The pros and cons of .NET

[Cor Ligthert]

Nick,

A bad message from me (as it "seems" invited) where I did not say he did,
however I should not have done that, that should not be my style.

You are rigth.

Cor

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Where does C++ enter into this?

Is C++ a Net program? Does it needs always a runtimer, in my opinion not,
however when I am wrong in that, correct me because I thought that I had
always readed that it could be building on its roots and that Visual C++
..NET 2003 continues to enable developers to build entirely unmanaged
Windows-based applications and components. However maybe I understood that
wrong.

But your answer was more misleading than Tim's web page, in my view.

I am not so much interested in your view, that I know already so long.

For the rest did I not write (exept in the first message before you state it
again) nothing else in the whole thread than what you wrote in your summary.

Cor

 

[Nick Malik]

I, too, find complete agreement with each of the statements in your message,
Jon.

--- Nick

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

With your previous message was something strange for me, when I answered it,
the quoting lines where gone, so I had to add all > again and changed the
text even more times than normally, I saw afterwards as well some unreadable
text.
Righto.


In a short line, I have not any discussion with Tim, so there is no need for
you to do his advocasy.

If any one poster insults another and gives incorrect information, I
see no reason why I *shouldn't* comment on that - or why anyone else
shouldn't.

You did, I can show you that, however not in this thread. But I am glad to
hear that it is not your intention and I do not start showing this again, it
is enough now.

Um, I really don't do that, and haven't done that.

When people start helping me against other regular (by instance you) and it
is with flaming messages and I know those people from other newsgroup, I
tell them that I can do it alone and that it is not a personal fight.

If I thought I'd in any way encouraged people to join the thread just
to attack you, I'd stop that immediately. I didn't and I wouldn't
however.

That is why I told "the Context", the customers for dotNet programs will
have/know that.

I think that's an assumption. A lot of users don't know what .NET is
and shouldn't really have to, beyond "something I need to run this
program I'm interested in".

(And as addition from me, those who want to have programs for free would
have to download the framework, but those are mostly very well known on
Internet and have fast connections)

Some do, some don't.

Do you think that in the case of your parents is no solution?

No - but I think it *is* a legitimate cause for concern. If there are
two programs which accomplish roughly the same thing, but one requires
an extra 23MB download, many users (myself included!) would probably go
for the one which doesn't require the extra download.

It's not a showstopper for most cases, but it *is* a point against
..NET.

I did not, when you had done that I had used more definitive words, you
started showing me that it was a part of the Framework, which I am all the
time telling in this thread and therefore not quoted, because there was
nothing to disagree for me.

You wrote in a message replying to me:

<quote>
You was telling that a Net program could run with only the CLR
installed and that the rest was not needed.
</quote>

Now, I never said that at all. You've been demanding that people
apologise for misrepresenting their words, and yet you did exactly that
when you wrote the words quoted above.

And I have all the time after that message said "extra" or pointed to that
message from me. I have nowhere disagreed the statement that a runtime is
needed,

You mean *after* your first post?

I disagreed all the time that the framework== a runtime.

But no-one was claiming that!

I have all the time disagreed that an "extra" runtime was needed.

And again, no-one was claiming that either.

I knew that maybe you can think nextime that most people involved in this
newsgroups do that as well.

That's not a benefit of the doubt you gave readers of Tim's website
though, is it?

That was in a very quick situation from all those messages. Extra only
because the context I wrote it had more text than your quoting behind the
comma of the text. You can disagree with me if that was completly clear and
than I most probably had agreed with you, therefore in a very early moment
that text "Extra".

Again, I really don't know what you're trying to say here - but as for
it being early in the thread, I can't find it from you before your post
at 14:15 (on Sept 23rd), after we'd had several posts back and forth.

In my way of argumenting is only the last statement valid and I stated it
directly when you told the first time that that text I used could be
confusing, what was very quick.

In normal debate, I believe it's better to explicitly state when you
retract a previous position. It makes things much clearer.

That was a text that by correcting went completly out of structure a new
one.

I have frequently told you that you threath me in your messages as a newbie
and try to catch me on words, that is anoying for me.

I don't treat you like a newbie. I treat you like I treat anyone else
answering questions. When I see someone give an answer I disagree with,
I post that I disagree with it. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Are you seriously suggesting I should let statements like the one in
your first post go without correction?

