Computer Science Canada :: View topic - All this worthless .NET sutff (c#.net,VB.net,etc)

Computer Science Canada

All this worthless .NET sutff (c#.net,VB.net,etc)

Author:	syntax0r [ Sun Apr 24, 2005 11:12 pm ]
Post subject:	All this worthless .NET sutff (c#.net,VB.net,etc)
I am quite new to programming, so I am not sure what this .NET stuff is by Microsoft. I am confused, and I'm wondering if a human (not a search engine, as its results don't answer me) could respond, allowing me to understand some of my queries. I did a little of Turing, Visual VB 6 and now Visual C#. I noticed that VB 6 is different from VB.NET. The HORRIBLE thing is that VB.NET (successor to VB 6) will compile .EXEs that don't work on many computers as of now. I am not sure why, but I assume it's something to do with this .NET stuff, which requires all of us to have it installed for any VB.NET compiled .EXE to work. Now, WHAT is the point of making programs that only you and a few other people (comparatively) can execute? I made a simple "Hello World" program from VB.Net (Express 2005 Beta 2 Edition, I believe), and it won't work on all of my friends' computers. That sucks. So I just gave up on VB.NEt and went to the "good ol'" Visual Basic 6. I made a few programs, and all of them worked !!! Well sadly enough, I've heard VB 6 is "DEAD." That sucks. So I kind of gave up VB 6 (I still like it due to easiness and compatibility w/ all Win XX OSes), and went to C# (supposedly the "improved" version of C++. Well, guess what? None of the programs I created work on my friends' computer as well. That sucks. So, I comes down to this: -Stick with the old VB 6 -Find a way VB.NET and C#.NET compiled programs to work on most computers. Seriously, this failure to execute .NET compiled programs is really discouraging from learning C#, which I seem to like. So, is there a solution to all this mess?

Author:	Martin [ Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:06 am ]
Post subject:
To use .NET, you are going to have to build a distributable version of your application, or run your application on a computer which also has the .NET framework installed. Google.

Author:	wtd [ Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:18 am ]
Post subject:
Look at this way... that's a minor obstacle, and once you figure it out, you're good to go from then on. The crap that comes with VB6 and the Win32 API or MFC... that's a much bigger obstacle, and one far less easily overcome.

Author:	syntax0r [ Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:13 am ]
Post subject:
Then I don't see the point in writing programs that basically only the programmer and a few other tech-savvy Windows XP updaters can run. Perhaps moving towards Visual C++ or sticking with VB6 will make my dedicated learning time useful for the sake of writing programs that at least function on ppl's computers. Btw, how big is this .NET update.

Author:	Martin [ Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:56 am ]
Post subject:
There's a way to package your release build so that it has the required .NET packages attached, and you'll be able to run it on anyone's computer. Sticking with Visual Basic 6 would be useless, as Microsoft has shuddered and forgotten all about it already. Trust me, .NET is definately worth it.

Author:	Tony [ Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:21 am ]
Post subject:
similarly people need a JVM to run Java applets Many languages require the client to have some sort of a framework installed on their end. People are slow to get .Net because it's new, but if you're into Windows platform development, this is certanly the way to go. Just wait until Longhorn ships out -- it will come with .Net framework. Then you'll be ahead of the game since you have so much more experience since now to whatever.

Author:	Martin [ Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:23 am ]
Post subject:
.NET is definately where the future is, and is one of the best ideas that Microsoft has had in a while.

Author:	Tony [ Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:28 am ]
Post subject:
Martin wrote: .NET is definately where the future is well... for the Windows OS at least. Doesn't run on *nix It's going to be interesting to see how this ends up. University of Waterloo is switching over to .Net.. so we'll ether be quite ahead over others if .Net catches on, or get fucked over if it doesn't. Hmm... actually I hear that I'll be using C this next term. Damn it, although it's more applicable to my program.

Author:	Martin [ Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:39 am ]
Post subject:
C is an awesome language. You'll love it.

