Request For Comments: .NET framework

[Midzuki]

I was just browsing another thread in a different forum,
and found another apparently-interesting tool; I clicked on the
hyperlink and soon afterwards I was informed that the damn application,
much to my disgust, "requires the infamous .NET framework". So, I'd like to
read the opinions of the real nerds and geeks about these two facts:

1) .NET framework is overbloatware {version 2.0: download size = 22.4 MB,
disk space requirement = 280 MB(x86)/610 MB(x64); version 3.0: download
size = 50 MB, disk space requirement = "OMG"};

2) the "DLL/Registry Hell" was replaced with the "Version Hell";

\\\\\

[yoda313]

I have it on my xp machine with no problems. I also have it on my vista machine no problems.

For certain programs you just have to have .net installed. It's not evil.

[SCDVD]

Here's a pretty good description of what .net is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework

[nTekka]

I wouldn't call it a bloatware, since its not loaded or even run in the background unless it is essential (like the REAL bloatware aka Internet Explorer)... its just a bunch of objects that your system and all .net program needs to run so its not bloated. Besides, what is 50 or 500 MB of storage space on a 120 GB HDD? assuming 120GB is somewhat normal for a PC, most have 500GB or more.

Let me ask you what the difference is if you browse a website that OMG "FLASH IS REQUIRED!!" what would you do? well obvious that you only have two options, screw it or download Flash player. If you say "But its only a couple MB" then you miss the point. Flash makes the site looks spiffy and some people like that so they download Flash player. Well .NET applications are better managed and more efficient than COM applications of the old days so theres nothing wrong with downloading .NET Framework.

So what's your real beef with .NET? are you an M$ hater? If you have a better solution to DLL/Registry hell than the current manifest version idea then do something about it instead of bitchin that it sux!!

[edDV]

Most heavy duty Windows software now requires .Net 2 or 3.

[JohnnyMalaria]

.NET makes it much easier for developers to write new software. It makes it much easier to translate from one programming language to another. This is very beneficial because one of the very impressive features of Windows in the powerful way that one program can talk to another without having to anything about its inner workings - the very opposite of DLL hell. It also allows different versions of the same DLL to be on the system without conflict.

Regarding installing the .NET Framework, once it's installed that's it. To deliberately not install it means you will become increasingly less able to run new applications. Compared to the size of typical hard drives, the space required is negligible.

Consider it an essential component of the operating system that will guarantee you future ability to run new and more powerful software. Otherwise use a different OS.

[guns1inger]

A few years back, if you downloaded a VB proghram you also had to have the right run-time libraries or it would not work. This is exactly the same thing.

[Midzuki]

www.news.com says:

The "DLL Hell" myth has served Microsoft well in the pushing of .Net. Too bad it was a BIG FAT LIE.

"Dll Hell" is, in reality, nothing more than programmers not understanding how Windows works - and Microsoft's failure to admit that the system registry is the root of this mythical problem.

You see, all Windows executables look in the local directory BEFORE they look to the system registry for a registered DLL. That's right! ALL of them do it, an they do it EVERY time they run.

The simple solution that Microsoft refused to tell programmers is that they can avoid "DLL Hell" by simply placing all of the DLLs that thier app used in the same directory as the executable. (You remember, just like C and C++ apps had done for YEARS before the advent of Windows and the "registry of death".)

It really is just that simple. In fact, that's what .Net does. .Net trashed using the registry for simple XML "manifests" (fancy INI files) and places all of it's DLLs in the executable directories.

.Net does this instead of linking the libraries into a single EXE (like Thinstall and Xenocode do very well). If .Net did the linking like those apps do, wou wouldn't have to distribute or install the .Net framework. And your apps would only include the portions of .Net that they require.

Had Microsoft told you that the real problem was the system registry that they had convinced you was a SOLUTION to your space issues and that fixing it was as easy as relocating your DLLs, .Net would have been even more of a .Bust than it has been already.

IMHO, .Net will go down in history as one of the biggest screw-ups in programming history.

