 | |
Re: If not .Net then what?
Dotnet General Discussions microsoft.public.dotnet.general
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#1
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: If not .Net then what? -
12-28-2007
, 10:07 AM
|
Bear in mind that this thread is cross-posted. What you say may well be true in Windows, but it is not true of all computer systems, and especially embedded systems, which might be the *only* software running. |
was written differently on the non-dotNet groups.
#2
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
Bear in mind that this thread is cross-posted. What you say may well be true in Windows, but it is not true of all computer systems, and especially embedded systems, which might be the *only* software running. |
nor linux, nor vx, nor mac or other archtitecture. It was only meant for
Windows Systems, and i think the OP was talking about windows,...
Quote:
|
It depends how pickily you're using the term "standalone". |
modular or in our case from standalone 2 library dependency is
also very vague,...
Quote:
|
People nowadays have a fairly loose definition of "standalone", as in "all I have to ship is the .exe" - and under that definition, there's lots of scope for standalone applications, even under Windows, let alone under Linux, MS-DOS, and the Mac. |
truly very "loose". I think if we start a discussion here what can be
told standalone or modular could end up in a book of software
architecture. I have really a lot of experinence in writing code for
a bunch of OS's and architectures from (not kidding) binary over asm
till completely OOP even functional PL, and i know that something
can be for some developer a closed library but for the other a complete
stackable, modular, reusable component, e.g. when you thing about
functions, exports, code segements, just the COFF&PE Format is
just a piece of reusable (binary) data structure/code when it comes
to e.g. hooking binaries just to give an example,...
Quote:
|
.NET Framework is just fine, some additional dlls and a little pe modification for such a great framework is more than acceptable! Ah, but here we must agree to differ. :-) |
Each to his own dude,...
Regards
Kerem
--
-----------------------
Beste Grüsse / Best regards / Votre bien devoue
Kerem Gümrükcü
Microsoft Live Space: http://kerem-g.spaces.live.com/
Latest Open-Source Projects: http://entwicklung.junetz.de
-----------------------
"This reply is provided as is, without warranty express or implied."
#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
Hi Richard, Bear in mind that this thread is cross-posted. What you say may well be true in Windows, but it is not true of all computer systems, and especially embedded systems, which might be the *only* software running. yes, this was meant for windows systems, i dont talk about any other system, nor linux, nor vx, nor mac or other archtitecture. It was only meant for Windows Systems, and i think the OP was talking about windows,... |
so-called ".Net Applications" are, in fact, "standalone".
From reading Jim's other thread, he is apparently unhappy with the installed
base of the .Net framework and therefore doesn't view it as a viable
platform for his apps. No problem there, it's the same as not wanting to
write apps for linux or Macs or Mainframes because there just aren't enough
people who use those platforms.
But unlike those other platforms, .Net can be installed "on top of" Win32
which *is* widely deployed. Also, unlike those other platforms, I personally
believe that .Net *will* be ubiquitous in the next 3-5 years (if not
sooner).
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.