Has the requirement to deploy the .NET framework with a .NET application caused programmers to go back to languages such as C++ where more standalone applications can be created?
+2
A:
I think it's more of a question that many people held of switching to .Net until the framework became more prevalent. Now, when most Windows computers have at least .Net 2.0 I can't see that being a big factor for most developers though, but might stop some people from using features from never versions of the framework.
ho1
2010-06-11 08:18:46
Windows 7 comes with 3.5 SP1 pre-installed, by the way.
OregonGhost
2010-06-11 08:23:28
What if your app uses an earlier version of .NET?
Craig Johnston
2010-06-11 08:43:43
.NET 3.5 (SP1) is built upon .NET 2.0, so that's no problem at all. If 3.5 is installed, programs made for 2.0 will run perfectly.
Bart
2010-06-11 08:56:35
@Craig Johnston: If you had an app built for 1.0 or 1.1 you might want to upgrade it to 2.0 though, I don't think they're installed by default any longer.
ho1
2010-06-11 09:26:43
+2
A:
I can't imagine that to be seen frequently. It means that Java developers also must go to C++. Also I believe there are much more important factors to be considered while choosing language or platform then just need of installing framework.
Incognito
2010-06-11 08:22:46
For our desktop apps you can use Client Profile, which is significantly smaller than the full Framework.
Incognito
2010-06-11 09:02:57
The Java runtime also downloads and installs an update every few weeks, so it's much more over time. But it doesn't matter. The point is that you have to download or distribute something. It's not that some MB make a difference today, even if the internet connection is slow. And don't forget that the .NET framework has to be installed only once.
OregonGhost
2010-06-11 09:03:41
+1
A:
It's not that the framework is really big. The 3.5 Client Profile is about 24MB (despite the fact that you'd have to extract it manually from the large download). A C++ app with common Qt libraries will also sum up to a two-digit number, let alone additional resources. And the framework may be already installed, and can be installed online if it is not - you don't really have to distribute a lot. What you get with .NET, however, is a not only a productive development environment with short turnaround times and great debugging tools, but also one of the largest class libraries available. I have a large poster with a BCL overview in my office - it's really large, with a huge amount of small boxes with small text, literally hundreds. And a box is just a namespace, not a class. Good trade for maybe a few MB here and there.
OregonGhost
2010-06-11 08:31:11
No arguments that the class library is huge and powerful, but wouldn't it be better to deploy only the classes you need without having to deploy the whole framework?
Craig Johnston
2010-06-11 08:45:46
The point is that in many cases, the .NET Framework is not deployed by you, but either by Microsoft or by someone else who installed it. If everybody deploys the used classes manually, you'd have a lot of duplicates. You can, by the way, also merge the used classes into a single executable, if you really, really think that you can't deploy the framework. Download two Qt applications and you're already larger than two apps with the .NET Client Profile.
OregonGhost
2010-06-11 08:57:27