The Old Joel on Software Forum: Part 3 (of 5) - I'm a programmer and I don't have the .NET runtime

I'm a programmer and I don't have the .NET runtime

What popular apps require it? Just curious. The most I've heard of it is on this board. I've never even seen any program that says it requires .NET.

Roose
Thursday, January 29, 2004

How long has .NET been out for now? 2 or 3 years?

Matthew Lock
Thursday, January 29, 2004

Sharp Reader requires .NET. It's a pretty good RSS reader. Though it's no feed demon.

Koz
Thursday, January 29, 2004

<copied from a previous posting of mine>

What really put me off .NET was when I wanted to install an eval version of Vault (source control program) yesterday -- I go the message on my PC that the .NET framework is not installed. My PC is less than 1 year old and I am using Win XP Pro with Office XP & *I* have a problem! It will take many years before we can even think of rolling our applications out on .NET -- So Win32 development will be with us for *AT LEAST* another 3 years.

Laim
Thursday, January 29, 2004

The issue may be that by *not* learning some basics of it today will lead to being left behind and not able to catch up *if* it becomes mainstream. People having invested earlier would then be ahead of the pack.

This is not specific to .NET of course, the same can be said of any technology.

As a consequence, behing ahead of the pack on the "flashy-technology-du-jour" helps in raising the fees.

But for .NET, it is always possible to graft an API|gateway to an existing app and tell that it is .NET compliant (COM Interop anyone ?).

Customers will always buy if the product gives them a significant benefit. People buy benefits, not features (like it's .NET-based). If the benefit is compelling enough, they would buy no matter what the tech is.

At the end of the day, it's a call upon ourselves, based on an assessment relating to what we like to do and how our current personal investement in a particular set of technologies.

Personally I had a huge investment in Clipper, Pascal and C++ in the past (MSDOS) and most of it had to be thrown away due to the move to Windows. It's not a good feeling. Moving from Win32 to .NET feels somewhat like the same.
Of course there are benefits but are they compelling enough if you can do the same on the current platform ?

Philippe Back
Thursday, January 29, 2004

I work on a product that has a nice shiny .NET logo on it, as it's been certified that it does web services in .NET.

However, the bulk of the code is written in old fashioned C++ COM objects and ASP (not ASPX) pages.

So yeah, you can use .NET as a marketting point even if you're really not using it much at all.

Sum Dum Gai
Thursday, January 29, 2004

NewsGator (a great RSS reader) requires it.

Oren
Thursday, January 29, 2004

How many desktop applications have you seen that say it requires Java's JVM?

.NET was created primarily to reduce Java's dominance in the corporate enterprise software development market. If you don't write business apps for a living then you probably won't need to learn anything about .NET.

Thursday, January 29, 2004

I used to use SharpReader, but found it taking 60M+ of memory on my 256M laptop. Unacceptable. So I uninstalled it, and uninstalled the runtime while I was at it. Yea! More space on my 20G harddrive!

Hermaphrodite
Thursday, January 29, 2004

Yep, SharpReader is a pig, no doubt about it.

Outlook (an app I've always considered a pig) is only taking 35MB on my machine, and that's with NewsGator running in it.

Brad Wilson (dotnetguy.techieswithcats.com)
Thursday, January 29, 2004

I don't understand why users not having the runtime is such a big deal. Many Java apps are bundled with the JRE to install if necessary. Can't .NET apps do the same?

Matt
Thursday, January 29, 2004

"I used to use SharpReader, but found it taking 60M+ of memory on my 256M laptop. "

Yes. Just as almost any java program does. .net and java eat ram like there is no tomorrow. Does that surprise anyone?

6 degrees that addin to outlook done in java likes about 60M also. Languages that run in a virtual machine environment need a ton of ram, end of story.

Mike
Thursday, January 29, 2004

Yes, a .NET app can install the Framework if necessary.

It is only 23 MBs for the redistibutable runtime...sheesh...

I bet most people here download 23 MBs of mp3s, avis, Red vs. Blue, SourceForge projects, Linux updates etc. etc. every day.

Kentasy
Thursday, January 29, 2004

Yeah, and most people here are also not what you'd categorize as your standard "end-user". You know, the people who might not be developers but might want to buy your application online and download it through their AOL dialup account.

