Microsoft .NET pros and cons

Re: For: No-touch/Click-once deployment

Graham — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:34:20 +0100

Yeah, I'm looking for some pro's/con's for ClickOnce. My company is looking into wether we should use it or not. Anyone have some cons? I have found plenty of Pros but I would like to know is there's anything I should know that we might not like.

Re: Against: Large runtime needed

Michael B. — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:32:06 +0100

The fact that the run-time was so huge was one of the reasons I didn't instantly greet .NET with open arms. In fact, when I read about it I was still reeling from the fact that the Visual Basic Run-time (MSVBVM60.DLL) clocked in at 1,354K. An additional reason for my reluctance was OS compatibility. My main development machine was running Win98 (a few years ago), and, well- why the hell should I upgrade? And besides, my target OS was win98 and up. I know that you can do some twiddling and get the .NET framework installed on 98, but that isn't the point.

I'm not saying that the .NET run-time isn't huge for a reason, I think it's pretty cool, the thing is, it's just so all-encompassing, especially for something you call a "Framework". Microsoft giving us this framework and calling it as such is like a father helping a som build a soapbox racer, and. when the son comes in to start, the dad says "Oh, I already got the chassis, axles, Wheels, Frame, steering column, and brakes installed. Here! you can help pump up the tires!". That may seem like a plug for the .NET framework (a programmer only needs to pump up the tires of the program car...), and it is. The real miracle is if such a thing was in a sizable package.

Re: General: Adding Fonts to paint.net

Doug — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:00:35 +0100

Can anyone tell me if more fonts can be added to paint.net and where I would get them. Also if there are simple instructions to install. Thanks

Re: For: No-touch/Click-once deployment

Raj — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 08:10:07 +0100

Hi Devis

It is true that Click once technology is Purely supported by .Net2.0.So if u will think to deploy Your Vb 6.0 by this it seems impossible. Ye, there is a way, u can rewrite your Present Code to vb.net 2005 and deploy the application to by this new feature. It is working fine for my Product as I deployed by this Technology.
Clyde Davies wrote:

> Have you had an opportunity to try out ClickOnce yet? We have
> an old, but incredibly useful, VB6 forms-based application at
> work which needs to be rolled out globally, and one of the
> (other) managers is pushing for it to be redeveloped as a Web
> app. I think this would take far too long, and that we could
> realise the main advantage of a web-based interface - low
> deployment cost - by waiting until we can redevelop it as a
> ClickOnce app. Although I'd like to hear of anyone who has any
> real experience of this technology before I endorse it.
>

Re: For: Linux support with Mono

Tim — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 07:13:05 +0100

Personally I prefer to code in C#; but PHP is vastly more popular and mature - certainly a safer choice.

Re: For: Linux support with Mono

amita — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 06:27:48 +0100

which should prefer PHP or Mono for linux?Tim wrote:

Re: For: Databinding that works

chandu — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 08:54:45 +0100

Q.How do you implement one-to-one, one-to-many and many-to-many relationships while designing tables?

One-to-One relationship can be implemented as a single table and rarely as two tables with primary and foreign key relationships.
One-to-Many relationships are implemented by splitting the data into two tables with primary key and foreign key relationships.
Many-to-Many relationships are implemented using a junction table with the keys from both the tables forming the composite primary key of the junction table.

It will be a good idea to read up a database designing fundamentals text book.

Databinding that works

michael — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 02:36:58 +0100

I have done a lot of databinding in winforms. I found out it works well under normal simple binding. It fails to bind properly when binding to complex business objects.

I have a business object (a class) that has a list of product categories and each category has a list of products.

Now in a standard window application, to show the categories and products, you would have a form with 2 tabs - one for category and one for its products.

But, if you bind the datagrid in the first tab to the category list, and bind the datagrid in second tab product list, the product list won't refresh properly according to the selection of categories in the first tab. You have to rebind the second tab whenever it is activated (opened).

What I mean is datagrid1 is binded to BusObj.CategoryList and datagrid2 is binded to BusObj.CategoryList.ProductList.

Re: For: No-touch/Click-once deployment

raj mishra — Sat, 02 Jul 2005 07:26:39 +0100

Yaa i am verymuch interested for this also Any idea

mmhh...

Lloyd — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 06:53:15 +0100

Not only it exist obfuscator but...
When you buy / use / get your hand on a new API it's difficulty enough to learn with the documentation.

I don't think being decompilabe is a real issue...

Re: For: Automatic memory management increases productivity and reduces errors

viktor — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:45:38 +0100

The shortcoming of the automatic memory management is the performance, e.g. it needs more time to run the program. Especially in the so called component programming language it is worse than commen language(e.g C, C++)Tim wrote:

Re: Against: Expensive to learn

Don Demsak — Mon, 11 Apr 2005 00:26:23 +0100

Yeah, I guess you could write "commerical" applications with Express, but I wouldn't call them enterprise apps. Subtle differences between the 2, but I wouldn't by anything created with Express, or recommend them to my clients (large corporations). Open source, now that is a different beast, since I could use the code and integrate it into an enterprise app.