The fact is that Microsoft saw JAVA as a threat. So, they re-invented JAVA (partly out of spite over a spat they had with Sun over the rights to modify JAVA for faster operations in the Windows OSs) and they named the beast .Net.

Don't believe me. Try placing the DLLs in the EXE folder and see for yourself. If you have a registered DLL somewhere else on the system and an internally different (but same signature) DLL in the EXE directory, the local DLL (the one living beside the EXE in the same directory) will always run. The app won't even look at the registry once it finds the DLL locally.

"DLL Hell" - right, and I've got some magic beans for sale if you're interested.

microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion says:

Now that I think of it....the system registry is a flawed concept created
primarily to save hard drive space when drives were much smaller and more
expensive.

The idea was to have 1 copy of a DLL *registered* on the PC so that many
apps could use it - thus keeping duplicates to a minimum and saving HDD
space.

The purpose was understandable, but they did not foresee the problem of DLLs
of different versions or how cheap drive space would become. Then, they
used their screw-up to blame developers for not coding right and creating
DLL Hell.

With .Net, you now have "Version Hell". For instance, you can get patches
from Microsoft for known .Net problems that alter the core .Net framework.
This makes your .Net 2.0 different from my .Net 2.0. And, depending on how
I coded around the flaw, your patch could break my code on your machine (or
the machines of an entire business).

Microsoft needs to go back to go forward. There's really no shame in that
though, as long as they can admit it and do what is best for us all.

The .Net framework sucks for writing apps for distribution to the masses.
You can't be sure a user will have .Net X.0, so it's up to YOU to ship
Microsoft's product.

As important as Microsoft says .Net is to THEIR future plans, it is
evidentially not important enough to be deemed a critical update and
installed on Microsoft PCs with the automatic updates (while WGA betas ARE
pushed out onto the unsuspecting public).

Microsoft should (at the very LEAST) take a clue from the folks at Thinstall
or Xenocode and include a compiler that links all needed objects and
portions of the .Net framework into a single, compressed, encrypted
(obfuscated) executable.

Then you don't have to worry about .Net versions, your own DLL versions, 3rd
party DLL versions, or registering ANYTHING to get your app to run.
Compression and selecting only the .Net portions needed can drop your app to
as little as 6MB (instead of 25+MB). Hell, it would even secure your code
more.

But, that isn't what .Net is really about, is it?

..Net is for Microsoft's vision of software as a service. They are getting
away from distributing applications and don't really give a tinker's damn if
you still can or not.

I've always said that .Net was an answer to a Microsoft problem (they want
software as a service and to cut down on internal costs)....not an answer
to developer issues. They could've kept VB6 functionality in .Net as
unmanaged code just like they did for C++, but it wasn't something THEY
needed - so #$@^ the 3,000,000 developers that did need it.

It's like that mythical "DLL Hell" bull*** that they sold people
on.....when they knew better. The simple solution to "DLL Hell" was just
to include your DLLs in the same directory as your EXE. In Win32, the exe
ALWAYS looks locally for the DLL before searching the registry....ALWAYS.
They created the damned OS! THEY KNEW "DLL HELL" WAS A LIE.

"DLL Hell" was, in reality, "Registry Hell". It's just that Microsoft did
not want to take the blame for creating a system that caused more problems
than it solved.

.Net will be one of the biggest screw ups in modern technology. It makes
easy things easier and hard things damned near impossible.

They are trying to cure end user ignorance with technology and tighter
security models. But, I've got news for them......you can't fix stupid.

I, too, am sick and tired of getting jerked around by Microsoft. They
issue so many updates to .Net that there is not (and cannot be) a .Net
guru pool of programmers.

It seems that Microsoft has things EXACTLY backwards. The programming
tools should age more while the Office tools should be updated more
quickly.

