Is .NET already the right way to go for small app development?

Question

I am developing a small windows app, but have some trouble deciding whether to use .NET or not. As a coder I would like to make use of the .NET libraries. On the other hand, requiring my users to download the gargantuan .NET runtime seems like a horrible decision.

A 100 meg prerequisite might be alright for software in the scale of Visual Studio, but I feel like it would be a deal breaker for quick lightweight tools (think, for example, Notepad++). In the future, the .NET runtimes will likely become widespread enough to eradicate the problem, but in the short run, I feel uneasy.

In your opinion/experience, is 2009 too early for a small app to go .NET? Should I wait for the bigger players to pave the way?

Edit: Which versions, if any, come by default with XP SP2 and Vista?

Answer 1

If your users have either win xp sp2 or vista then they already have the framework installed.

So, if you are thinking if you should start developing your applications in .NET, then yes should.

Answer 2

You are right that .NET applications are bloated by needing the framework. If you're creating a mega-application that everyone will use, then it might be worth the effort to write it in the native language. For anything much else then the time you can save by using something like .NET outweighs the runtime cost.

Unless you need the latest and greatest features, stick with older versions of .NET and you shouldn't have to worry too much. Take the oldest OS in reasonable use right now that you want to target. So I guess that's Windows XP. The latest service pack for that comes with the .NET framework installed anyway. It would be nice to show a sensible warning if the user is lacking .NET, but otherwise you shouldn't need to worry about it.

Answer 3

These are subjective things of course, but I prefer JDK/JRE; it's more mature, and as a bonus its platform-independence is real, not just something on paper (.NET's Mono project is really not there yet.)

If you're sure that Windows is all you ever want to use, go with .NET.

Answer 4

.NET is shipped with any recent version of Windows, so I doubt that you will be severely limited by using .NET.

Do you need to support Windows 2000? If you're happy with 2003 and Vista, you should have no problem.

Keep in mind that not everyone will be on .NET 3.5 (SP1) tough, but if you're not using any of that it is no problem.

EDIT: It seems like I was mistaken regarding XP SP2. .NET 2.0 is not included in service pack 2 for XP. According to wikipedia W2003R2 was the first release to include .NET 2.0.

Answer 5

Depends on target audience. Imagine your typical user. Now try to guess his internet bandwidth and technical skills.

If you develop something "for grandma" with 56kbit modem and no technical knowledge do not use it.

If you develop for people with broadband and no fear of installing software by themselves you should use .NET.

Answer 6

The redistributable package for .net has cca 25MB. In these days, when users watch videos on youtube, the 25 MB is not barrier. And for example .NET 2.0 is part of Win XP SP 2, and the .NET 3.5 should be part of windows updtes.

Even so, users need download .NET only once. Then you can distribute only your app.

Answer 7

Why not look up the "real" size of the .NET Runtime before making assumptions?

http://www.smallestdotnet.com

It's really not always a 80 meg download. Most times it will take far less since some bits are already there etc.

Also note that with Jan .NET 3.5 SP1 is in Windows Update.

Answer 8

You might want to take a look at Scott Hanselman's site. It dispels the common illusion that the .NET framework downloads are hundreds of megs in size. That is only the Redistributable. End users do not need to download that version.

Answer 9

Hm, depends which .NET platform you're aiming for. Say .net 2.0 then you're gonna be free to develop for all windows xp and later OS and won't need framework install as prerequisite. Then targeting 3.0 in my opinion not worth, rather go straight to 3.5 since it packed with quite a bunch of new stuff that can make your development much easier With 3.5 you don't necessary need full framework install, I've lately been building .net 3.5 sp1 app for windows xp and up, and I used a very very nice Client Profile tool from Microsoft to deliver prerequisites for my app.

Here's detailed: Client Profile

Answer 10

It really depends on each project.

1. How much time/money will using .NET for the project save you? (Some things are easy to do without .NET, others aren't.)
2. To what extent will using .NET improve your ability to fix bugs/add features? (Difficult-to-maintain code goes out of date and people lose interest in the product.)
3. How likely is your target audience to already have the framework installed, or at least be proficient enough to obtain it?
4. How important is it to you that people are not "turned off" the product due to the .NET requirement? (Obviously the more people who use your app the better, but how important is this compared to the first two points? Would you rather have a better app but less users?)

Answer 11

I found this blog post, from 2005, that indicated that 85% of the new consumer PC's and 58% of the new business PC's had the .NET Framework installed (I'm assuming .NET 1.1). Your target demographic may vary, but I think a lot of potential customers will already have it installed.

Answer 12

Yes, it would be a dealbreaker for fast small tools. That's where Delphi is for.

But you should take a very good look at your market. People who do not upgrade are also unlikely to buy much software, so unless your target market is there, it might not matter too much.

And there is another trade-off, you might be able to deliver more features in less time with .net.

The answers you get here are likely to be a bit biased towards .net development.