If not .Net then what?

In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and Xenocode,
it was pointed out that there may be better programming languages/IDEs to
use for the purpose of creating standalone, single executable apps.

My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs that
are distributed as single executables that do not require traditional
install packages to run.

I would like to use a drag and drop UI development tool like the .Net IDE
(or the old VB6) to make development as easy as possible. I am a hobbyist
programmer and would like to put out some useful apps, but I don't want to
have to become an expert at a complex language like C++ to do so reliably.

More than one person responding to the previous thread held the opinion that
..Net was great for corporate environments where all PCs are strictly
regulated, but may not be the best option to develop the type of apps that I
would like to develop for the PC community at large.

So what, in your opinion, would be a good alternative to use to develop the
type of applications that I am trying to develop?

jim

Re: If not .Net then what?

jim wrote:
> In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and Xenocode,
> it was pointed out that there may be better programming languages/IDEs to
> use for the purpose of creating standalone, single executable apps.
>
> My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs that
> are distributed as single executables that do not require traditional
> install packages to run.
>
> I would like to use a drag and drop UI development tool like the .Net IDE
> (or the old VB6) to make development as easy as possible. I am a hobbyist
> programmer and would like to put out some useful apps, but I don't want to
> have to become an expert at a complex language like C++ to do so reliably.
>
> More than one person responding to the previous thread held the opinion that
> .Net was great for corporate environments where all PCs are strictly
> regulated, but may not be the best option to develop the type of apps that I
> would like to develop for the PC community at large.
>
> So what, in your opinion, would be a good alternative to use to develop the
> type of applications that I am trying to develop?

I think you should stick to C# (or VB.NET if you so prefer). Just
consider not targeting the latest and greatest .NET version.

Since Win2003 Windows does come with .NET preinstalled and it
is pushed out to Windows XP via Windows Update.

I believe you can even distribute the runtime with your app.

Unless your app specifically targets users with old Windows
version and/or slow dialup internet connections, then I can not
see a problem going with .NET !

Arne

Re: If not .Net then what?

The .NET framework should be installed on every Windows XP machine that is
kept updated. That means you don't have to create an installer package. You
can distribute the executable alone and it should work fine. Vista machines
have the .NET framework pre-installed.

The only objection to the .NET framework I've heard is from people who say
they don't want some big runtime library installed on their pc's. But what
do they think Windows itself is? It's a big runtime library that every
windows application ever written requires to run. The .NET framework is just
a few extra DLL's in the System32 directory.

I use primarily use VB for all my development. Every now & then some dummy
will email me and with "why don't you write a version of this program that
doesn't require the .NET framework?" And I'll respond with "why don't you
write it yourself?"

I use VB not because i'm stupid, but because I'm lazy. I like that I can
whip out a windows form in a few seconds and use the various built-in
functions and classes to do the work that I want done. I've been known to
get a quick app done in 15 minutes when someone says "I need a utility to do
this...". Using a non-ide language like gcc or other command-line compilers
doesn't make any sense to me. It's a time waster.

If I need to make a program that works without the .NET framework (one
that'll run on a BartPE bootable CD, for example) then I use BCX. But to
design the form, I use VB6 to create the .frm file, and use a program I
wrote to convert the .frm file into the BCX code needed to create the form
at runtime.

So it's up to you. Use whatever you're comfortable with and don't listen to
people who have pre-conceived ideas about your language of choice.

"jim" wrote in message
news:Oz6dj.31741$Mu4.12235@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and Xenocode,
> it was pointed out that there may be better programming languages/IDEs to
> use for the purpose of creating standalone, single executable apps.
>
> My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs that
> are distributed as single executables that do not require traditional
> install packages to run.
>
> I would like to use a drag and drop UI development tool like the .Net IDE
> (or the old VB6) to make development as easy as possible. I am a hobbyist
> programmer and would like to put out some useful apps, but I don't want to
> have to become an expert at a complex language like C++ to do so reliably.
>
> More than one person responding to the previous thread held the opinion
> that .Net was great for corporate environments where all PCs are strictly
> regulated, but may not be the best option to develop the type of apps that
> I would like to develop for the PC community at large.
>
> So what, in your opinion, would be a good alternative to use to develop
> the type of applications that I am trying to develop?
>
> jim
>

Re: If not .Net then what?