But, what do I know? I'm just a developer.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

P.S.: @ ******** and nTekka:
apologies for the "bitching" "bloat-spam-soapbox"
{
quotation marks denote irony ^_~
}

[wiseant]

Hey Midzuki

I like the quotes you included (albeit lots of spelling mistakes)

I avoid .NET framework - I just don't like the concept - and yes it is needed for some applications - so I always look for alternatives - like frontends for MEncoder - the most popular one requires .NET so I went out and found one that didn't need .NET and ended up being quite satisfied . . .

Just my 2-bits worth

[JohnnyMalaria]

@Miduzki

You haven't got the first clue about this. The control of DLL versions is just one aspect of the .NET Framework yet that's all you are focusing on.

As I stated earlier (which you must not have read and/or understood), there is much more to it than that. Many of the features used to create the graphical interface of an application (you know, the buttons, check boxes etc) are much, much simpler to do and more versatile. Look up "Windows Forms". It also introduces the "Common Runtime Library" (CLR) whereby the OS takes care will a lot of the housekeeping work that traditionally developers have had to code. I can write in 10 lines using .NET what would take about 50 to 100 in traditional C++. These features and others give us faster development time, less buggy/more reliable applications and, hence, cheaper and smaller software with better features sooner.

Stop spreading your anti-MS zealotry with FUD and stop feeding the flat earth society. You clearly have a fundamental gripe with Windows. Use a different OS if it's that troublesome for you.

Oh, and of course, I'm just a developer. And our next application will be .NET based.

[Delta2]

Yeah

That's the BIG..BIG disadvantage between a C++ and a M$ Visual Studio development

All legal Windows XP has already a framework, the problem is that most of the people don't do Windows Updates...and they have Framework 1.0 or 1.1

check your Windows system folder :

C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework

It is most certain that you have at least 1.0 or 1.1 version

So in order to be up-to-date you need 2.0

You can just remove the others...there is no application that uses 1.0 nowadays, 1.1 is full compatible with 1.0, but 2.0 it isn't

There is a lot of applications that requires .NET in order to work, for example :

ATI Graphics software

As for Windows Vista, it is not needed, it has already 2.0....new computers don't have XP installed

My opinion ?

It is a M$ ******* way to make users experiences more easy, and a nightmare for developers that wants to make something universal

C++, definitely is best, or Java

[JohnnyMalaria]

It is a M$ ******* way to make users experiences more easy, and a nightmare for developers that wants to make something universal

True, *if* you are targeting more than one platform. But for developers targeting just Windows, it makes the developer's experience better, too.

Let's say I have an app that needs to control Excel. In VB .NET it is trivial. For every Excel function I want to call (e.g., create a new sheet), I need just one line of code. In C++, it takes up to ten times as many since in C++ you have to write all the tedious stuff that .NET takes care of. Even for standalone applications, it is extremely quick to create the GUI and the corresponding functions. In Visual C++ it is tedious to say the least. In ANSI C++, I'd be there way past my bed time. Bear in mind, I'm talking about applications specifically targeting Windows. For software designed for complete cross-platform portability then it is a very different story. You need to stick to ANSI C++, use no processor-dependent code (MMX/SSE etc) and, frankly, stick to text-based apps. Otherwise you have to start providing platform-dependent libraries which defeats the object (from a purist perspective).

C++, definitely is best, or Java

That depends on what you are doing. No single language is the best for all scenarios. I'm rewriting something at the moment that I wrote originally in VC++ about 5 years ago. All the GUI stuff is going to be in VB .NET (because it is so ridiculously quick to develop and the GUI doesn't need to be optimized for speed/performance) and I will have a separate COM module written in C++. This module will contain the real hardcore functionality and, therefore, to maximize performance, C or C++ is the only viable option. It will not be a DLL since that requires explicit knowledge of its internal structure by the VB .NET part. Instead, it will be a COM object that can be used by any application in a very easy and quick-to-program manner.

As with all things, when you have a box of tools, the skill comes in selecting the right combination of tools to get you to your target as quickly and reliably as possible. For-profit software developers don't have the "luxury" of being purist about the selection of tools and, since the vast majority of for-profit software targets a single platform, there's no issue with using platform-dependent features.

