APL, anyone? Oh no; haven't got a keyboard
that supports it anymore.

Not a bad idea imho.

If you only need /one/ run-time for every language and every language
compiles to code that runs on the [one] CLR (there's a film about that,
I'm sure), why have /more/ than one language?

20mb? That's like 14 3.5" disks! (I haven't seen one of those for 5 years).
Are you still deploying on floppy?

Not any more (we grew out of that) although, many year ago, I was
periodically sending off disks to offices across Europe with updates to
our VB suite of programs; with the VB Run-Time already installed there,
it was perfectly possible for us to ship just the executables on disk.

Honestly, I get the impression that you have been in a coma for the last 20
years

Well, maybe through the last couple of slow meetings, but no more than
that ...

Learn to be a Software Developer first,

Nah! Did that a /couple/ of decades ago

then specialise in a language.

Why? I can "find my way" around a couple of dozen and would consider
myself competent in a handful, VB'2003 included.
OK, OK, I'll amdit I haven't got my head around Generics yet. :-(

That is the problem with some VB 6 developers. They never
learned the basic theory behind software

Agreed!! - I just hope I'm /not/ included in their number.
If you want to have a laugh (or, more likely, despair) nip over to
microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion just after a new term/semester
kicks in.

(I know, I know, I'm happily feeding the trolls today - I apologise, I think
it's my hormones...........)

Yum, yum ... ;-)

Regards,
Phill W.

 

[Robinson]

It is just /so/ easy to wind people up around here ... they're so

/defensive/ ...

Recently there have been an awfully large number of trolls on this forum. I
assumed some very large code shop had just made the decision to move to .NET
or something.

"not for full-blown project work" - it's been keeping me off the streets
for a decade or so ...

Yes, but the original intention was a noddy scripting language for GUI
prototyping. It kind-of grew from there because it was easy to learn.

"even monkeys could do it" - probably, although it takes a "Real
Programmer" to write some of the truly /abominable/ code I've seen
produced with it. Mind you, you can write badly in /any/ language. Some
actively /encourage/ it - APL, anyone? Oh no; haven't got a keyboard that
supports it anymore.

True enough.

If you only need /one/ run-time for every language and every language
compiles to code that runs on the [one] CLR (there's a film about that,
I'm sure), why have /more/ than one language?

Well, consider your runtime to be your processor and your common language to
be assembler. Is it useful to build new languages on top? Aren't they all
just expressing the underlying microcode in different ways? Where is the
harm? They are just providing paths of least resistance for existing
developers to get skilled-up.

Not any more (we grew out of that) although, many year ago, I was
periodically sending off disks to offices across Europe with updates to
our VB suite of programs; with the VB Run-Time already installed there, it
was perfectly possible for us to ship just the executables on disk.

Exchange your VB Run-Time with your .NET run-time and what is the
difference?

Honestly I'm not a fanboy just for the hell of it. I spent 10 years writing
with MFC, C++ and VB 6. The productivity boost I've had from .NET is quite
amazing. There is maybe one major thing that bugs me about .NET and that is
the adequacy of interop with COM, particularly out of process COM
components. The inability to embed OLE controls/Office documents natively
has also been something of a disaster, although interop with their
interfaces is fine.




Robin

 

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Phill,

Once we had a proper 2Kb computer, it needed no OS at all.

Some people did invent the disk and they made an DOS.

Maybe you should try to find a job again on such 2Kb computer.

I am glad that only a small part of the current disk are occupied by the OS,
from which is the framework a normal part.

I do not even need anymore seperated runtimes from the floppy time, because
those kind of things are build in that OS now.

Regards,

Cor

tell more about .net framework

Once upon a time, we VB "Proper" Developers had a comfortable 6[-ish] MB
VB Run-time library that supported our applications. We were happy with
this because, having grown out of deploying our applications on floppy
disks, we could now pull files this size across even relatively slow
network links without /too/ many upsets.

Then, Our Friends in Redmond decided to go all '.Net'y on us and tried to
replace the run-time libraries for /all/ their various development
languages with a single "one-fits-all", run-time that supported all of
them.

This became the (20+ MB) ".Net Framework", although I'm not actually sure
we should call it that any more; ".Net" is old news and Our Friends in
Redmond have dropped it from their product names. Perhaps the "Common
Language RunTime" (CLR) is the more correct term these days - it's hard to
keep pace.

Regards,
Phill W.