Jim,

Honestly the application that you want to develop is from the previous
millennium from the time that Dos was reigning.

Now user's wants (while they tell that they do not), all kind of advanced
behaviour. That needs a lot of extra software for which the Net framework
is, it seems to me, the best solution today. You alone cannot create all the
classes which help us to make software today. The runtime of that software
(however not only that runtime, there is much more) is now in the Net
assemblies.

Another advance from Net related software is that it is easy to deploy
because the real application can be relative small because most people have
already the .Net versions and a Windows OS on their computer. The advance
from the Net versions is that it is undependable from the Windows OS that is
running. However not small as not any OS part is (and every runtime for
windows is).

Be aware that there never were really small applications that could run on
windows OS systems. An average VB6 was by instance much huger to deploy and
absolute not deployable with dialup connections. In past every (non
assembler type) program language had its own runtime even when big parts
were included in the OS (like in mainframes)

If you don't know why runtimes are build: First they appeared to overcome
every time repeated simple instructions as adding, which can be, without a
runtime, need real a lot of instructions, while in fact it is endless times
done in a program. This can be used of course for everything and is every
time done more.

I hope that this explains something to you.

Cor

Re: If not .Net then what?

[followups set to comp.programming, where I'm reading this thread]

Terry Olsen said:



> The only objection to the .NET framework I've heard is from people who
> say they don't want some big runtime library installed on their pc's.

Another objection is that it's slow. The first program I moved to .Net ran
around 60 times slower than native - way too slow to be useful.

A third objection is that it's non-portable. Even if I were of a mind to
run .Net programs under Linux, I couldn't actually do so - at least, not
yet. Mono promises to sort that out... oonnee ddaayy...... but in the
meantime Linux users would rather have something that actually works.



> I use VB not because i'm stupid, but because I'm lazy.

Being even lazier than you, I use C++ Builder for those rare occasions when
I need to write a Windows program. Because I'm so lazy, though, I prefer
to use Linux, where almost everything is so much easier to do. (In the
interests of balance and fairness, I will of course concede that there are
some things that it's easier to do in Windows. But industrial-strength
programming isn't one of them.)

> I like that I can
> whip out a windows form in a few seconds and use the various built-in
> functions and classes to do the work that I want done. I've been known to
> get a quick app done in 15 minutes when someone says "I need a utility to
> do this...".

What took you? My personal record for responding to such a request is 30
seconds (including compilation) for the first version, and another 60
seconds when the user suddenly decided to require some extra features.
Builder rocks like that. I recommend it to you - and it doesn't need that
silly .Net framework either.

> Using a non-ide language like gcc or other command-line
> compilers doesn't make any sense to me. It's a time waster.

I don't like wasting my time, which is why I use the best tool for the job.
Sometimes, that's an IDE tool like C++ Builder. But sometimes it's a
command-line tool. If you think command line compilers are a waste of
time, that suggests that you haven't much experience of life outside the
world of pointy-clicky.



> So it's up to you. Use whatever you're comfortable with and don't listen
> to people who have pre-conceived ideas about your language of choice.

There, at least, I can agree with you.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users:
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

Re: If not .Net then what?

Hi Jim,
> More than one person responding to the previous thread held the opinion
> that .Net was great for corporate environments where all PCs are strictly
> regulated, but may not be the best option to develop the type of apps that
> I would like to develop for the PC community at large.
that kind of opinion is often offered by people jealously guarding their
'corporate' pond and perks it offers. No matter what environment you are
developing for what matters is the quality and usefulness of your program.
It is much easier to conceal lousy workmanship in a corporate environment
where expressing an honest opinion may cost dearly.