Re: Against: Expensive to learn

Clyde Davies — Sun, 10 Apr 2005 22:11:00 +0100

It sounds like the old VB 3.0 professional edition to me. You could certainly write a commercial application with that, and almost certainly you can with Express. The limiting factor here is really what other technologies (database servers, application and web servers etc) solo developers have access to, not what Microsoft wants them to play with.

Re: General: Is the .NET Framework good enough?

Clyde Davies — Sun, 10 Apr 2005 22:06:52 +0100

His comments are all so subjective. Take for instance, this one:
'However, Microsoft's announcement that Avalon will be available for other versions of Windows indicates to me that they are not so confident on the uptake of Longhorn, and developers will not write applications for Avalon if they are not convinced that there will be the clients that will run it. '

I'd say it was just as likely that it's the other way around: Microsoft would like companies to take up Longhorn by giving their developers a head start. A significant proportion of developers write business applications , and .NET is very good for this, even with the clunky old Windows Form interface.

Re: Against: Expensive to learn

Don Demsak — Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:49:44 +0000

Check out what the Express Editions can and can't do. You definitely can't write enterprise ready apps with the Express Editions (all the code has to be inline for ASP.Net and you can't compile down to a dll, SQL Express can only use 1G of memory, 1 CPU, 4GB of data, and it does not come with OLAP, Reporting Services, DTS, plus there are a bunch more little things like that, but not everything has been decided so this might be changed before it is released).

Re: Against: Expensive to learn

Clyde Davies — Tue, 22 Mar 2005 18:21:36 +0000

I've just read that the Express editions will be sold at $49. So how does this square with MS' supposed policy of making sure that the 'wrong' people don't have access to the technology?

General: Is the .NET Framework good enough?

Tim — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:29:01 +0000

Long-time .NET author Richard Grimes reckons the Framework is substandard:

On the other hand, he goes over the top in my opinion. My blog entry is here:

Tim

General: Measuring memory usage

Tim — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:26:03 +0000

Other things being equal, .NET applications use more memory than native code apps. To check this out, you need more than just Task Manager. Here's a brief article on the subject, with further links:

Tim

Post Edited (03-10-05 10:26)

Re: For: No-touch/Click-once deployment

gal sont — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:00:03 +0000

I am also interested on deploying this technology in my company and would appreciate some practical experience from anyone who has experience of this technology.
Thanks,
Gal Sont
Software Development Manager

Re: For: No-touch/Click-once deployment

Clyde Davies — Sun, 14 Nov 2004 11:51:26 +0000

Have you had an opportunity to try out ClickOnce yet? We have an old, but incredibly useful, VB6 forms-based application at work which needs to be rolled out globally, and one of the (other) managers is pushing for it to be redeveloped as a Web app. I think this would take far too long, and that we could realise the main advantage of a web-based interface - low deployment cost - by waiting until we can redevelop it as a ClickOnce app. Although I'd like to hear of anyone who has any real experience of this technology before I endorse it.

Re: General: Paint.NET Winform sample

Tim — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 14:11:03 +0000

Here's the url for Paint.Net, including the download for version 1.1 source code:

Tim

Re: Against: The Microsoft factor

Clyde Davies — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:46:01 +0100

A counter-argument is that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Once a language is complete standardised by committees, getting changes done cdan take a very log time. Since parts of .NET are not standardsied, they can evolve more rapidly.

Re: For: Code access security

Clyde Davies — Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:19:56 +0100

I hope that this fature of .NET will address one of the most common complaints about Microsoft's approach to the Internet. The possibility to run an ActiveX component inside a browser is a good thing, in my opinion. It makes developing complex intranet apps much easier. Unfortunately, it leaves the back-door wide open to all kinds of mischief.

I'll be intrigued to see how Longhorn addresses the mixing of browser and code components, and whether it does it much more securely than IE.

Re: Against: Expensive to learn

Ned — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:33:27 +0100

Go Clyde. You are my hero, a modern day Robin Hood. We need more voices like you.

Re: Against: Expensive to learn

Clyde Davies — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:51:32 +0100

But I don't see how this reflects badly upon MS. I use various software products, and if these crash on me I blame the vendor, not the company that wrote the tools that were used to write the products. When that overpriced pile of crap otherwise known as Rational Rose crashes yet again I blame IBM for charging too much and not paying their programmers enough.
I know exactly what you mean about 'a total mess': the Visual Basic Interface from Hell was a common sight a few years ago. But I [b]don't[/b] think this reflects badly upon MS, except in the eyes of those people who think that VB was a bad idea in the first place and 'real' programmers use only C++, or those who have a downer on MS in general.
The market ultimately will decide upon whether a piece of software sells. I often haven't a clue how my software tools were developed. They either work or they don't. I also think that novice programmers should be [b]encouraged[/b] rather than discouraged through pricing policies: if they want to move on to producing software for a living, then let's support them by making the tools more affordable.

