 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
.NET Forum / .NET Framework / New Users / October 2006Opinions on .NET Framework?
Question: Is there a site that lists (or share your opinions, please) the relative strength/weakness of programming in C# or VB? Question: Is there a site (or share your opinions) that lists the relative strength/weakness of a PC app vs a Web app? The assumption here is that the app will be for inhouse use only. Thanks! > Question: Is there a site that lists (or share your opinions, please) > the relative strength/weakness of programming in C# or VB? People which is not a language fanatic agree that in .NET the language of choice is only a matter of personal preference for syntax since there are only minor differences (removed in the upcoming 2005 versions of the languages) and most of the bulk is in the .NET Framework class library, which is common. So, if yoy like "{", "}" and ";" use C# and if you like verbose "End XXX" use VB.NET. That said about the languages, the IDE is somewhat more productive for VB.NET because of its background compiler which produces better Intellisense experience (I have used both). > Question: Is there a site (or share your opinions) that lists the > relative strength/weakness of a PC app vs a Web app? The assumption > here is that the app will be for inhouse use only. Again, people which is not a Web fanatic agree that if deployment to clients is not an issue, currently PC apps more user friendly (better UI, better responsiveness, etc.), more robust (using .NET, COM is another story) and take less time to develop.  SignatureCarlos J. Quintero MZ-Tools 4.0: Productivity add-ins for Visual Studio .NET You can code, design and document much faster. http://www.mztools.com There are probably at least 50,000 threads on this topic. Just search the newsgroups for C# vs VB. There is a white paper on this topic, differences between VB.NET and C# http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=308470 VB.NET has background compilation, which is a huge plus. It automatically detects errors as you edit your source code. In C# errors are detected when you build your project. It's also a bit simpler to do late binding. For example, if you want to support multiple versions of office without knowing in advance what version it is, you need to use late binding. In VB.NET you would do option strict off ... Dim excelApp as object = CreateObject("Excel.Application") excelApp.Visible = False Dim excelWorkbooks as object = excelApp.WorkBooks The equivalent in C# is Type excelType = Type.GetTypeFromProgID("Excel.Application"); object excelApp = Activator.CreateInstance(excelType); object[] params = new Object[1]; params[0] = true; excelApp.GetType.InvokeMember("Visible", BindingFlags.SetProperty, null, excelApp, params); object excelWorkbooks = excelApp.GetType.InvokeMember("Workbooks", BindingFlags.GetProperty, null, excelWorkbooks, null); It's a lot more cumbersome in C#. With that said, I much prefer C# because there are more options for Refactoring. The .NET framework is centered around object oriented development. In my opinion OO and Refactoring go hand in hand. The SmallTalk and Java tools community have had automated refactorings for a long time. However it seems Microsoft OO tools have been extremely late in this. C# in VS.NET 2005 will have automated refactorings built in, but VB.NET will not. IntelliJ has ReSharper, which is an excellent refactoring add-in for C#. It also does background compilation a la VB.NET. There are no viable VB.NET refactoring tools out there. Automated refactoring may not be important for a lot of people, but it is important for me. Writing good maintainable code that adheres to OO principles is the reason why anyone should use an OO language. > Question: Is there a site that lists (or share your opinions, please) > the relative strength/weakness of programming in C# or VB? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thanks! > VB.NET has background compilation, which is a huge plus. It automatically > detects errors as you edit your source code. In C# errors are detected > when you build your project. That said, I already find the mere syntax-checking stuff built into the C# code editor to be somewhat irritating at times, particularly when I'm in the middle of complicated code refactoring tasks. There are plenty of times when I'll move a method from one class to another, and decide for a variety of reasons to change variable and parameter names, return types, or whatever. I sometimes find it irritating to have the code editor putting little red squigglies under stuff that I know I need to fix and I'll get to it when I'm damn good and ready. At times like those, I'm entirely happy not to also have blue squigglies showing up due to a background compiler also cranking away while I'm not looking. Admittedly, a lot of this will get better after MS gets around to releasing VS 2005 (hey, MS, if you're listening, please hurry up with that!) because of the code-refactoring functionality that they've added. I in particular can't wait to have automatic re-naming of variables. God that's a long long overdue feature... Question 1: There are tons of them Primarily it comes down to this: C# 1. Shorter syntax (easier to type) 2. Ability to call "unsafe" code (ie, unmanaged code pointers, etc.) 3. More explicit model out of the box VB.NET 1. Easy late binding syntax (no need to invoke Reflection directly) 2. VB COM style helper functions (note: perf hit for using) Other than that, they tend to compile to the same IL, so they are functionally equivalent. There are a few other bullet points. Beyond that, most of the arguing is personal preference. Question 2: Web apps are stateless in nature and have all of the code on a server (in most cases), so they are easier to update. Windows Forms are better for connected apps overall, as web apps are kludged to hold state. If you connect and stay connected, or deal with large amounts of data updates in one form, you are better to go windows. If extreme perf is a concern, windows may also win. Otherwise, I would generally go web. If you design your tiers correctly, or use SOA (service oriented architecture), the UI (web or winForms) is a presentation layer only, so you can easily switch to whichever model suits you at the moment (in other words, move non-presentation code out of your UI and into classes and you can go either way). --- Gregory A. Beamer MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA *************************** Think Outside the Box! *************************** > Question: Is there a site that lists (or share your opinions, please) > the relative strength/weakness of programming in C# or VB? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thanks! Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer) - MVP <NoSpamMgbworld@comcast.netNoSpamM> wrote: > Question 1: There are tons of them > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 1. Shorter syntax (easier to type) > 2. Ability to call "unsafe" code (ie, unmanaged code pointers, etc.) Be careful here - unsafe code is *not* unmanaged code. There's a big difference. SignatureJon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet If replying to the group, please do not mail me too >> C# >> 1. Shorter syntax (easier to type) >> 2. Ability to call "unsafe" code (ie, unmanaged code pointers, etc.) > > Be careful here - unsafe code is *not* unmanaged code. There's a big > difference. Ok, that's a tantalizing statement. Care to clarify for those of us who have not necessarily memorized Don Box's "Essential .NET" book yet? MS News (taruntius) <taruntius@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> C# > >> 1. Shorter syntax (easier to type) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Ok, that's a tantalizing statement. Care to clarify for those of us who > have not necessarily memorized Don Box's "Essential .NET" book yet? Sure. Unsafe code is still written in C#, and still executed within the CLR - it's still IL which is JITted, and still has a lot of the safety features of the CLR. It just doesn't have *all* of them - so you can use pointers and the like. Here's the definition from the C# spec: <quote> Unsafe code - code that is permitted to perform such lower-level operations as declaring and operating on pointers, performing conversions between pointers and integral types, and taking the address of variables. Such operations provide functionality such as permitting interfacing with the underlying operating system, accessing a memory-mapped device, or implementing a time-critical algorithm. </quote> Unmanaged code, however, is native code which must have been written in another language, and is usually part of a separate DLL - interop, basically. SignatureJon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet If replying to the group, please do not mail me too I'm interested to know if dotnet is still a valid solution, considering de new DB2 9 hibrid server. From http://it.search.yahoo.com/search?p=dotnet+system-weakness+strength&prssweb=Cerc a&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t340&x=wrt&meta=vl First, DB2 is a database server, much like Microsoft SQL Server, and the .Net platform is a programming platform, much like Java. So, your question doesn't make sense. Second, I did a little research, and darned if I couldn't find a product comparison on the IBM DB2 web site that compares DB2 to SQL Server. But I *did* find a comparison on the Microsoft SQL Server site. You may want to check it out: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/compare/ibm/default.mspx SignatureHTH, Kevin Spencer Microsoft MVP Short Order Coder http://unclechutney.blogspot.com What You Seek Is What You Get > I'm interested to know if dotnet is still a valid solution, considering de > new DB2 9 hibrid server. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Posted via DevelopmentNow.com Groups > http://www.developmentnow.com Since it is the only development platform made by Micorosft for building Windows based applications, I'd say it's pretty valid. > I'm interested to know if dotnet is still a valid solution, considering de > new DB2 9 hibrid server. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Posted via DevelopmentNow.com Groups > http://www.developmentnow.com So... what is win32 C API then? Nothningness for 20 years? > Since it is the only development platform made by Micorosft for building > Windows based applications, I'd say it's pretty valid. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> Posted via DevelopmentNow.com Groups >> http://www.developmentnow.com What is the development environment for Win32 C API calls? > So... what is win32 C API then? > Nothningness for 20 years? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>> Posted via DevelopmentNow.com Groups >>> http://www.developmentnow.com Visual Studio? > What is the development environment for Win32 C API calls? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>>> Posted via DevelopmentNow.com Groups >>>> http://www.developmentnow.com VS .NET? > Visual Studio? > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >>>>> Posted via DevelopmentNow.com Groups >>>>> http://www.developmentnow.com All flavours of Visual Studio. > VS .NET? > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>>>>> Posted via DevelopmentNow.com Groups >>>>>> http://www.developmentnow.com My point being that Microsoft doesn't support VS 6.0 anymore, they only support VS .NET. So, in MS's eyes .NET is the development platform to be on for Windows development. > All flavours of Visual Studio. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >>>>>>> Posted via DevelopmentNow.com Groups >>>>>>> http://www.developmentnow.com > My point being that Microsoft doesn't support VS 6.0 anymore, they only > support VS .NET. So, in MS's eyes .NET is the development platform to be on > for Windows development. VS.NET can be used to develop non-.NET products though. (Note, by the way, that Visual Studio 2005 has dropped the ".NET" part of the title.) From Solution Explorer, choose Add -> New Project -> Visual C++ and you'll see lots of options only some of which are .NET-based. Native code development is still very much supported. There are various situations which don't lend themselves to purely-managed solutions: games and drivers spring to mind for starters. SignatureJon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet If replying to the group, please do not mail me too I know. My point was simply that, yes, .NET is a development platform that is here to stay. Since MS no longer supports VS 6.0, you'd need VS .NET to do native development anyway. >> My point being that Microsoft doesn't support VS 6.0 anymore, they only >> support VS .NET. So, in MS's eyes .NET is the development platform to be [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > situations which don't lend themselves to purely-managed solutions: > games and drivers spring to mind for starters. > I know. My point was simply that, yes, .NET is a development platform that > is here to stay. Since MS no longer supports VS 6.0, you'd need VS .NET to > do native development anyway. Ah. Both of those points are fair enough - but very different to the idea that .NET itself is the only development platform from MS. SignatureJon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet If replying to the group, please do not mail me too >> I know. My point was simply that, yes, .NET is a development platform >> that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Ah. Both of those points are fair enough - but very different to the > idea that .NET itself is the only development platform from MS. And not accurate either, since you don't need to use any Microsoft