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.
Put double quotes around .net
"The" bad thing, huh? Heh.
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 - Yup, they have, but I don't like to wait for it to load any more now than I did ten years ago.
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
Change FOr The Sake Of Change Sucks
chris, if you can tell me the difference between the results of
I always use the term dotnet in my queries.
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."
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).
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.
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.
Double quotes doesn't work with Google.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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++.
"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++. "
To search for .Net on Google type DOTNet
Fog Creek Home