I try to threath everybody on the knowledge they show too me (where
in I make sometimes mistakes by the way).

I don't believe you do, actually. For instance, your reply to my first
post (with its rhetorical question) was:

<quote>
I am glad I can help you with your question. It stands for Runtime in
the word Common Language Runtime.
</quote>

My question was obviously rhetorical - and yet you treated it as if I
were a newbie posting it.

Yes, I make mistakes and have no problem to admit that, however you
make sometimes statements that are often so wrong, that it is almost
embarassing to answer those and you are not able to admit that.

I admit when I'm wrong. You should have immediately admitted you were
wrong when people (not just me, I hasten to add) called attention to
your mistaken first post. Instead, you chose to try to argue the point
and tried to make out that people had said things they hadn't.

You write "you've been the one insulting people in this thread, for the most
part, right from your very first post". I probably make a lot of writting
errors in your eyes, however i can read English as well as Dutch. This
intents that all my messages where insulting.

No it doesn't. It says that you're the one who's been doing most of the
insulting in the thread. That could be true even if you'd only written
a few insulting posts.

In my opinion it was only the first one that could be threathed as
that, although it was not directly meant as that. And some where I
threathed you with the same style of messages as you were sending to
me.

I think we'll have to disagree on that. I didn't start saying people
were lying, or that they'd invite others onto a thread just to flame
others, or that they'd deliberately put words into people's mouths.
Here's another post of yours, in its entirety. Are you going to deny
that it's insulting?

Let me state this clearly, you are reading too much into my
messages. I suggest you take some time off and get some rest.

One advise, print all what you wrote, go to a mirror and read your
messages. Then you find as last this text above. And than you look in
the mirror.

However probably that is for you again a message you don't understand.

Cor

What do you think what that message of you above is, a non insulting
one? And the thread is full of those from you.

If you thought my first response was an insult, you should admit that
your first response to me was also an insult - going against your point
about always treating people with the knowledge they show you.

I never claimed a runtime wasn't needed, I consequently only claimed that
the Net was not only a runtime. As you should know now from previous arguing
between us I never take side steps in discussions.

You *did* claim a runtime wasn't needed - in your first message! And
no-one has claimed that .NET is only a runtime. You've been arguing
against a straw man.

However now you stated that other message, I can say tht it is possible to
get a kind of runtime to run dotNet programs, but that is not what I suspect
that Tim means. Nick stated that in his message, I somewhere have the link
to that, however I assume you have that link as well.

Not sure what link you're talking about here, but I don't think it's
particularly important.

You can do that, however than not directly in a way, which looks if you try
to show that I do not know those simple things, it can be that I wrote it
not that well maybe, or that it was against a Newbie, where it is sometimes
better to use other words. (This is not the first time I write this too
you).

When you state things like "no runtime is needed to run dotNet
programs" you're the one making it look like you don't know those
simple things.

And am I than free to do it too you, without getting a complete C# gang on
my neck?

(No Gerry, Bill, Miha, Nick, Nick and others I do not mean you with the last
statement)

I'm neither going to encourage people to join threads nor discourage
them. But please *do* correct me when I make mistakes, and we can
either debate whether or not they are mistakes, or I'll just admit them
when I agree with you.

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Is C++ a Net program?

C++ isn't a program at all - but I'm confused as to how C++ has
suddenly become the context I should have been reading your messages
in.

Does it needs always a runtimer, in my opinion not, however when I am wrong
in that, correct me because I thought that I had
always readed that it could be building on its roots and that Visual C++
.NET 2003 continues to enable developers to build entirely unmanaged
Windows-based applications and components. However maybe I understood that
wrong.

Managed C++ programs still require runtimes. Most unmanaged C++
programs require runtime libraries, but are content to use the one
supplied with the OS. (Some still ship the version of msvcrt.dll they
were built with, to try to avoid versioning problems.)

I am not so much interested in your view, that I know already so long.

For the rest did I not write (exept in the first message before you state it
again) nothing else in the whole thread than what you wrote in your summary.

I'll take it you agree with my summary then. That looks like all of us.
Good. At least we're agreed on the basic technological facts, if not on
who was being rude or misquoting etc.

 

[Cor Ligthert]

But no-one was claiming that!

What where they than claiming

You have told often that I was wrong when I stated that there was no "extra"
runtime needed. What do you than mean?