Why is it so hard for most developers to understand that?

Mister Fancypants
Thursday, January 29, 2004

Ok, yes, this is a serious issue if the majority of your customers are AOL users on dialup.

Kentasy
Thursday, January 29, 2004

If the majority of your users are AOL customers on dialup I think you have bigger problems than the size of the .NET framework!
(Sorry - couldn't resist)

SteveM
Thursday, January 29, 2004

Err - unless you *are* AOL that is :-D

SteveM
Thursday, January 29, 2004

"If the majority of your users are AOL customers on dialup I think you have bigger problems than the size of the .NET framework!"

Actually, having a customer base of people willing to pay 50% more for dialup access than they need to is a VERY VERY GOOD THING.

I think that's what a lot of programmers miss:

The more technologically sophisticated your customer, the LESS they are generally willing to pay for a product.

Look at the extreme: all those very sophisticated linux gurus who REFUSE to PAY for any software. Those folks, generally, will never be a paying customer.

The real Entrepreneur
Thursday, January 29, 2004

I was talking to a Microsoft guy, and he said that .NET would be the default executable format for Longhorn. At the very least it will come with the CLR. So in 2 years time (or whenever Longhorn comes out) all new computers will have it. I think they're releasing it now so that people can have a chance to write programs that will work with Longhorn, without having to have a copy of Longhorn.

Chris Pearce
Thursday, January 29, 2004

>Ok, yes, this is a serious issue if the majority of your customers are AOL users on dialup.

Or Linux geeks

Kentasy
Thursday, January 29, 2004

How many times must we go over this? Talk about beating a dead horse.

I can only tell you one thing - if you write programs for windows you will use .Net in the future. So get used to it, now or later. It's up to you. But please don't cry when a clearly marked .Net application (Like Vault) requires the runtime. It's like crying because a java app demands a JVM!

trollbooth
Thursday, January 29, 2004

What's a "Java App"? Don't think I've heard of those. :-p

Brad Wilson (dotnetguy.techieswithcats.com)
Thursday, January 29, 2004

The only one I've seen in general use is PCGen, a character creation program for D&D. And installation's always been a bit, er, fickle with it. :-)

Chris Tavares
Thursday, January 29, 2004

Why use new tools when I can sit and complain about everything that comes down the road? It's much easier.

Man who knows it all
Thursday, January 29, 2004

Now sure if you are being funny or not so I'll just assume hostile like a good semi-pro troll:

A Java App is like a Java Ape except not so polite as to use vaseline.

See the beauty about being a troll is that I can switch between logical and cave man in .02 seconds and my argument will still fit my troll template. Self-serving.

The unfortunate aspect of it is no one will take you seriously. But on this board who really gives a patoot? The only reason anyone reads your shit is to nitpick away at your statements and prop themselves up. And they honestly think this place is better than slashdot, that is the funniest part (in a "hey that old lady just slipped on the ice!" kind of way).

trollbooth
Thursday, January 29, 2004

That was a terrible ending to a pretty nice conversation.

This place WAS better than slashdot.

I guess the next time that I find a cool little blog-o-board, I'll just keep it to myself!~

Wayne
Thursday, January 29, 2004

At this moment most shareware and Freeware is written in Delphi.
Also on your computer most non Microsoft software is likely written in Delphi. (Microsoft uses C++).
The reasons are: a) stability, in Delphi you have the full access to the underlying libraries. So you can always trace the cause of an error. b) Small size of executable.

Everybody - also most Delphi Developers - agree that course Delphi will fade out on the long term, but that takes far longer then I expected.
Microsoft was a big help, they first did help with financing Borland, then they killed Java, and now still have a muddled .Net strategy. Why is Basic.net not part of Office 2003? Why can I not program Excel 2003 in C#? If Microsoft does not use .Net in its own applications, why should we?
Shareware developers are rather skeptical about .Net. On a recent shareware conference 100% of the participants developed for windows, 2% also for Linux, 2% for Macintosh, and 0% planned to develop a .Net application in the near future. Even an enthusiastic presentation of Microsoft could not change this. The general oppinion that if Longhorn is promised by Microsoft in 2005, it will be delivered in 2006, and we start making software for it in 2007, ready for delivery in 2009, when 25% of the computers have Longhorn.

John Marland
Saturday, January 31, 2004