development tools in order to write code for the native Windows API. VS.NET is not required, nor is VS 2005. All you need is any compiler with the appropriate Windows include files (available in the Platform SDK) and a linker that can make the appropriate references to the Windows DLLs. IMHO, it's a mistake to confuse the "platform" (that is, the API) with the "development environment" (that is, the coding tools, including the compiler, the linker, and a visual environment such as VS, if one so chooses). And yet, for most of this thread it seems that people are doing just that, confusing the two. Pete Well, I used the term "development platform" and my meaning was the IDE. Since VS.NET (in its 2002, 2003 or 2005 forms) is/are the only supported development "environments" by MS, I would say they are here to stay. >>> I know. My point was simply that, yes, .NET is a development platform >>> that [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Pete > Well, I used the term "development platform" Yes, you did. But you also said that .NET is "the only development platform made by Microsoft for building Windows based applications", which is not true. > and my meaning was the IDE. And that's an incorrect meaning of the usual use of the phrase "development platform", nor is the IDE equivalent to .NET. In theory, the VS IDE is not required for .NET development, and in practice it is certainly not required for native Windows programming, contrary to your claim that it is. However you look at it, neither .NET nor the Visual Studio IDE is the only way to create Windows-based applications. > Since VS.NET (in its 2002, 2003 or 2005 forms) is/are the only supported > development "environments" by MS, I would say they are here to stay. If by "supported", you mean "published", then that's true. I certainly agree that Microsoft is likely to continue publishing developer tools such as Visual Studio for a long time to come. But that has nothing to do with the viability of .NET as a long-term API for programming Windows, nor is it true that .NET is the only way to build Windows applications. Pete Peter, you've provided much info. here, but you need to back up a bit. You mention that VS.NET is not required to build .NET apps. and I am aware of that, but then you wouldn't be using a development environment anymore (unless you count the command line as a development enviornment - which I don't). My point (which you have twisted into words that I did not say) was simply that if you wanted to buy a development environment from MS, you'd buy VS .NET (to do any kind of Windows development), because that's where all their eggs are right now. When I said MS doesn't support VS 6.0, I meant just that (not that it's the only "published" environment). I mean MS has stopped providing (public) support for the VS 6.0 product and applications and language versions therein. That (again) leaves us with just VS .NET as the sole development environment for Windows applications. I did not say that it is REQUIRED for Windows development, I simply said it is the only development environment/platform/ide (pick the term you like) made by MS for building Windows applications. >> Well, I used the term "development platform" > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Pete Microsoft has also stopped providing support for Windows 98. There is no difference. Support for older versions of software can only go back so far. So, I don't see what the point is supposed to be here. SignatureHTH, Kevin Spencer Microsoft MVP Short Order Coder http://unclechutney.blogspot.com What You Seek Is What You Get > Peter, you've provided much info. here, but you need to back up a bit. > You mention that VS.NET is not required to build .NET apps. and I am aware [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >> >> Pete I don't know how to make it any clearer. Ok, let's try this... Q: I'd like to do some Windows development. What development IDE's are available from MS to accomplish this task? A: One of the VS .NET flavors. Summary: VS .NET is the only MS development environment at this time. So, I would say that .NET (as a development platform and an API) will be with us for a while. > Microsoft has also stopped providing support for Windows 98. There is no > difference. Support for older versions of software can only go back so [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >>> >>> Pete >I don't know how to make it any clearer. Ok, let's try this... > > Q: I'd like to do some Windows development. What development IDE's are > available from MS to accomplish this task? Who asked that question? Why is an answer to that question relevant in this thread? > A: One of the VS .NET flavors. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > say that .NET (as a development platform and an API) will be with us for a > while. As far as I know, there is no Visual Studio .NET anymore. I have both the Express and retail version of Visual Studio, and both of them simply say "2005". They don't appear to be labeled as ".NET" any longer. In any case, the continued production of some version of Visual Studio in no way at all implies the continued support of any version of .NET. The two are completely independent of each other. Microsoft could easily drop support for the .NET Framework without affecting their Visual Studio business. Currently, it would be harder for them to drop Visual Studio without affecting the .NET Framework, since there are no third-party tools for writing .NET code, but the fact remains that there is at least the theoretical possibility of that. So, it seems to me that not only have you misinterpreted the original question (it wasn't asking about development tools), your answer continues to confuse the API and the development tools used to write software for the API. At every step, you've tried to modify the original question to better suit the answers you're giving, but in doing so the answers still aren't correct. Don't get me wrong...I'm not trying to attack you or somehow undermine your credibility. But I do think it's *very* important to understand the difference between a given API (of which there are many for writing Windows software) and a development tool (of which there are many for writing Windows software). Inasmuch as your replies appear to confuse the two, I see a need to at least attempt to correct that confusion. Pete Pete, This is my last word on this (cause I'm growing old over here).... See responses inline... >>I don't know how to make it any clearer. Ok, let's try this... >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Who asked that question? Why is an answer to that question relevant in > this thread? I did. And, it's relevant because it explains my original reply in this thread. >> A: One of the VS .NET flavors. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Express and retail version of Visual Studio, and both of them simply say > "2005". They don't appear to be labeled as ".NET" any longer. True, but VS .NET 2002 and VS .NET 2003 are still supported products from MS and VS 2005 (while not having the .NET brand name) still works with the .NET Framework. The decision to drop .NET from the name is not related to the adoption (or lack thereof) of the .NET technology by MS, it has to do with the ubiquitous nature that .NET has become and marketing. > In any case, the continued production of some version of Visual Studio in > no way at all implies the continued support of any version of .NET. The [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for writing .NET code, but the fact remains that there is at least the > theoretical possibility of that. Ok, but what does that have to do with the OP or anything that I have said. I never once said .NET reigns supreme and will continue to do so ad infinitem. Any implications that this is what I said, were made by you. > So, it seems to me that not only have you misinterpreted the original > question (it wasn't asking about development tools), your answer continues > to confuse the API and the development tools used to write software for > the API. At every step, you've tried to modify the original question to > better suit the answers you're giving, but in doing so the answers still > aren't correct. No, not at all. You've just continuously been pounding your terminology preferences over mine. My point is simple and clear (despite your attempts to make it more compicated). Right now (and for the foreseeable future) MS is providing a development environment that relies on the .NET Framework for (all but native) code written with it. The .NET Framework is certainly not a *small* part of the Visual Studio equation. And, this is the ONLY development environment being supplied by MS at this time. I brought the IDE into the conversation as a way to express the current importance of the .NET Framework. Despite your feelings that talking about the development environment is somehow not warrented in the replies to this thread (the title of the post by the way was: "Opinions on the .NET Framework" - - did you notice the Opinions part?), I felt it appropriate to talk about the development environment that 99.999% of Windows developers are currently using to develop .NET applications. I never said .NET applications couldn't be built without it (as you have implied that I did say). I said that it is the only "development platform" being provided by MS for .NET development at this time. You take issue with my wording here (development platform). Fine, how about "developmemt IDE" instead? This is what I meant (and quite frankly, clearly understandable by most readers). > Don't get me wrong...I'm not trying to attack you or somehow undermine > your credibility. But I do think it's *very* important to understand the > difference between a given API (of which there are many for writing > Windows software) and a development tool (of which there are many for > writing Windows software). Inasmuch as your replies appear to confuse the > two, I see a need to at least attempt to correct that confusion. Nor am I, but I think the simple point (which I won't repeat because I've stated it simply several times by now) which I've been trying to make has been obscured by hair splitting on terminology. By the way, going back to the OP (which I haven't strayed from at all, despite your statements to the contrary), let's add the fact that the 3.0 Framework will be coming out and that the most (if not all) of MS's enterprise server line have (or will have) native CLR support add to my orginal assertion that .NET will be here for a while. > Pete >>> Q: I'd like to do some Windows development. What development IDE's are >>> available from MS to accomplish this task? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I did. And, it's relevant because it explains my original reply in this > thread. No, it doesn't. As that question is entirely irrelevant to the original post starting this thread, you asking the question later fails to explain your original reply in this thread. >>> VS .NET is the only MS development environment at this time. So, I >>> would say that .NET (as a development platform and an API) will be with [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > MS and VS 2005 (while not having the .NET brand name) still works with the > .NET Framework. You wrote "VS .NET is the only MS development environment at this time". Yet, you agree that there also exists "VS 2005", which is also an "MS development environment". Is "VS .NET" the only one or isn't it? Again, you are confusing the issues by making absolute statements with incorrect words. > [...] > Ok, but what does that have to do with the OP or anything that I have > said. I never once said .NET reigns supreme and will continue to do so ad > infinitem. Any implications that this is what I said, were made by you. So, when you wrote "My point was simply that, yes, .NET is a development platform that is here to stay", what did that mean exactly? I certainly never used words like "reigns supreme" nor "ad infinitem [sic]", but when I used similar words to describe your statements on the subject, they were based on your comment of "here to stay". > No, not at all. You've just continuously been pounding your terminology > preferences over mine. I think the development community as a whole is pretty well in agreement on the definitions of an "API" or "platform" versus a "development environment". There's a reason that the words "development environment" help compose the abbreviation IDE. Likewise, there's a reason the Platform SDK uses the word "platform" in its name, even though it can be used with tools other than Visual Studio. In other words, these aren't MY terminology preferences alone. They are shared by the greater community that depends on such words. > My point is simple and clear (despite your attempts to make it more > compicated). Right now (and for the foreseeable future) MS is providing a > development environment that relies on the .NET Framework for (all but > native) code written with it. The original poster was NOT asking about "a development environment", nor is the .NET Framework a development environment (nor, for that matter, is Visual Studio limited to coding native Windows API code and .NET Framework code). > The .NET Framework is certainly not a *small* part of the Visual Studio > equation. And, this is the ONLY development environment being supplied by > MS at this time. Visual Studio, not .NET Framework, is the "only" development environment being supplied by MS at this time. (Ignoring for a moment development environments Microsoft provides for other platforms, as well as the fact that Visual Studio is not in fact the only development environment Microsoft provides for the Windows platform). > I brought the IDE into the conversation as a way to express the current > importance of the .NET Framework. Despite your feelings that talking > about the development environment is somehow not warrented in the replies > to this thread It's not the talking about the development environment that bothers me. It's the treatment of the *platform* as a development environment that does. > (the title of the post by the way was: "Opinions on the .NET > Framework" - - did you notice the Opinions part?), Yes. Did YOU notice the ".NET Framework" part? > I felt it appropriate to talk about the development environment that > 99.999% of Windows developers are currently using to develop .NET [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > how about "developmemt IDE" instead? This is what I meant (and quite > frankly, clearly understandable by most readers). If that's what you meant, it's what you should have written. The subsequent reply to your post clearly was a result of interpreting "development platform" as practically every other professional programmer does, and your subsequent reply failed to clarify what it was exactly you were talking about. This was exacerbated by your use of the pronoun "it" in your reply, implying that you were talking about the .NET Framework and not the Visual Studio IDE. Furthermore, given that by your own admission you clearly did NOT write what you should have written, given your apparent intent, I find it bizarre that you cannot simply just admit that your original reply did not accurately convey your intent and leave it at that. >> Don't get me wrong...I'm not trying to attack you or somehow undermine >> your credibility. But I do think it's *very* important to understand the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > stated it simply several times by now) which I've been trying to make has > been obscured by hair splitting on terminology. As I wrote, "I do think it's *very* important to understand the difference between a given API...and a development tool". This isn't just hair splitting. These are two different terms, with very specific meanings, and the distinction is important. > By the way, going back to the OP (which I haven't strayed from at all, > despite your statements to the contrary), let's add the fact that the 3.0 > Framework will be coming out and that the most (if not all) of MS's > enterprise server line have (or will have) native CLR support add to my > orginal assertion that .NET will be here for a while. But it is NOT the only way to write Windows software. I don't disagree that .NET is going to be around for some time to come. I do still believe it's important to get one's facts straight, whether that means knowing what platforms exist for writing Windows software or knowing what development environments exist for writing .NET code. Pete >>>> Q: I'd like to do some Windows development. What development IDE's >>>> are available from MS to accomplish this task? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > post starting this thread, you asking the question later fails to explain > your original reply in this thread. If you can't make the leap from talking about the.NET Framework to talking about VS .NET, then there's not much else I can say about it. This is the crux of my point, which has been lost on you. Just because you say talking about VS .NET is irrelevant to the OP does not make it so (it does for you, perhaps), but your proclamation isn't gospel on this. >>>> VS .NET is the only MS development environment at this time. So, I >>>> would say that .NET (as a development platform and an API) will be with [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Yet, you agree that there also exists "VS 2005", which is also an "MS > development environment". Is "VS .NET" the only one or isn't it? When I say VS .NET, I am referring to VS .NET 2002, 2003 & 2005, which all require the .NET Framework (there's that connection back to the OP again!). Marketing terminology aside, we (us professional programmers you spoke of) all know that VS 2005 uses the .NET Framework and you can't possibly tell me you haven't heard of anyone referring to 2005 as VS .NET. VS 6.0 does not use the .NET Framework, is not supported by MS anymore, and is no longer MS's preferred tool for Windows development. So, YES, the only IDE for Windows development provided by MS right now is VS .NET (in any of its flavors). This seems to be the only point of contention here. I have already acknowledged that the term I used "development platform" and the term you used "development tool/IDE/environment" is what I used interchangeably. Why can't you just get over that and get back to the point instead of "preaching"? > Again, you are confusing the issues by making absolute statements with > incorrect words. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So, when you wrote "My point was simply that, yes, .NET is a development > platform that is here to stay", what did that mean exactly? Exactly what it says, no more no less. MS has promoted .NET for 6 years now. They have not even completed their "roll-out" of the .NET Framework as standard software yet, although that is their plan. It is clear that the plans being implemented right now (inclusion of .NET Framework in Vista, SQL Server 2005, etc.) will guarantee a prominent role for .NET for, at lest the next 5 to 7 years. > I certainly never used words like "reigns supreme" nor "ad infinitem > [sic]", but when I used similar words to describe your statements on the > subject, they were based on your comment of "here to stay". I consider the next 5 to 7 years long enough to say "here to stay". > > No, not at all. You've just continuously been pounding your terminology > > preferences over mine. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > In other words, these aren't MY terminology preferences alone. They are > shared by the greater community that depends on such words. [yawn] Well sorry Pete, by I've been in the development community myself for quite some time and have heard folks say "development platform" when they have been referring to the IDE. So what we have here boils down to a single word. We've covered this already. I have "corrected" my terminology, like 4 posts ago, yet you continue to harp on it, rather than the OP. >> My point is simple and clear (despite your attempts to make it more >> compicated). Right now (and for the foreseeable future) MS is providing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Visual Studio limited to coding native Windows API code and .NET Framework > code). [last time he tries to connect the dots for Pete] I spoke about the IDE because it is the ONLY IDE MS provides for ANY Windows development at this point in time and the fact is that the current VS IDE's requie the .NET Framework. Do you disagree? That being the case, I make the one-degree of separation connection between the .NET Framework and the IDE. // *************************************************** If the only IDE you can get from MS requires the .NET Framework and that is MS's plan for the foreseeable future, then it is most certainly logical to look at the IDE product lifecycle as a bell-weather for the .NET Framework. Now, if you still belive that this has nothing to do with the OP, then goodbye and good luck to you. If you can make that connection, read on..... // *************************************************** I never said that the .NET Framework was a "development environment", I use that term to describe the IDE so, I don't know why you feel the need to explain that fact to me here. >> The .NET Framework is certainly not a *small* part of the Visual Studio >> equation. And, this is the ONLY development environment being supplied [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that Visual Studio is not in fact the only development environment > Microsoft provides for the Windows platform). What other IDE's are there that MS is providing and supporting right now? > I brought the IDE into the conversation as a way to express the current >> importance of the .NET Framework. Despite your feelings that talking [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It's the treatment of the *platform* as a development environment that > does. Yes, we got that several posts back. Can you move on and stay on point? > (the title of the post by the way was: "Opinions on the .NET >> Framework" - - did you notice the Opinions part?), > > Yes. Did YOU notice the ".NET Framework" part? Sure did - see multi-line comment above. >> I felt it appropriate to talk about the development environment that >> 99.999% of Windows developers are currently using to develop .NET [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > in your reply, implying that you were talking about the .NET Framework and > not the Visual Studio IDE. Were you a lawyer on the Clinton defense team? (the meaning of "is" is...) :) > Furthermore, given that by your own admission you clearly did NOT write > what you should have written, given your apparent intent, I find it > bizarre that you cannot simply just admit that your original reply did not > accurately convey your intent and leave it at that. Think about what you've just written here. Really, go back and read it. You acknowledge that I admitted that I did not write what I should have and then you go on to say that I can't simply admit my OP didn't accurately convey my intent. Well, it seems to me that if I've admitted that I didn't write what I should have (for the hair-splitters in the crowd), then I have done what you've suggested, haven't I? >>> Don't get me wrong...I'm not trying to attack you or somehow undermine >>> your credibility. But I do think it's *very* important to understand [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > But it is NOT the only way to write Windows software. I am not saying all Windows software must be managed, I'm saying the only IDE for doing Windows develoment requires the .NET Framework. I'll ask again, what other IDE is MS providing right now beside VS? > I don't disagree that .NET is going to be around for some time to come. I > do still believe it's important to get one's facts straight, whether that > means knowing what platforms exist for writing Windows software or knowing > what development environments exist for writing .NET code. > Pete Regardless of this convoluted discussion I found rather annoying the way this initial answer: "Since it is the only development platform made by Micorosft for building Windows based applications, I'd say it's pretty valid" Might led to believe that .NET is your only serious developement possibility. I found rather disappointing that instead of taking this opportunity to improve your communication skills and correct your mistake you prefer word bickering... Anyway that doesn't matter too much, anyone following this thread would have quickly understand by now that: 1. .NET is, indeed, a good option to do windows developement 2. there are other good option too. Which is all the poster needed to know in fact. One might add information on when to choose which, but that was not asked.... > [...] I am not saying all Windows software must be managed, I'm saying the > only IDE for doing Windows develoment requires the .NET Framework. I see no requirement listed with the Visual Studio documentation that says it requires the .NET Framework. Perhaps you could provide some basis for your claim that it does. > I'll ask again, what other IDE is MS providing right now beside VS? The answer to that question has nothing to do with the question the original poster asked. Pete > I see no requirement listed with the Visual Studio documentation that says > it requires the .NET Framework. Perhaps you could provide some basis for > your claim that it does. The first step (out of the 3 step installation) is the installation of the .NET Framework. It is part of the VS .NET installation, not a pre-install requirement. You can not proceed to step 2 of the installation (the installation of the VS.NET program) without completing step one. There is no optional selector for step 1. > I'll ask again, what other IDE is MS providing right now beside VS? > > The answer to that question has nothing to do with the question the > original poster asked. In YOUR opinion, but in mine it does. Your refusal to answer that question simply tells me that you want to be stubborn and not even "allow" me the opportunity to make my point. > The first step (out of the 3 step installation) is the installation of the > .NET Framework. It is part of the VS .NET installation, not a pre-install > requirement. So, in other words, Visual Studio "requires" the .NET Framework in the same way that it requires every other component installed with VS, such as the IDE executable itself, all the supporting DLLs, the compiler, linker, etc. That is, you don't so much have to *have* the .NET Framework as you have to allow Visual Studio to install it for you. Which means that Microsoft *could* pull support for the .NET Framework at any time, and that would not interfere one bit with the ability to install Visual Studio, or to use it to write Windows software (managed or otherwise). So the dependency of Visual Studio on the .NET Framework turns out to not be related to Microsoft's future plans for the .NET Framework at all. Pete > Well, I used the term "development platform" and my meaning was the IDE. > Since VS.NET (in its 2002, 2003 or 2005 forms) is/are the only supported > development "environments" by MS, I would say they are here to stay. And that would make sense if the original question had talked about VS.NET (although I agree with Peter that "development platform" usually isn't the same as IDE - two people could both be working on the Java "development platform" but use different IDE). However, the original question starting the thread, *and* the post you first replied to didn't mention VS.NET at all - they both talked about the .NET framework. The .NET framework is *not* the only development platform (used in the traditional sense) supported by Microsoft for building Windows applications. So, to be clear here: 1) Yes, Visual Studio (in its various flavours, not all of which include the name ".NET") is the only IDE from Microsoft for creating Windows applications - at least as far as I'm aware. 2) No, the .NET framework isn't the only option supported by Microsoft for building Windows applications. Do you agree with both of the above? Do you see how your original comment looks far closer to denying point 2 than to agreeing with point 1? Jon >> Well, I used the term "development platform" and my meaning was the IDE. >> Since VS.NET (in its 2002, 2003 or 2005 forms) is/are the only supported [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > didn't mention VS.NET at all - they both talked about the .NET > framework. Why is it so difficult for someone to understand that there is a relationship between the .NET Framework and VS .NET? I am certainly aware that they are not the same thing and I am aware that the OP asked about the .NET Framework. I can only come to the conclusion that you and Paul are just being stubborn about this because it does not take a rocket scientist to see the relationship between the .NET Framework and VS.NET. If the only IDE produced by MS relies on the .NET Framework being present, that makes a direct and clear case for the importance and longevity of the .NET Framework, period. If you don't get that, too bad. The OP asked for opinions, and that is mine. I find it easy and clear to see why using the IDE as an example of why the .Framework is on solid ground a simple conceptual leap to make, you don't - - your problem, not mine. > The .NET framework is *not* the only development platform (used in the > traditional sense) supported by Microsoft for building Windows > applications. Jon, read the thread if you're going to post this far down it. I know what a stickler you are for detail. I have already conceded that I should have said "development environment" in my OP. So given that, my OP would not be as you've written it above, which makes the above paragraph mute. > So, to be clear here: > > 1) Yes, Visual Studio (in its various flavours, not all of which > include the name ".NET") is the only IDE from Microsoft for creating > Windows applications - at least as far as I'm aware. Me too AND THAT IS MY SIMPLE POINT. > 2) No, the .NET framework isn't the only option supported by Microsoft > for building Windows applications. I never said it was, I simply used the wrong term "platform", rather than "environment" in my OP. > Do you agree with both of the above? Do you see how your original > comment looks far closer to denying point 2 than to agreeing with point > 1? Yes. And I've said that repeatedly at this point, so I wonder why you feel the need to throw this in this late in the game. > Jon > > And that would make sense if the original question had talked about > > VS.NET (although I agree with Peter that "development platform" usually [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that they are not the same thing and I am aware that the OP asked about the > .NET Framework. I agree there is a relationship. I agree they're not the same thing. Given that they are not the same thing and that you're aware what the OP asked about, why did you reply with a statement about VS.NET in a way which implied you were talking about .NET? > I can only come to the conclusion that you and Paul are just being stubborn > about this because it does not take a rocket scientist to see the > relationship between the .NET Framework and VS.NET. No-one's disputing that there's a relationship. We're saying your original post was misleading. > If the only IDE > produced by MS relies on the .NET Framework being present, that makes a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > IDE as an example of why the .Framework is on solid ground a simple > conceptual leap to make, you don't - - your problem, not mine. Could you give any examples of where anyone's said that .NET is *not* "on solid ground"? > > The .NET framework is *not* the only development platform (used in the > > traditional sense) supported by Microsoft for building Windows [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > said "development environment" in my OP. So given that, my OP would not be > as you've written it above, which makes the above paragraph mute. Would it also have referred to VS.NET, instead of just the "it" which until then had meant .NET? That's what I'm principally disputing here. > > So, to be clear here: > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Me too AND THAT IS MY SIMPLE POINT. A point you completely failed to make clear in the first post - not just because of the use of the word "platform" though. > > 2) No, the .NET framework isn't the only option supported by Microsoft > > for building Windows applications. > > I never said it was, I simply used the wrong term "platform", rather than > "environment" in my OP. You also replied to a post about the .NET framework using "it" as Visual Studio instead though. It makes your whole first comment odd, not just the word "platform". > > Do you agree with both of the above? Do you see how your original > > comment looks far closer to denying point 2 than to agreeing with point > > 1? > > Yes. And I've said that repeatedly at this point, so I wonder why you feel > the need to throw this in this late in the game. It's not like this is my first post to the thread, or even that I've been away from the thread for ages. As far as I can tell, you made an unclear first post and are now just berating people for calling you on that. If your second post had just been a clarification of what you actually meant, the whole argument would have been avoided, I suspect. Jon > Given that they are not the same thing and that you're aware what the > OP asked about, why did you reply with a statement about VS.NET in a > way which implied you were talking about .NET? Because, as you agree, there is a relationship between the IDE and the Framework. > No-one's disputing that there's a relationship. We're saying your > original post was misleading. And I've agreed (literally 7 posts ago). > Could you give any examples of where anyone's said that .NET is *not* > "on solid ground"? No, I can't, but the OP didn't know that, thus his post. > As far as I can tell, you made an unclear first post and are now just > berating people for calling you on that. If your second post had just > been a clarification of what you actually meant, the whole argument > would have been avoided, I suspect. No, I'm berating people for not letting go of it and continuing to pounce on it after I corrected my terminology 7 posts ago! > > Given that they are not the same thing and that you're aware what the > > OP asked about, why did you reply with a statement about VS.NET in a > > way which implied you were talking about .NET? > > Because, as you agree, there is a relationship between the IDE and the > Framework. But by not stating that you were talking about VS.NET, you caused confusion. I didn't just ask why you replied with a statement about VS.NET - I asked why you replied with one which implied you were talking about .NET. > > No-one's disputing that there's a relationship. We're saying your > > original post was misleading. > > And I've agreed (literally 7 posts ago). Where, exactly? It's hard to know exactly what you mean by "7 posts ago". I can see you claiming that your point was clear as recently as 2:10 today (UTC). > > Could you give any examples of where anyone's said that .NET is *not* > > "on solid ground"? > > No, I can't, but the OP didn't know that, thus his post. So why did you write: <quote> The OP asked for opinions, and that is mine. I find it easy and clear to see why using the IDE as an example of why the .Framework is on solid ground a simple conceptual leap to make, you don't - - your problem, not mine. </quote> Why did you claim I don't find your example a simple conceptual leap? I do - once you've actually stated it that way, rather than misleadingly referring to VS.NET as "it" when replying to a post which didn't mention IDEs at all. You recently conceded that you should have written "development environment", but that still doesn't address the fact that with that change your post would have referred to the .NET framework as if it were an IDE. > > As far as I can tell, you made an unclear first post and are now just > > berating people for calling you on that. If your second post had just [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No, I'm berating people for not letting go of it and continuing to pounce on > it after I corrected my terminology 7 posts ago! The way you corrected it still seemed to imply that it was everyone else who was deliberately misinterpreting your first post rather than it being a basically misleading post. SignatureJon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet If replying to the group, please do not mail me too The only relationship between Visual Studio and the .Net Framework is that Visual Studio requires the .Net Framework. The .Net Framework does *not* require Visual Studio. Visual Studio also requires a number of COM DLLs to be installed. It is a one-way "relationship." This is the same relationship that *every* piece of software has with the DLLs that it uses to function. C++ MFC applications require MFC and/or COM DLLs to work. C applications almost always require (at least) stdio.dll to work. VB applications require one or another of the VB DLLs and (usually) some COM DLLs to work. SignatureHTH, Kevin Spencer Microsoft MVP Short Order Coder http://unclechutney.blogspot.com The devil is in the yada yada yada >> Given that they are not the same thing and that you're aware what the >> OP asked about, why did you reply with a statement about VS.NET in a [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > No, I'm berating people for not letting go of it and continuing to pounce > on it after I corrected my terminology 7 posts ago! > The only relationship between Visual Studio and the .Net Framework is that > Visual Studio requires the .Net Framework. The .Net Framework does *not* > require Visual Studio. Visual Studio also requires a number of COM DLLs to > be installed. It is a one-way "relationship." That's true - but it's that way that I believe Scott was relying on. Microsoft wouldn't use .NET in Visual Studio if either they were planning on getting rid of it or if they thought it was rubbish. That's an entirely fair point to make and one I support, even if I disagree with the way Scott made it :) SignatureJon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet If replying to the group, please do not mail me too I agree, it's a fair point. In fact, Microsoft is investing quite heavily in the .Net Framework, and writing new software with it all the time (not *all* of their new software, but quite a lot of it). SignatureKevin Spencer Microsoft MVP Short Order Coder http://unclechutney.blogspot.com The devil is in the yada yada yada >> The only relationship between Visual Studio and the .Net Framework is >> that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That's an entirely fair point to make and one I support, even if I > disagree with the way Scott made it :) Man, you guys must have a lot of free time on your hands, or else your extemely bored. Bob Lehmann > I agree, it's a fair point. In fact, Microsoft is investing quite heavily in > the .Net Framework, and writing new software with it all the time (not *all* [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > That's an entirely fair point to make and one I support, even if I > > disagree with the way Scott made it :) If I had a lot of free time on my hands, I *would* be extremely bored! However, I don't, and I'm not. Signature;-), Kevin Spencer Microsoft MVP Short Order Coder http://unclechutney.blogspot.com The devil is in the yada yada yada > Man, you guys must have a lot of free time on your hands, or else your > extemely bored. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> > That's an entirely fair point to make and one I support, even if I >> > disagree with the way Scott made it :) In addition, I might mention that the .Net platform comes with all the command-line tools needed to write .Net applications without the Visual Studio IDE. Visual Studio merely shells out to these to enhance productivity. The free .Net Framework SDK contains all the documentation for these tools. See http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms299153.aspx SignatureHTH, Kevin Spencer Microsoft MVP Short Order Coder http://unclechutney.blogspot.com What You Seek Is What You Get >>> I know. My point was simply that, yes, .NET is a development platform >>> that [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Pete In Microsoft's eyes, Visual Studio is the IDE for all kinds of Windows development, including native C++. Visual Studio 6 is 3 generations behind the latest version. And the IDE is not the .Net platform, but a set of programming tools. SignatureHTH, Kevin Spencer Microsoft MVP Short Order Coder http://unclechutney.blogspot.com What You Seek Is What You Get > My point being that Microsoft doesn't support VS 6.0 anymore, they only > support VS .NET. So, in MS's eyes .NET is the development platform to be [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >>>>>>>> Posted via DevelopmentNow.com Groups >>>>>>>> http://www.developmentnow.com
Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.