Re: Against: Expensive to learn

Don Demsak — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:33:08 +0100

I understand where you are coming from, and I think the way phrased it is the problem. I agree with what MS is doing and here is why. Without some barrier to become an ISV, hobbyist would be selling their wares as if they were ISVs. I don't know about you, but I've seen lots of code by novices trying to sell some new fangled software, and it was a total mess. I would not want to buy such software, and it does not bode well for the MS image if such software exists. I'm educated enough to know to look out for this type of software, but someone like my mom isn't and that is the rub. Sun does not make much money directly from Java for the end user. They make it (mostly) from the sales of their servers, which isn't an end user product. So they don't care about the average end-user, only other companies, which should have the expertise to determine if an ISV has reliable products. MS on the other hand makes most of its money from the end user.

Re: Against: Expensive to learn

Clyde Davies — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:14:40 +0100

Well, if I haven't given a factual basis to my grievances with the pricing policy then I'm surprised. Some people do start up business on a total shoestring. You [b]can[/b] start a business without money, surprisingly. You just can't grow it as quickly. I didn't like having to 'borrow' software then and I don't like doing it now but if it's the only way, well....

I think I took particular exception to your remark 'MS just makes it hard enough to get the stuff for free so that the folks that aren't really going to use it will not get it.' This is just elitist rubbish. Who's to say who should and shouldn't use a software tool? Most people don't use MS Word to anything like its true capability, yet no-one would base a pricing policy for it on whether or not they were competent. We all have to start somewhere. Similarly for software development tools. I started out as a total amateur and now I develop software for a living, and rather well, even if I do say so myself. Access to the right tools is far more important than how much cash you have. You [b]can[/b] start a consultancy/ISV/whatever without the right tools. You just can't progress as quickly.

Re: Against: Expensive to learn

Don Demsak — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:39:25 +0100

You can't start a business without money. It is plain and simple. Take the example of an automechanic. $500 is nothing for a mechanic to spend on his tools to run his business. If he doesn't have the money, he can't start his business and he is a hobbyist (a shadetree mechanic is what we call them). There is nothing wrong with that, they are just not ready to make the jump to running a business.

I'm an independent consultant, and have been for over 13 years. I've had many side companies over the years, so I know how to run a business. Some businesses have a higher barrier to entry than others. Consulting is one of the businesses that have a high barrier to entry (need lots of cash, and not just for tools, but for salaries of your employees). Consulting is also not an ISV. An Independent Software Vendor is one who makes software to sell as an end product. A consulting firm, on the other hand, is one the builds custom software for a client. Their is a big difference between the 2 types of companies, and they are run different ways.

Don't be so quick to flame me, until you get to know me. I don't mind someone giving their side. Just do it with facts, not with beliefs.

Stealing someone's hard work, just so that you can get ahead is not acceptable, on any level. Stealing is stealing whether it is music mp3s are software, there is no gray area.

My blog is www.donxml.com

Re: Against: Expensive to learn

Clyde Davies — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:43:51 +0100

'Any potential ISV that can not afford the $500 to get the full MSDN Universal thru the ISV prgoram isn't ready to be an ISV, they are a hobbyist (IMHO)'.

Oh well, that's that sorted then. Because [b]you[/b] think that only true ISV's have loads of cash knocking around, then according to you people shouldn't shouldn't be allowed to start from nothing. Well, let me inform you of something: I started a consultancy business from [b]nothing[/b], and I begged, stole and borrowed every bit of software I could. I would have [b]preferred[/b] to have done so legitimately, and actually gone out and bought all my tools, but I couldn't. I had to make do with what I could scrounge and this is the situation that many ISV's starting out find themselves in. And it's not just themselves that they have to pay for: they need to have a per-seat license if they intend to bring anyone else on board. It's quite obvious that your opinion remains merely that; hardly one borne out of any real business experience otherwise you wouldn't make such supercilious comments.

Re: Against: Expensive to learn

Don Demsak — Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:26:10 +0100

I think you are mixing different thing. Students, (as per your teaching rant) can get VS.Net for free, if their school joins the MSDN Academic program (you can't say the same for any other Java IDE that is a comerical product). Most schools in NJ (where I am from) are part of the MSDN Academic program (I know because I speak at various student events). As for the Express line, that is not for ISVs, it is just for hobbyist and novices (not college students). Any potential ISV that can not afford the $500 to get the full MSDN Universal thru the ISV prgoram isn't ready to be an ISV, they are a hobbyist (IMHO).