Author:	wtd [ Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:39 am ]
Post subject:
Martin wrote: C is an awesome language. You'll love it. Yeah, gotta love the lack of coherent string handling and the inability to have reusable type-safe containers. Not to mention the buffer overflows. What's not to love?

Author:	wtd [ Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:53 am ]
Post subject:
Tony wrote: Martin wrote: .NET is definately where the future is well... for the Windows OS at least. Doesn't run on *nix It's going to be interesting to see how this ends up. Really? Tell that to my GTK# tic-tac-toe game running on Ubuntu.

Author:	md [ Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:58 am ]
Post subject:
Tony wrote: Martin wrote: .NET is definately where the future is well... for the Windows OS at least. Doesn't run on nix It's going to be interesting to see how this ends up. University of Waterloo is switching over to .Net.. so we'll ether be quite ahead over others if .Net catches on, or get ***ed over if it doesn't. Hmm... actually I hear that I'll be using C this next term. Damn it, although it's more applicable to my program. Er... it actually does run on linux... And as for only a select few being able to run it, it could be that your friends are just a little slow with updating their machinces because the .Net framework has been availabe through windows update for about a year and a half at least, and most people now have it.

Author:	Martin [ Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:59 am ]
Post subject:
wtd wrote: Martin wrote: C is an awesome language. You'll love it. Yeah, gotta love the lack of coherent string handling and the inability to have reusable type-safe containers. Not to mention the buffer overflows. What's not to love? Exactly. (That wasn't a sarcastic comment)

Author:	Tony [ Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:42 pm ]
Post subject:
hmm, wasn't aware of .Net running on *nix... interesting score! anyways, in C I'll just be writing low level access functions to make physical hardware move. I'll be interfacing everything though Ruby

Author:	Martin [ Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:44 pm ]
Post subject:
Tony wrote: hmm, wasn't aware of .Net running on *nix... interesting score! anyways, in C I'll just be writing low level access functions to make physical hardware move. I'll be interfacing everything though Ruby Read as: anyways, in C I'll just be asking martin to help me in writing low level access functions to make physical hardware move.

Author:	Tony [ Mon Apr 25, 2005 1:05 pm ]
Post subject:
yes, thank you for pointing out my typo Martin

Author:	syntax0r [ Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:57 pm ]
Post subject:
.NET is the future, eh? Well, I hope Msoft makes some sort of required update for .NET to be installed on all WINXP machines . This may be off topic, but, since I'm understanding C# quite well (plus I love the IDE), should I apply my knowledge of Visual C# towards Visual C++? I was thinking of just trying C++ to see this "difference" between it and it's improved cousin "C#" Anyone willing to share first-hand experiences with C++ and C#?

Author:	wtd [ Mon Apr 25, 2005 3:06 pm ]
Post subject:
syntax0r wrote: This may be off topic, but, since I'm understanding C# quite well (plus I love the IDE), should I apply my knowledge of Visual C# towards Visual C++? C++ is an entirely different language, and one which does have a standard outside of the Microsoft world. I do recommend you learn it (eventually), but use the GNU tools.

Author:	Martin [ Mon Apr 25, 2005 3:06 pm ]
Post subject:
Sure. To start off, I must say that I love C++, and for me no other language compares. It is low level enough that you get the fun of messing around with the nit and grit of things, but high level enough to make development relatively easy. Now, this is largely a personal opinion, but no other language has ever felt 'right' to me. That said, C# is a very interesting language too. It is memory managed like Java, and really has much more in common with Java than it does with C or C++. One of the nice things about C# is that it allows you to use it unsafely, that is, you can turn off the memory management if you want to. Also, it makes GUI development an absolute breeze. Right now at work I use C++, and at home I am working my way through the book Managed DirectX 9 Kick Start, which uses C#. If you are going to learn one of the two languages, I would recommend going with C++. Although it is harder to start out with, it will teach you how things actually work and you will be able to appretiate C# later on.

:

You can syndicate this boards posts using the file backend.php or view the topic map using sitemap.php.

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy