If not .Net then what?

[Scott Roberts]

Re: If not .Net then what?


"Richard Heathfield" <rjh@see.sig.in validwrote in message
news:Ob6dnVPdnN dTgujanZ2dnUVZ8 q2dnZ2d@bt.com. ..

Arne Vajhøj said:

>Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>Terry Olsen said:
>>>The only objection to the .NET framework I've heard is from people who
>>>say they don't want some big runtime library installed on their pc's.
>>>
>>Another objection is that it's slow. The first program I moved to .Net
>>ran around 60 times slower than native - way too slow to be useful.

>>
>I think you should spend a bit more time studying .NET !

>
Let me explain the background. We were developing an analysis product for
a
UK bank, we already had working code, and we were asked to try our code
out under .Net - which we did. It ran sixty times slower. Our jaws
dropped, we laughed, and we didn't bother with .Net from then on. Ever.

I'm not sure that your inability to write efficient code with .Net is
necessarily and indictment against .Net.

If you're supposed to be hauling eight thousand tons of freight from
London
to Newcastle, and the boss suggests you try using a bicycle instead of
your existing freight train, well, you might give it a go (because it's
the boss asking), but when it doesn't work it would be very silly to blame
yourself for not studying the bicycle enough. You just go back to your
freight train.

I think you may have been asked to use freight train with more dials and
switches, and you couldn't figure out the controls, so you gave up. :)

Same with .Net - we came, we saw, we laughed - and left.

You came, you couldn't figure it out, you left.

..Net is (eventually) compiled into native code, so there is no reason for it
to be slower - other than lack of programmer skill, of course.

[jim]

Re: If not .Net then what?


"Scott Roberts" <sroberts@no.sp am.here-webworks-software.comwro te in
message news:OJG3eNXSIH A.5264@TK2MSFTN GP02.phx.gbl...

>
"Richard Heathfield" <rjh@see.sig.in validwrote in message
news:Ob6dnVPdnN dTgujanZ2dnUVZ8 q2dnZ2d@bt.com. ..

>Arne Vajhøj said:

>>Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>Terry Olsen said:
>>>>The only objection to the .NET framework I've heard is from people who
>>>>say they don't want some big runtime library installed on their pc's.
>>>>
>>>Another objection is that it's slow. The first program I moved to .Net
>>>ran around 60 times slower than native - way too slow to be useful.
>>>
>>I think you should spend a bit more time studying .NET !

>>
>Let me explain the background. We were developing an analysis product for
>a
>UK bank, we already had working code, and we were asked to try our code
>out under .Net - which we did. It ran sixty times slower. Our jaws
>dropped, we laughed, and we didn't bother with .Net from then on. Ever.

>
I'm not sure that your inability to write efficient code with .Net is
necessarily and indictment against .Net.
>

>If you're supposed to be hauling eight thousand tons of freight from
>London
>to Newcastle, and the boss suggests you try using a bicycle instead of
>your existing freight train, well, you might give it a go (because it's
>the boss asking), but when it doesn't work it would be very silly to
>blame
>yourself for not studying the bicycle enough. You just go back to your
>freight train.

>
I think you may have been asked to use freight train with more dials and
switches, and you couldn't figure out the controls, so you gave up. :)
>

>Same with .Net - we came, we saw, we laughed - and left.

>
You came, you couldn't figure it out, you left.
>
.Net is (eventually) compiled into native code, so there is no reason for
it to be slower - other than lack of programmer skill, of course.

I strongly disagree. Although I am no .Net expert, I am pretty adept at the
simple stuff. And, the simple .Net apps that I wrote had slower UIs and
presented data slower than their desktop counterparts.

The sad thing is that the desktop counterparts weren't even C++ - they were
VB6.

jim

[Scott Roberts]

Re: If not .Net then what?

>.Net is (eventually) compiled into native code, so there is no reason for
>it to be slower - other than lack of programmer skill, of course.

>
I strongly disagree. Although I am no .Net expert, I am pretty adept at
the simple stuff. And, the simple .Net apps that I wrote had slower UIs
and presented data slower than their desktop counterparts.
>
The sad thing is that the desktop counterparts weren't even C++ - they
were VB6.

When you say "simple stuff" it makes me think that you probably used the
built-in, drag & drop, "RAD" features of the IDE. I would contend that those
features are not intended for use in enterprise applications.

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: If not .Net then what?

Scott Roberts said:

<snip>

I'm not sure that your inability to write efficient code with .Net is
necessarily and indictment against .Net.

That's another way of looking at it, it's true. What you seem to be saying
is that it's really hard to write efficient code with .Net - which is just
another way of indicting it.

>Same with .Net - we came, we saw, we laughed - and left.

>
You came, you couldn't figure it out, you left.

What's to figure out? .Net was as slow as syrup, when we already had
something as fast as fireworks. So obviously we dropped it. You can say
it's down to a lack of programmer skill if you like, but your claim
translates to ".Net is so difficult that it can't be used efficiently by
two programmers with over 40 years C++ experience between them" - which
doesn't bode well for .Net, does it?

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]]

Re: If not .Net then what?

"Arne Vajhøj" <arne@vajhoej.d kschrieb:

>read my post above,...;-)

>
The one whre you for reasons unknown to me start to talk about MFC in
a Win32 API discusssion and use the term "Sh***", which I have no
idea about what means (the word that comes to my mind only has
4 letters not 5) ?

I assume it should refer to the word variant which has an "e" as its last
letter.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>

[jim]

Re: If not .Net then what?


"Scott Roberts" <sroberts@no.sp am.here-webworks-software.comwro te in
message news:%23daRfeXS IHA.1208@TK2MSF TNGP05.phx.gbl. ..

>

>>.Net is (eventually) compiled into native code, so there is no reason
>>for
>>it to be slower - other than lack of programmer skill, of course.

>>
>I strongly disagree. Although I am no .Net expert, I am pretty adept at
>the simple stuff. And, the simple .Net apps that I wrote had slower UIs
>and presented data slower than their desktop counterparts.
>>
>The sad thing is that the desktop counterparts weren't even C++ - they
>were VB6.

>
When you say "simple stuff" it makes me think that you probably used the
built-in, drag & drop, "RAD" features of the IDE. I would contend that
those features are not intended for use in enterprise applications.

You would be right. But, that's what we used to build the VB6 apps before
..Net - so why the disparity in speed?

And, why would RAD not be a thing needed in enterprise development? In all
of my enterprise development (back a few years) RAD was a big reason for
using VB. It saved us time in development and mocking up new apps.

jim

[jim]

Re: If not .Net then what?

Herfried!

Nice to see you around!

jim

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hirf-spam-me-here@gmx.atwrot e in message
news:%23hywIkXS IHA.2376@TK2MSF TNGP02.phx.gbl. ..

"Arne Vajhøj" <arne@vajhoej.d kschrieb:

>>read my post above,...;-)

>>
>The one whre you for reasons unknown to me start to talk about MFC in
>a Win32 API discusssion and use the term "Sh***", which I have no
>idea about what means (the word that comes to my mind only has
>4 letters not 5) ?

>
I assume it should refer to the word variant which has an "e" as its last
letter.
>
--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>

[Peter Duniho]

Re: If not .Net then what?

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:38:11 -0800, Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen
<lasse@vkarlsen .nowrote:

Not to bring this entire discussion too far off-topic [...]

It's already off-topic, due to the fact that "jim@home.n et" does not
appear to be able to restrain himself from excessive, inappropriate
cross-posting. This is the second time in a day that the
m.p.dotnet.lang uages.csharp newsgroup has been dragged into a lengthy
off-topic thread because of his posting habits.

I can't speak for comp.programmin g, but for sure the
m.p.dotnet.lang uages.* groups are not appropriate forums for comparative
discussions of various programming platforms. Those are for
language-specific programming questions, and nominally also general .NET
programming questions. _Maybe_ m.p.dotnet.gene ral is appropriate, but
even there I'm skeptical.

Of course, it doesn't help that there are a number of people willing to
perpetuate the problem. So we get these long drawn-out threads that have
nothing to do with the newsgroup they're in.

It would be very nice if others could show more restraint than the OP has.

Pete

[Scott Roberts]

Re: If not .Net then what?


"jim" <jim@home.netwr ote in message
news:uEadj.3185 7$Mu4.3163@bign ews7.bellsouth. net...

>
"Scott Roberts" <sroberts@no.sp am.here-webworks-software.comwro te in
message news:%23daRfeXS IHA.1208@TK2MSF TNGP05.phx.gbl. ..

>>

>>>.Net is (eventually) compiled into native code, so there is no reason
>>>for
>>>it to be slower - other than lack of programmer skill, of course.
>>>
>>I strongly disagree. Although I am no .Net expert, I am pretty adept at
>>the simple stuff. And, the simple .Net apps that I wrote had slower UIs
>>and presented data slower than their desktop counterparts.
>>>
>>The sad thing is that the desktop counterparts weren't even C++ - they
>>were VB6.

>>
>When you say "simple stuff" it makes me think that you probably used the
>built-in, drag & drop, "RAD" features of the IDE. I would contend that
>those features are not intended for use in enterprise applications.

>
You would be right. But, that's what we used to build the VB6 apps before
.Net - so why the disparity in speed?

I can't answer your question because I've never used the "RAD" (i.e. drag &
drop data-binding) features of any IDE.

And, why would RAD not be a thing needed in enterprise development? In
all of my enterprise development (back a few years) RAD was a big reason
for using VB. It saved us time in development and mocking up new apps.

I said it wasn't suited for enterprise apps. It's fine for prototyping, but
you don't convert a prototype into a production app (by definition).

Also, it would be false for me to say I don't use *any* RAD features. I
obviously drag and drop controls onto forms and position them, set
properties related to appearance, etc. But since disk I/O has always been
the bottleneck for DB apps, I tend to roll my own data-binding so I know
*exactly* what is going on and why.

[Scott Roberts]

Re: If not .Net then what?

>>Same with .Net - we came, we saw, we laughed - and left.

>>
>You came, you couldn't figure it out, you left.

>
What's to figure out? .Net was as slow as syrup, when we already had
something as fast as fireworks. So obviously we dropped it. You can say
it's down to a lack of programmer skill if you like, but your claim
translates to ".Net is so difficult that it can't be used efficiently by
two programmers with over 40 years C++ experience between them" - which
doesn't bode well for .Net, does it?

Did you bother to find out why it was so much slower? I'd be interested to
know, just for my own edification.

[Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]]

Re: If not .Net then what?

I wish you weren't a troll.

This is a great conversation to have, as there are a number of good options,
all with their own unique set of pros and cons.

.... but given, as evidenced from the other thread, that you're just
trolling, it doesn't seem worth the time. Ah well.

--
Chris Mullins

"jim" <jim@home.netwr ote in message
news:Oz6dj.3174 1$Mu4.12235@big news7.bellsouth .net...

In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and Xenocode,
it was pointed out that there may be better programming languages/IDEs to
use for the purpose of creating standalone, single executable apps.
>
My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs that
are distributed as single executables that do not require traditional
install packages to run.
>
I would like to use a drag and drop UI development tool like the .Net IDE
(or the old VB6) to make development as easy as possible. I am a hobbyist
programmer and would like to put out some useful apps, but I don't want to
have to become an expert at a complex language like C++ to do so reliably.
>
More than one person responding to the previous thread held the opinion
that .Net was great for corporate environments where all PCs are strictly
regulated, but may not be the best option to develop the type of apps that
I would like to develop for the PC community at large.
>
So what, in your opinion, would be a good alternative to use to develop
the type of applications that I am trying to develop?
>
jim
>

[jim]

Re: If not .Net then what?

And, I wish you had answer.

Is this what you do....troll around for threads to call people trolls in?

If you have nothing to add to the discussion, then add nothing (i.e. don't
post).

jim

"Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]" <cmullins@yahoo .comwrote in message
news:%230yhbHYS IHA.5160@TK2MSF TNGP05.phx.gbl. ..

>I wish you weren't a troll.
>
This is a great conversation to have, as there are a number of good
options, all with their own unique set of pros and cons.
>
... but given, as evidenced from the other thread, that you're just
trolling, it doesn't seem worth the time. Ah well.
>
--
Chris Mullins
>
"jim" <jim@home.netwr ote in message
news:Oz6dj.3174 1$Mu4.12235@big news7.bellsouth .net...

>In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and
>Xenocode, it was pointed out that there may be better programming
>languages/IDEs to use for the purpose of creating standalone, single
>executable apps.
>>
>My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs that
>are distributed as single executables that do not require traditional
>install packages to run.
>>
>I would like to use a drag and drop UI development tool like the .Net IDE
>(or the old VB6) to make development as easy as possible. I am a
>hobbyist programmer and would like to put out some useful apps, but I
>don't want to have to become an expert at a complex language like C++ to
>do so reliably.
>>
>More than one person responding to the previous thread held the opinion
>that .Net was great for corporate environments where all PCs are strictly
>regulated, but may not be the best option to develop the type of apps
>that I would like to develop for the PC community at large.
>>
>So what, in your opinion, would be a good alternative to use to develop
>the type of applications that I am trying to develop?
>>
>jim
>>

>
>

[Spam Catcher]

Re: If not .Net then what?

"Scott Roberts" <sroberts@no.sp am.here-webworks-software.comwro te in
news:#XzX$kWSIH A.5164@TK2MSFTN GP03.phx.gbl:

Further, you can supposedly port your code to linux fairly easily
using Kylix (Delphi for Linux), though I've never tried it (and
neither did anyone else, from what I can gather).

I thought Kylix didn't work too well? And Linux people prefer free
software?

--
spamhoneypot@ro gers.com (Do not e-mail)

[Andre Kaufmann]

Re: If not .Net then what?

Scott Roberts wrote:

>

>>>Same with .Net - we came, we saw, we laughed - and left.

[...]
Did you bother to find out why it was so much slower? I'd be interested
to know, just for my own edification.

Also it would be interesting, how the code was ported to .NET ?
Was it simply C++ / C recompiled as IL code ? This would be not a good
idea, except if you have to ship safe code.


I assume the original code was C based and used C string concatenations.
Simply porting such code to .NET without using StringBuilder wouldn't be
a good idea, performance wise.
Strings in .NET are immutable, which is still a reasonable decision
regarding multi threaded programming and safety.

I can write dumb code in C, which is slower than .NET code. Also I can
tune .NET code by simply using extension libraries like the (beta)
Parallel extensions to .NET, which by changing a single line makes the
code to use multiple cores and outperforms the C/C++ one using only a
single core.

As many other posters wrote, use the right tool for a special task and
don't assume that one code optimized for one platform runs and performs
the same way on other platforms.


Andre

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Re: If not .Net then what?

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Arne Vajhøj said:

>Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>Terry Olsen said:
>>>The only objection to the .NET framework I've heard is from people who
>>>say they don't want some big runtime library installed on their pc's.
>>Another objection is that it's slow. The first program I moved to .Net
>>ran around 60 times slower than native - way too slow to be useful.

>I think you should spend a bit more time studying .NET !

>
Let me explain the background. We were developing an analysis product for a
UK bank, we already had working code, and we were asked to try our code
out under .Net - which we did. It ran sixty times slower. Our jaws
dropped, we laughed, and we didn't bother with .Net from then on. Ever.

Same with .Net - we came, we saw, we laughed - and left.

You may benefit from looking again.

A factor x60 is not a typical difference.

I would expect a difference somewhere in the 0-60% range.

Something went wrong in that port.

Note that already having working code may actually be one
of the reasons. Porting design 1:1 from language A to B
can often result in poor design.

>>A third objection is that it's non-portable.

>Since the original poster stated:
>>
>#My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs
>>
>Then that should not be a problem.

>
Agreed. But I wasn't answering the OP. Rather, I was answering the person
who said "The only objection to the .NET framework I've heard is..." - so
I was just giving him a couple more to chew on.

I agree on that one.

Mono is a very interesting project.

But I would not recommend .NET as a portable solution
based on Mono.

Yeah, I can understand that, although there is something to be said for the
rapid development of cheesy little toys. Sometimes, they turn into Real
Programs that can be a real benefit to lots of users (at which point it
becomes worth writing them more - um - carefully, shall we say?).

Yep - it has happened many times !

Arne