That's not a benefit of the doubt you gave readers of Tim's website
though, is it?

I do not understand that. What do you mean, again that constructivily
misquoting from you without text before the comma?

Again, I really don't know what you're trying to say here - but as for
it being early in the thread, I can't find it from you before your post
at 14:15 (on Sept 23rd), after we'd had several posts back and forth.

Several where exactly 4, from your text we could, while counting this is not
the problem more.

To show them.

In your first message you did wanted to know what was the R in CLR and I
explained it directly to you.

In the second one you told

And you answered with
<To be clear: there *is* a runtime needed with .NET programs: the Common
Language Runtime>.

Where I replied with

However that is not an installable runtimer.

And you replied in your thirth message with
<It certainly *is* an installable runtime.>

And than in your fourth message you came with that text misquoted text from
my first message, which I directly corrected by telling that in the context
was meant "extra", quit quick I assume.

I post that I disagree with it. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Are you seriously suggesting I should let statements like the one in
your first post go without correction?

You did not tell you did disagree with me, you asked me a question and I
helped you.
Next time I should write that it is better to start a new thread for that.

<quote>
I am glad I can help you with your question. It stands for Runtime in
the word Common Language Runtime.
</quote>

Than you should be more clear that this is not a question from you, you want
me to threath you as somebody else while you write yourself in this message
that you threath everybody the same.

My question was obviously rhetorical - and yet you treated it as if I
were a newbie posting it.

Why is your question obviously rhetorical and my first answer not.

I admit when I'm wrong.

Can you show me a message where that is done without more words to tell that
it was basicly the fault of the original poster than the admiting it self? I
am really curious about that.

No it doesn't. It says that you're the one who's been doing most of the
insulting in the thread. That could be true even if you'd only written
a few insulting posts.

I think I do not understand the word "insult", what is that message above.
It is not an insult, however an .........................................

Almost every message from you in this thread has this kind of text.

I think we'll have to disagree on that. I didn't start saying people
were lying, or that they'd invite others onto a thread just to flame
others, or that they'd deliberately put words into people's mouths.

Who has more times, when we were arguing, written a complete message what "I
wrote", in which I completly did not recognize my words and than wrote "I
would like to know what other people think about this".

One advise, print all what you wrote, go to a mirror and read your
messages. Then you find as last this text above. And than you look in
the mirror.

However probably that is for you again a message you don't understand.

Cor

Wich part do you mean from JD or my answer. In both I cannot see any
insulting.
From what are you insulting me this time? You can say that JD as I are both
not using very nice words, however I do not insult him and he does not
insult me. JD had written in the previous message that he probably did not
understand me, so why can I not repeat that? Nothing insulting in in my
opinion.

If you thought my first response was an insult, you should admit that
your first response to me was also an insult - going against your point
about always treating people with the knowledge they show you.

Did I said anywhere that your first qeuestion to me was an insult, the above
one that is an insult.

For the second part of this answer had I a very nice text, Nick pointed me
on it, that I should not do those things, not my style, so I stuffed it.

You *did* claim a runtime wasn't needed - in your first message! And
no-one has claimed that .NET is only a runtime. You've been arguing
against a straw man.

I claimed all the time that there was no "extra" runtime needed because that
is in the framework, how many times do I have to write this. And you are all
the time denying that.

And use all the time a text you misquoted constructively, because you let
it start behind a comma as if it was a complete sentence. (Before you do
write that, the time you did not use it that way was not to proof I had
written as you state now, however that I insulted Tim, so you knew the
complete text)

I'm neither going to encourage people to join threads nor discourage
them. But please *do* correct me when I make mistakes, and we can
either debate whether or not they are mistakes, or I'll just admit them
when I agree with you.

I showed you how you do that.

Cor

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

What where they than claiming

That your first post was wrong.

You have told often that I was wrong when I stated that there was no "extra"
runtime needed. What do you than mean?

You tell me - that was your own sentence!

I haven't disagreed with the idea that no runtime is needed beyond the
one in the framework.

I do not understand that. What do you mean, again that constructivily
misquoting from you without text before the comma?

I mean that you (supposedly) gave *me* the benefit of the doubt about
knowing what a runtime is, but you assumed that the readers of Tim's
website would get confused.

Several where exactly 4, from your text we could, while counting this is not
the problem more.

4 each way, yes. I count 8 posts in total as "several".

