..NET is extremely useful for what it was designed for - simple GUI apps.
Hardly anyone here will ever work on one of those so it isn't surprising the
general attitude you see


"Kerem Gümrükcü" <kareem114@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u3uq7vKPJHA.764@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Hi Maxim,
>

>>.NET is evil. :-)

>
> I dont know, but why none here likes .NET? .NET is not
> evil, its just fine,...as long as you dont need any assembly
> involved. One restriction of the application i am working
> on is, that it is not allowed to have any external stuff, it
> just has to be one big binary. So "tiny" console or "one
> shot" binaries are not allowed.
>
> Why does the application work on Windows 2000 and
> XP, but fails on Windows Vista? Do you have any suggestions.
> To be honest, i dont think thats an .NET (Layer) issue here,
> since it work on prior windows version just fine!
>
> Any ideas,...?
>
> Regards
>
> Kerem
>
>
> "Maxim S. Shatskih" <maxim@storagecraft.com.no.spam> schrieb im
> Newsbeitrag news:ubtjPcGPJHA.728@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>> Maybe important to know is that the application calls everything from
>>> the
>>> .NET
>>> PInvoke Layer

>>
>> .NET is evil. :-)
>>
>> Try writing a tiny command-line app in unmanaged C which will do the
>> same.
>>
>> --
>> Maxim S. Shatskih
>> Windows DDK MVP
>> maxim@storagecraft.com
>> http://www.storagecraft.com
>>

> .NET is extremely useful for what it was designed for - simple GUI apps.

Correct. It's rapid application development tool, like Delphi.

--
Maxim S. Shatskih
Windows DDK MVP
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

Hello!

> .NET is extremely useful for what it was designed for - simple GUI
> apps.

Sorry but this is non-sense. .NET never has been designed for simple GUI
apps.

Do you know the platform you're talking about?


GP

> Sorry but this is non-sense. .NET never has been designed for simple GUI

> apps.

I love .NET GUIs! The standard controls need a little improvement but
you can create the UI in zero time (and usually it's not simple at all
- in MFC you 'd need days to do all this work...).

It has a few limitations (as a Win32 wrapper) but I hope future
versions of .NET will be much better.

try again

"GP" <no@spam.com> wrote in message
news:u0ZSxAqPJHA.576@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Hello!
>

>> .NET is extremely useful for what it was designed for - simple GUI
>> apps.

>
> Sorry but this is non-sense. .NET never has been designed for simple GUI
> apps.
>
> Do you know the platform you're talking about?
>
>
> GP
>

> Do you know the platform you're talking about?

Surely.

Decrease in quality in lots of MS's software (rewritten to .NET) in ~Vista timeframe is a noticeable fact.

So: good tool for ASP.NET and for simple GUI apps. Good replacement for VB and Delphi, bad as a general development tool.

--
Maxim S. Shatskih
Windows DDK MVP
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com

On Nov 4, 11:05 pm, "Maxim S. Shatskih"
<ma...@storagecraft.com.no.spam> wrote:

> Decrease in quality in lots of MS's software (rewritten to .NET) in
> ~Vista timeframe is a noticeable fact.

Please cite one classic Windows app that was rewritten in .NET from XP
to Vista.

I ment on recent version of .NET (in 2003) problems with big structure
marshalings. It was fixed, but anyway, some problems existed ...

--
Volodymyr, blog: http://www.shcherbyna.com/
(This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights)
"Kerem Gümrükcü" <kareem114@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u3uq7vKPJHA.764@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Hi Maxim,
>

>>.NET is evil. :-)

>
> I dont know, but why none here likes .NET? .NET is not
> evil, its just fine,...as long as you dont need any assembly
> involved. One restriction of the application i am working
> on is, that it is not allowed to have any external stuff, it
> just has to be one big binary. So "tiny" console or "one
> shot" binaries are not allowed.
>
> Why does the application work on Windows 2000 and
> XP, but fails on Windows Vista? Do you have any suggestions.
> To be honest, i dont think thats an .NET (Layer) issue here,
> since it work on prior windows version just fine!
>
> Any ideas,...?
>
> Regards
>
> Kerem
>
>
> "Maxim S. Shatskih" <maxim@storagecraft.com.no.spam> schrieb im
> Newsbeitrag news:ubtjPcGPJHA.728@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>> Maybe important to know is that the application calls everything from
>>> the
>>> .NET
>>> PInvoke Layer

>>
>> .NET is evil. :-)
>>
>> Try writing a tiny command-line app in unmanaged C which will do the
>> same.
>>
>> --
>> Maxim S. Shatskih
>> Windows DDK MVP
>> maxim@storagecraft.com
>> http://www.storagecraft.com
>>

IMO the context of this NG doesn't suppose general development tasks
or problems

..NET as any other technology is good if you know where to apply it.

On Nov 5, 7:05*am, "Maxim S. Shatskih"
<ma...@storagecraft.com.no.spam> wrote:

>
> So: good tool for ASP.NET and for simple GUI apps. Good replacement for VB and Delphi, bad as a general development tool.
>

--
Vadym

Hello again!

Just to clarify (this maybe the wrong topic for the kernel-dev group):

The .NET Platform is surly not a Environment that shall be used for
"Low-Level" Applications. Kernel Mode Development is not possible at all,
and User-Mode Windows APIs are desiged to be used in a C Environment.
Allthough .NET has a strong P-Invoke Layer which allows Developers to use
most API Functions (allmost all User-Mode APIs can also be called from
..NET), it takes much longer to code, and it takes much longer to test.

Using .NET for a Product that needs eighter very many or very complex APIs
is of cause not a good choice.

But saying that .NET is just (another) RAD Tool (like Delphi or VB<=6) is
also wrong. The .NET Platform targets all kind of environments, not only
Windows GUIs. My personal Opinion is that System.Windows.Forms is one of the
Modules in .NET that are not really good (in case of Performance and
Resource-Usage). I cannot speak about WPF because I haven't used it until
now. Microsoft has done big investments in the .NET Platform, and it still
does. For very many modern Apps it is very well suited.

Like using .NET for "Low-Level" Dev-Work is a wrong choice, using C(++) for
e.g. an Web-Service based Application Server or a modern Web-Application is
also not very efficient.

If a Product needs some Low-Level stuff why not code them in C(++), and use
COM, P-Invoke or C++/CLI to make it accessable for .NET?


GP