Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




The bad thing about .NET is...

...you can't search for it! Both Google and AltaVista strip the period off and give you every page that contains the term "net." That's a lot of pages.

Fleeno Glarkenstein
Wednesday, May 15, 2002

Put double quotes around .net

Chris
Wednesday, May 15, 2002

"The" bad thing, huh? Heh.

Even though Joel calls people like me "neat freaks," I still can't stomach the idea of that huge a run time. In spite of what Joel claims, load times on bulky software are indeed slower, and memory-hog software does cause more paging and slows me down even more. All my machines are extremely fast, modern machines, and I notice definite load and GUI reaction-time differences on large apps.

Unlike Joel, I don't measure my disk space in cost-per-megabyte. I measure it in how long it takes me to install, back up, defragment, and run, and all this bloated software costs me that time.

I cannot believe that big .NET runtime isn't going to make the problem even worse.

I also have a problem with constantly-changing libraries when the old ones work correctly, but that's another post altogether.

Troy King
Wednesday, May 15, 2002

20 Megabytes is big? I remember using statically linked xwindows crap in 1989 that was almost that big. I heard a rumor that computers have gotten more memory since then!

b
Wednesday, May 15, 2002

b - Yup, they have, but I don't like to wait for it to load any more now than I did ten years ago.

You know, it's programmers like you that make my machine slow... you assume that your app will be the only app running, so you might as well use whatever resources are convenient for you rather than trying to reasonably minimize the load you place on a machine.

Troy King
Thursday, May 16, 2002

The bloat and slowness may be a loss to seasoned Windows programmers, but is a win for those of us who might be interested in coding for that platform.  The rumors of all the little insanities of Windows coding, is enough to keep many programmers away.  Breaking reverse compatibility is the best thing that could have happened.

Tight resource usage is at the very end of my wishlist.  I want correctness and consistency first.

Greg Neumann
Thursday, May 16, 2002

>Tight resource usage is at the very end of my
>wishlist. I want correctness and consistency first.

Yeah, well we don't have that either.

Change FOr The Sake Of Change Sucks
Thursday, May 16, 2002

chris, if you can tell me the difference between the results of
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=.net&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&hl=en&meta=
(without quotes)
and
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&q=%22.net%22&meta=
(with quotes)
i'd be interested. they look the same to me.

nope
Thursday, May 16, 2002

I always use the term dotnet in my queries.

On google.uk:
Results 1 - 10 of about 94,000. Search took 0.09 seconds

That's too many results anyway.
"dotnet" is a good way to filter groups.google.com.
You will catch all the dotnet newsgroups.

.peter
Thursday, May 16, 2002

wow, you are correct.  I think that is a bug in google's search algorithm.  I was under the impression that doing an exact phrase search would actually do an EXACT phrase search.  Maybe this thread should be "The bad thing about google."

Chris
Thursday, May 16, 2002

The one thing that amazes me about .NET is that Microsoft has finally managed to kill any advantages of using C/C++ versus VB for performance. Just as I was attempting for the umpteenth time to learn C's bass-ackwards syntax, ATL, MFC amd COM stuff (compared to my fav pascal/delphi - for the purist in me).

Does having every computer language known to man compile down to a common run-time really accomplish anything? With all the things they could have done for the industry, and for the Studio, why flatten the language choices?

I cant tell if they made C slower or VB faster!  hehe.

Besides, Ive been using VFP as a VB
replacement for years, still do.

Curious....

George Walkey
Thursday, May 16, 2002

chris - yes, i had noticed that before some things just get stripped out of searches no matter what you do (it seems). bug or deliberate feature, i don't know, maybe sometimes it is useful but it would be nice sometime for it to do exactly what you say rather than what it thinks you meant.

george - i was under the impression that "every" computer language compiled down to "a" common runtime already (for values of "every" and "a" less than 100%), being the instructions that the processor(s) run. its just one more layer of abstraction from the hardware as i understand it (i have not read that much about it, so i could well be wrong).

nope
Thursday, May 16, 2002

I've found the best way to Google for .Net stuff is to be specific - e.g., VB.Net, Microsoft.Net, etc.  Always put it in quotes, and you'll get good results.

The ironic one is "C#".  Searching the MS Knowledge Base with the "All Microsoft Search Topics" option selected yields a big fat nada.

Nick Hebb
Thursday, May 16, 2002

Double quotes doesn't work with Google.

That's the bad thing about Google. There's a bad thing about everything!

Fleeno Glarkenstein
Thursday, May 16, 2002

I'm curious as to the speed of the common code generated under .NET.  I happen to like java, but the speed has always been nagging at me in the back of my mind.  I'm particularly interested in how a c/c++ GUI will run under .NET.  Anyone have good results with this?

Patrick Lioi
Thursday, May 16, 2002

From what I understand, its not really a C/C++ GUI if you did implement the Windows.Forms namespace.  You could code your whole app in C++, but when you use those ".net" classes for your GUI, your calling stuff that I believe was written in c#(I think, not sure about this), and compiled down to the common run time.  So, your app may be a smidgen faster than if it was in VB, but the GUI part is going to be the same in any langauge.

Vincent Marquez
Thursday, May 16, 2002

I'm late comer here. I feel nothing bad about .net. Its when and where you are using it does make a difference. Now as language barrier is removed I would choose the easiest language to get things done.
In corporate circles if starting a program takes a little bit more time and hard disk space does not make any difference so long as you get the results.
If you are in shrinkwrap business like joel (and myself) the problems may crop up if you are thinking of cross-platform etc.
And also from what Ive heard .net remove some of the features of languages which does not fit CLR arch.
My advice is do not put all your eggs in the .net basket. MS can bring another hailstorm and survive, not me and not you.

RK
Friday, May 17, 2002

If I'm looking for source code for C# I use www.codehound.com.  Don't have to worry about the # sign or ".net" - they only search C# and .NET web sites anyway.

They search all the .NET newsgroups, too.  They have search engines for VB, ASP, C#, SQL, XML, and a few others.

Sorry for the plug but it's a good site.

Mark Cotten
Friday, May 17, 2002

Friends tell me that command line programs written in .NET languages are just as fast, or faster than the same code compiled with a regular C/C++.
Apparently it involves a JIT style native compile, so there is no abstraction going on there.

I dont know anyone who has done any tests with the GUI though...

Eric Debois
Friday, May 17, 2002

"Friends tell me that command line programs written in .NET languages are just as fast, or faster than the same code compiled with a regular C/C++. "

On my XP partition, I was running a C# IDE (SharpDevelop)which is written in C#.

It runs almost as fast as an equivelent native compiled IDE I use for Java.

Brad Clarke
Monday, May 20, 2002

To search for .Net on Google type DOTNet

Midnight Hacker
Monday, October 21, 2002

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home