You did not tell you did disagree with me, you asked me a question and I
helped you.

Look back it again and see if you *really, really* thought I was asking
for help, that I didn't know what the "R" stood for. I'd be interested
to know whether any other person who read the post thought I was
actually asking for help. I doubt it.

Next time I should write that it is better to start a new thread for that..

You really should look back at posts before talking about them. Here's
my first post on the thread:

The fact of the "Ägainst a large runtime needed", is really for laughing,
there is no runtimer needed with dotNet programs.

It shows that you are not know what you are writing.

I really don't think so. What do you think the "R" bit of CLR stands
for?

True, there are linkers like the Salamander one, but they're not in
wide use and have their own downsides.
</quote>

In what way is "I really don't think so" *not* disagreeing with you?

Than you should be more clear that this is not a question from you,
you want me to threath you as somebody else while you write yourself
in this message that you threath everybody the same.

(The word is treat, not threath by the way.)

I wrote the message just as I would have written it to anyone else.
Rhetorical questions aren't that uncommon.

Why is your question obviously rhetorical and my first answer not.

Could you tell me exactly what you mean by an answer being rhetorical?

Can you show me a message where that is done without more words to tell that
it was basicly the fault of the original poster than the admiting it self? I
am really curious about that.

Sure. Here are three examples. I can find more if you really want...

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=MPG.1b65c79444aac3b298af18%
40msnews.microsoft.com

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=MPG.1b7bf49a46b75aab98b0d4%
40msnews.microsoft.com

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=MPG.1b4236a8271a474998ad38%
40msnews.microsoft.com

I think I do not understand the word "insult", what is that message above..
It is not an insult, however an .........................................

Almost every message from you in this thread has this kind of text.

I think we'll have to disagree on that.

Who has more times, when we were arguing, written a complete message what"I
wrote", in which I completly did not recognize my words and than wrote "I
would like to know what other people think about this".

When you've said you didn't recognise your words, I've shown you
exactly where I was getting them from.

Wich part do you mean from JD or my answer. In both I cannot see any
insulting.
From what are you insulting me this time? You can say that JD as I are both
not using very nice words, however I do not insult him and he does not
insult me. JD had written in the previous message that he probably did not
understand me, so why can I not repeat that? Nothing insulting in in my
opinion.

If you really don't think that was an insulting message, we're clearly
not going to agree. You implied that he was a hypocrit *and* that he
wasn't even bright enough to understand the implication in the message.
To me, those are both insults.

Did I said anywhere that your first qeuestion to me was an insult

My mistake - I thought you had said you'd thought it was an insult, but
you hadn't.

the above one that is an insult.

Sorry, I'm now somewhat lost. Which one do you think was an insult
then? (Either quote it or give the message ID.)

For the second part of this answer had I a very nice text, Nick pointed me
on it, that I should not do those things, not my style, so I stuffed it.
Okay.


I claimed all the time that there was no "extra" runtime needed because that
is in the framework, how many times do I have to write this. And you are all
the time denying that.

I'm not denying it. I'm just saying that it's incorrect to say that you
never claimed a runtime wasn't needed - in your first message, you did.
You later corrected yourself to explain what you *meant* to say, but
that doesn't mean you *never* said the mistaken version to start with.

And use all the time a text you misquoted constructively, because you let
it start behind a comma as if it was a complete sentence. (Before you do
write that, the time you did not use it that way was not to proof I had
written as you state now, however that I insulted Tim, so you knew the
complete text)

The part before the comma in no way changes the meaning as far as I can
see.

I showed you how you do that.

I don't need anyone to show me how to admit mistakes.

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

<snip>

My wife's just come home, which seems like a good time for me to bow
out of this thread. By all means reply, of course, but don't expect
another reply back. I don't think anything positive has been coming out
of the last few posts in this subthread anyway

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Jon,

You think you can stop while you have made this insult about me in this
newsgroup which you completly created yourself.
\\\
You implied that he was a hypocrit *and* that he
wasn't even bright enough to understand the implication in the message.
To me, those are both insults.
///
I never have written in this newsgroup that anybody is a hypocrit.

When you try to translate a message where I say to somebody (who gives an
advice to me to take that advice as well for himself by looking in the
mirror), than that is not telling that he is a hypocrit, just to let him
check his own words because he maybe thought he wrote something else than he
thought he did, that is exactly the oposite of telling that someone is a
hypocrit.