[Midzuki]

JohnnyMalaria wrote:

You haven't got the first clue about this. The control of DLL versions is just one aspect of the .NET Framework yet that's all you are focusing on.

The other aspect of the .NET framework that you and your forummates keep wanting to
ignore is, the whole .NET thing has not been efficiently source-coded (which has always
been a central feature of most, if not all, Microsoft products). 280 MB of disk space
requirement clearly is too much disk space for a runtime environment, not to mention that
9 GB is too much disk space for an operating system. Today HDDs are dirty-cheap, and so
are memory chips, but is this a good excuse for acting irresponsibly?

Many of the features used to create the graphical interface of an application (you know, the buttons, check boxes etc) are much, much simpler to do and more versatile.

But at which cost? To be honest, VB5 and VB6 do suck less than .NET, imnsho.

These features and others give us faster development time,

That's good of course; but is not enough.

less buggy/more reliable applications

I doubt that. No RAD stuff can take the place of a reasonably-sized IQ.

Stop spreading your anti-MS zealotry

How much money do you receive from M$ for stating their troublewares
are not troublewares at all, but actually a synonym for "evolution" and "progress"?

You clearly have a fundamental gripe with Windows

Yes, you are right; all M$ products are close to perfection, and I say
IE is targeted @ the incurable n00bs only because I hate William Gates,
and anyone who is able to list every huge imperfection of all Win32 OSs
actually is just another rabid dog/bitch from Slashdot. Please stop being
ridiculous, OK? You are an extremely-intelligent person of course, but
unfortunately you still are unable to use your knowledge with wisdom.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

[Midzuki]

Delta2 wrote:

All legal Windows XP has already a framework, the problem is that most of the people don't do Windows Updates...and they have Framework 1.0 or 1.1

check your Windows system folder :

C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework

It is most certain that you have at least 1.0 or 1.1 version

Well, my Windows XP sp2 IS 100% legal, but no,
it does not have any .NET stuff at all.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Interesting.

You do have the WinSxS folder. This is where the multiple versions of DLLs reside - the attempt to get rid of DLL hell.

Your preference to avoid .NET is based around .NET being nothing but a glorified DLL hell. Even though you don't have .NET installed, you still have the very thing you are opposed to

Side-by-side assemblies (SxS) have been fundamental part of the OS since the introduction of XP. The only real way to avoid them is to use Win2K.

I realise this is slightly OT but your opening premise is around DLL hell.

[Delta2]

Well, my Windows XP sp2 IS 100% legal, but no,
it does not have any .NET stuff at all.

Well, it is a Windows Update issue

And believe me, Windows Vista already has that .NET

Windows XP will not live much longer

What soft was you trying to install anyway ? there is a lot of them that you can't run without .net

[nTekka]

But at which cost? To be honest, VB5 and VB6 do suck less than .NET, imnsho.

Um...VB is .NET. Anyway down to the point before you continue babling... How much experience do you have as a programmer and how much time have you spent on .NET? All of the sources you pointed out from News.com and MS forum are all nice, but they seem very much like "Opinions" from M$ "loving people". Like I said before, nothing is perfect but MS atleast presented and implemented an idea that is working pretty well. If you have a better solution then please do share it with the whole developer community, thats assuming you are an expert in multiple languages including .NET.

It seems like you don't know what .NET is, its not a "SOFTWARE"!! like MS Windows, Office, or IE, or what ever MS creates. .NET is a tool like C++, JAVA, etc. that really makes Object Oriented Programming effective. But you're making it sound like its a bloated software that people need to install to run an application like JAVA VM is needed to run JAVA app...Why don't you bitch about that I wonder? Is it because its not MS? so your whole argument isn't for .NET but AGAINST M$ out of arrogance/ignorance maybe?