JD was telling at the end that his intentions where maybe not clearly
stated. So JD and I misunderstood each other, so what.

And you are telling that you never write text from which you tells that I
wrote it in this newsgroup which I never did.

Cor

 

[Raymond Lewallen]

I agree with your statements. I've been reading this thread for days now
and its just wearing me out. I think that the language barrier is causing
some miscommunications issues here and that the entire thread just got way
out of control.

Raymond Lewallen
http://rlewallen.blogspot.com

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Raymond,

Yes, maybe it is a language question. Offline this discussion went on, Jon
has accused me in this threads that I have called JD a hypocrite, what I did
not. In a message he told, what in his eyes a hypocrite is and would place
that in the newsgroup. However with that he would tell again in the same
message that in his eyes I was insulting people in this newsgroup. I told
that he insulted me with that however in his opinion he was not.

The definition of a hypocrite that Jon uses is - someone that tells people
off for something they're guilty of themselves.

He told to set that message in the newsgroup and ask people here if that was
the right definition in his opinion. It did look fair to me to leave out
that insulting message and as well to put in the definition I use. He has
refused that.

The definition of a hypocrite that I use is - someone who plays a part;
especially, one who, for the purpose of winning approbation of favor, puts
on a fair outside seeming; one who feigns to be other and better than he is;
a false pretender to virtue or piety; one who simulates virtue or piety.

You speak English probably, tell me which definition is in you opinion the
right one.

I cannot remember me that I told that somebody is a hypocrite because my
philosophy of live does not allow me that, me is not given the right to
condemn; however Jon is consequently in this newsgroup telling, "What Cor
did" and that is something I do not like.

However he wrote as well that he will not correct anymore all my
occasionally errors in this newsgroup, what he told is a pity for al
visitors.

Maybe this gives a view on what is happening

Cor

 

[Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]]

Raymond,

Yes, maybe it is a language question. Offline this discussion went on, Jon
has accused me in this threads that I have called JD a hypocrite, what I
did not. In a message he told, what in his eyes a hypocrite is and would
place that in the newsgroup. However with that he would tell again in the
same message that in his eyes I was insulting people in this newsgroup. I
told that he insulted me with that however in his opinion he was not.

The definition of a hypocrite that Jon uses is - someone that tells people
off for something they're guilty of themselves.

He told to set that message in the newsgroup and ask people here if that
was the right definition in his opinion. It did look fair to me to leave
out that insulting message and as well to put in the definition I use. He
has refused that.

The definition of a hypocrite that I use is - someone who plays a part;
especially, one who, for the purpose of winning approbation of favor, puts
on a fair outside seeming; one who feigns to be other and better than he
is; a false pretender to virtue or piety; one who simulates virtue or
piety.

Actually, they are pretty much the same thing, just one uses overly flowerly
language(which, honestly, isn't the best way for a non-native speaker to
understand a word. That definition would be overly done by the standards of
any native speaker, let alone someone still learning the language). In your
definition, "someone who plays a part" is basically someone who pretends to
be something he is not. In this case he is stating that someone who scolds
another for doing something he does himself is a hypocrite.

He is right.

A better definition would be the root word, hypocrisy:
"The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not
hold or possess; falseness." [quoted from The American Heritage Dictionary
on dictionary.com]

A hypocrite would be someone who performs an act of hypocrisy.

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Just to correct and comment on a couple of things...

Yes, maybe it is a language question. Offline this discussion went on, Jon
has accused me in this threads that I have called JD a hypocrite, what I did
not. In a message he told, what in his eyes a hypocrite is and would place
that in the newsgroup. However with that he would tell again in the same
message that in his eyes I was insulting people in this newsgroup. I told
that he insulted me with that however in his opinion he was not.

The definition of a hypocrite that Jon uses is - someone that tells people
off for something they're guilty of themselves.

That's very true - thanks for putting it well, Cor. (I know it's easy
to misrepresent someone's definitions in this kind of situation. I
appreciate how you did it here.)

He told to set that message in the newsgroup and ask people here if that was
the right definition in his opinion.

I didn't. I don't really think it's worth bothering the newsgroup with.

It did look fair to me to leave out
that insulting message and as well to put in the definition I use. He has
refused that.

I'm not entirely sure what I suppoedly refused to do here. What I
*have* refused to do is change my mind on whether or not I think Cor's
message to JD was insulting. That doesn't mean anyone else has to think
it's insulting, but I do.

However he wrote as well that he will not correct anymore all my
occasionally errors in this newsgroup, what he told is a pity for al
visitors.

No I didn't. To quote my mail:

<quote>
I would say I'll just ignore your messages on the newsgroup from now
on, but that would occasionally lead to errors going uncorrected, which
is not a situation I like.
</quote>

In other words, I can see the advantages of just ignoring your
messages, but as that could lead to uncorrected errors, I won't.

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Daniel,

Actually, they are pretty much the same thing, just one uses overly
flowerly language(which, honestly, isn't the best way for a non-native
speaker to understand a word.

Right therefore I used a dictionary on internet

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/hypocrite

I will not pretend that I can write those sentences just without that

A better definition would be the root word, hypocrisy:
"The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does
not hold or possess; falseness." [quoted from The American Heritage
Dictionary on dictionary.com]

Right, that was the other approach which I had seen as well, however the
word "falseness" is in my opinion the main difference what is not in Jon's
definition.

A hypocrite would be someone who performs an act of hypocrisy.

Exactly, we have used the same source however because that Jon is from
Brittain I did not wanted use an American one and did not check that (and
see now the otherone is as well an American, so maybe there is a difference
between the Brittain and World meaning of the word hypocricy). And as I
wrote than it is a matter of language.



Cor

 

[Slobodan Brcin \(eMVP\)]

Cor,

The fact of the "Ägainst a large runtime needed", is really for laughing,
there is no runtimer needed with dotNet programs.

It shows that you are not know what you are writing.

I HATE .NET FRAMEWORK, AND IT IS NOT A THING FOR LAUGHING

Sorry yelling this out was kind a cool and used just to get your attention. I actually avoid to use .NET when ever it is possible.
And not for reasons that I do not like .NET but because of sad fact that installing it in best case doubles my XPe size.

I read trough most of thread replies, but there are too many flames to concentrate correctly on the problem.
Call IT as you like ".NET Framework"="the stuff installed by dotnetfx.exe"="the .NET system component"="Runtime"="Runtimer"=".NET
Framework Component"=".NET installed stuff"="behemoth" or just "thing" is irrelevant to the fact how must space and resources this
"thing" actually need to start working.

Please note that English is not my primary language and that I want to give you some facts from other point of view, so all please
do not flame and disregard everything that I said above this sentence since it is my gibberish (probably caused by an hour or so of
reading this thread).

--------------------------- Introduction ------------------------------
I accidentally stumbled on this thread and real reason why I wrote following message is to give you .NET guys some insight what is
the real impact of .NET Framework that you are usually not aware when working with general purpose OS-es.

I come from world of hardware devices that use limited resources and custom OS-es or/and Windows XP Embedded.
Windows XP Embedded uses same file/driver binaries as Windows XP Professional but only thing is that MS broke Windows XP Pro to more
than 10000 pieces called "components".
".NET Framework" is just one of 10000+ components.
XPe can be in size from 5MB to over the full XP Prof size.
5MB is only kernel mode with few drivers.
40-60MB contain Win32 subsystem, GUI, and most of drivers required for computer to work.
130+ MB can support Internet Explorer.

To understand why is this important you must know that there are "stand alone" components with no dependency on other components and
most of higher level components will bring other components to our image.

Now consider our "behemoth" it will add how much additional binaries? 10MB, 20MB perhaps 30 MB, answer is who knows but it can be
really, really huge.
Smallest barely working image with ".Net Framework" is ~163 MB. Now you might ask how come when I started with 40-60 MB + 30 MB for
..NetFW we should be less than 90MB.
Main problem is that ".NETFW "application"" need much more that Win32 subsystem and basic drivers and services to work.

For more info about XPe:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/embedded/usewinemb/xp/

---------------------- Problem that we XPe developers face ---------------------

We might have small cool third party application "it could be written by someone from this NG". It could do some very simple job, no
matter what, and we want to integrate it in our XPe image for distribution, or even worse we could have already deployed XPe image
and user want to download use your tool written on .NET.

We can include .NET and make it work. We would need bigger CF (Compact Flash 256 MB instead of 64 MB) medium but it would work.
Problem with customers that do not have .NET preinstalled would be that they:
1. There is no possible way for them to install .NET Framework even if they would obtain installation since their OS would miss many
binaries required by .NET that exist in XP Home/Pro, Server.
2. They would not have enough space to do that, or that space would be required for log files.