I'm not particular fond of MS Monopoly or their business practice or their buggy as s$*t software, BUT .NET is a tool for advancement to the next level of programming that comes from the smartest programmers alive (Jeffry Richter, Jason Beres, Billy Hollis, etc) and I won't let you talk down on them cause you don't understand.

.NET wouldn't be so popular if people didn't like it so much, .NET C# is one of the fastest growing language and the highest demanding in the work force for a reason!!

[Midzuki]

@ Malaria and nTekka:

I did NOT take a look at your latest postings
on this thread, and I won't. You see, the previous comments
from you both already were not worth reading.

Most sincerely,

Me.

\\\\\\\\\\\\

[guns1inger]

Midzuki - you seem to be incredibly anti-Microsoft, and started this thread for no other reason than to trash .net. Your posts are littered with anti-Microsoft statements not because they are helpful, but because of your own prejudice. You also get very antagonistic toward anyone who doesn't share your irrational hatred.

Yet you use Windows XP. Why ?

[Midzuki]

guns1inger wrote:

A few years back, if you downloaded a VB proghram you also had to have the right run-time libraries or it would not work. This is exactly the same thing.

*Not* exactly.

vbrun40032.dll = less than 1MB ;
msvbvm50.dll = 1.3 MB ;
msvbvm60.dll = 1.3 MB ;

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

[guns1inger]

It also was only for VB. .net covers VB, C# and a range of other languages, and does a lot more work for the developer. However the underlying concept is the same. Your sizes are misleading however, because they only cover the runtime libraries. What they don't include are all the third part .dlls that were spewed all over the system because the runtime libraries were so limited in the facilities they actually provided.

[gadgetguy]

But at which cost? To be honest, VB5 and VB6 do suck less than .NET, imnsho.

Um...VB is .NET.

IIRC VB5 and VB6 were introduced before the .NET framework and therefore don't require it. There was an upgrade available to add the .NET framework to VB6 followed almost immediately by the whole .NET Visual Studio Suite.

Edit: For the record I am not a fan of the .NET framework, but I don't believe it's an evil entity. I just don't think it should be required to develop anything and everything that runs on Windows. A prime example is the recent development thread for HCBatchGUI. The latest tools required the .NET framework to develop and use a GUI interface to an application that doesn't require it. I personally don't have any interest in it because the software I use doesn't require it. There have been a few occasions where software I wanted required it, but I was able to develop an equivalent for my own use in VB6 without it.

[gadgetguy]

@ Malaria and nTekka:

I did NOT take a look at your latest postings
on this thread, and I won't. You see, the previous comments
from you both already were not worth reading.

Most sincerely,

Me.

\\\\\\\\\\\\

If you didn't want comments, why did you ask for them? Did you seriously think you would only get negative comments?

[freebird73717]

Interesting thread. I will say this. I like the ease of coding in C# but realize that not everyone like .net so I'm trying c++.

An app that i released first as .net took almost a month to get 50 downloads. When the c++ version was released it got 30+ downloads in one day.

[JohnnyMalaria]

None of our software uses .NET. However, one version somehow required it during installation. Visual Studio, in its infinite wisdom, tagged the project as needing .NET. Now I am aware of that particular bug....

Our main application has a very involved GUI and the underlying C++ code is complex and tedious to write. However, the program requires maximum efficiency in order to maximize the CPU usage available to the real core of the application.

The next application in the pipeline will most likely have a .NET based GUI but the core will be unmanaged C++/hand-code assembly. In my experience, I spend more time messing around with getting the GUI right (as well as the Help file) than the underlying primary functionality of the software. .NET (specifically Windows forms) makes the GUI development extremely quick and very easy to link to the underlying code.

[JohnnyMalaria]

@ Malaria and nTekka:

I did NOT take a look at your latest postings
on this thread, and I won't. You see, the previous comments
from you both already were not worth reading.

Most sincerely,

Me.

\\\\\\\\\\\\

That's unfortunate since I provided a constructive and informative response that took effort and time on my part for *your* benefit and in reply to *your* RFC.

Oh well.

Ctrl-Alt-Del, S, Enter