----------------- Problem with updates
..Net Framework 1.1 exist for very long time. But we got it componentized few months ago.
DirectX 9.0 component will be available in few months with package called Windows XP Embedded SP2. (This should give you idea how it
is easy to implement new cool features in os )

------------------ What about Longhorn Embedded
MS gave us some hints that if everything go well we will be able to make working Longhorn image in less than 32 MB with Win32
subsystem present. Adding even some future optimized .NET framework would rise image size above 120 MB for sure.



If you were able to read up to this point then you would know why .NET FW gives me the nightmares. Not because I do not like it, or
because I would not use it, but more because of fact that it with necessary support will consume too much space on medium that is
not available without additional increased cost to hardware device.


Best regards,
Slobodan Brcin
Windows XP Embedded MVP

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Slobodan,

It was not needed to make that long message. From the start I did agree with
you.

(To tell first, there are some dotNet newsgroups from which I know that they
are very international by instance VBNet and ASPNET. This one as well
however a little bit less than the first two mentioned, so don't bother
about language, most people (not all) active in those newsgroups are trying
to understand what is meant, however not what is exactly written as if it is
a mathimatical language).

I see and I keep seeing the Net framework as an extention to the OS. And
there start your problem, more and more becomes Microsoft OS's to be
multipurpose.

It started with the first MS-Dos which was as far as I remember me a kind of
16 bits CP/m made by the makers of that and started with SB-80.

But Microsoft did something extra than, they added also a for those times
nice texteditor, a program language (Basic) and more of that stuff. Which
where delivered as a kind or real as was it an part of the OS.

Did you think that 2% of the users than knew what was basicly the (D)OS as
was in the past, a kernel, a processor dependend Bios an UI and and an IO
system.

For me the framework is between those two worlds, partially the CLR is not a
part of the classic OS however there are parts in my opinion what can be
seen as more classic OS.

And now we come to your problem. This is made to fit on every computer.

I started with Microsoft software real in the beginning of that and it seems
than very much Deja Vu, because I had seen the evolution from the mainframe.

There was no real winner in the microprocessor world until there was a
special operating system good for the public for that. And that was that
Ms-Dos which was added with extra functionality.

Maybe we will see that again with the part of business you are in, which is
of course completly new and have to be set again. When I was you I would
going on write the things as you write now, maybe it will make some people
attent on the problem.

That can be inside Microsoft or maybe someother company, which maybe can
take in your kind of business the same role as IBM has/had in the mainframe
world and Microsoft now in the microprocessor world. IBM did not succeed to
get in the microproccessor world. Maybe Microsoft can, however I think that
than they have to listen to positive critical people like you.

Just my thought,

Cor


However here we start both to become a little bit philosofic.

 

[Guest]

He looka-lika man.

Just to correct and comment on a couple of things...



That's very true - thanks for putting it well, Cor. (I know it's easy
to misrepresent someone's definitions in this kind of situation. I
appreciate how you did it here.)


I didn't. I don't really think it's worth bothering the newsgroup with.


I'm not entirely sure what I suppoedly refused to do here. What I
*have* refused to do is change my mind on whether or not I think Cor's
message to JD was insulting. That doesn't mean anyone else has to think
it's insulting, but I do.



No I didn't. To quote my mail:

<quote>
I would say I'll just ignore your messages on the newsgroup from now
on, but that would occasionally lead to errors going uncorrected, which
is not a situation I like.
</quote>

In other words, I can see the advantages of just ignoring your
messages, but as that could lead to uncorrected errors, I won't.

 

[Guest]

Is C++ a Net program? Does it needs always a runtimer, in my opinion not,
however when I am wrong in that, correct me because I thought that I had
always readed that it could be building on its roots and that Visual C++
..NET 2003 continues to enable developers to build entirely unmanaged
Windows-based applications and components. However maybe I understood that
wrong.

Just because you compile something with Visual Studio .NET, it doesn't make
it a .NET program.

The basic definition of a .NET application is one running on the CLR,
whether it be C#, VB or managed C++. Therefore the statement that "A runtime
is required to run any .NET program" is correct.

C++ apps not using the CLR (i.e. Unmanaged C++) are more correctly described
as Win32 or MFC apps.