> I would like to use a drag and drop UI development tool like the .Net IDE
> (or the old VB6) to make development as easy as possible.
Just don't it expect to think for you.

> In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and Xenocode,
> it was pointed out that there may be better programming languages/IDEs to
> use for the purpose of creating standalone, single executable apps.
I never used Thininstall. Xenocode allows wrapping the whole application -
executables, Dlls, ActiveX, databases, INI or XML, plus, when necessary,
the whole .NET Framework, into a single executable. This executable can also
wrap registry entries. You can simply copy such an executable onto the hard
drive of the target machine without the traditional setup. This is
especially handy when the application includes an ActiveX that normally
would require registration on the target machine. I word of caution - if you
do it as hobby, it may cost you some money, besides the time and effort.

Michael

"jim" wrote in message
news:Oz6dj.31741$Mu4.12235@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and Xenocode,
> it was pointed out that there may be better programming languages/IDEs to
> use for the purpose of creating standalone, single executable apps.
>
> My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs that
> are distributed as single executables that do not require traditional
> install packages to run.
>
> I would like to use a drag and drop UI development tool like the .Net IDE
> (or the old VB6) to make development as easy as possible. I am a hobbyist
> programmer and would like to put out some useful apps, but I don't want to
> have to become an expert at a complex language like C++ to do so reliably.
>
> More than one person responding to the previous thread held the opinion
> that .Net was great for corporate environments where all PCs are strictly
> regulated, but may not be the best option to develop the type of apps that
> I would like to develop for the PC community at large.
>
> So what, in your opinion, would be a good alternative to use to develop
> the type of applications that I am trying to develop?
>
> jim
>

Re: If not .Net then what?

> In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and Xenocode, it
> was pointed out that there may be better programming languages/IDEs to use
> for the purpose of creating standalone, single executable apps.

Delphi 7 (newer versions are not as stable) does that very well.

--
Michael
----
http://michael.moreno.free.fr/
http://port.cogolin.free.fr/

Re: If not .Net then what?

Hi Jim,

>for the purpose of creating standalone, single executable apps

No application is standalone, every application has at least
an reference to the kernel dll and maybe to advapi, gdi, netapi
or user api. The only standalone application you can say is a real
standalone application would be a BIOS Code, Bootloader,
oskernel and code working in that space,...

..NET Framework is just fine, some additional dlls and a little
pe modification for such a great framework is more than acceptable!

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."

Re: If not .Net then what?

Hi,


You can always use C++ and write unmanaged apps, if you only use win32 API
you know for sure that it will run always.




"jim" wrote in message
news:Oz6dj.31741$Mu4.12235@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and Xenocode,
> it was pointed out that there may be better programming languages/IDEs to
> use for the purpose of creating standalone, single executable apps.
>
> My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs that
> are distributed as single executables that do not require traditional
> install packages to run.
>
> I would like to use a drag and drop UI development tool like the .Net IDE
> (or the old VB6) to make development as easy as possible. I am a hobbyist
> programmer and would like to put out some useful apps, but I don't want to
> have to become an expert at a complex language like C++ to do so reliably.
>
> More than one person responding to the previous thread held the opinion
> that .Net was great for corporate environments where all PCs are strictly
> regulated, but may not be the best option to develop the type of apps that
> I would like to develop for the PC community at large.
>
> So what, in your opinion, would be a good alternative to use to develop
> the type of applications that I am trying to develop?
>
> jim
>


--
Ignacio Machin
http://www.laceupsolutions.com
Mobile & warehouse Solutions.

Re: If not .Net then what?

Thanks!

I've seen Delphi pop up a lot in these conversations, but I was kind of
afraid that it may not be that reliable since Borland couldn't make a go of
it.

I'd hate to begin using a language/IDE and have the company supporting it go
under. It would just waste a lot of time that I could have spent learning
something else.

jim



"Michael Moreno" wrote in message
news:mn.e3607d7cfcf7bece.21643@free.fr...
>> In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and
>> Xenocode, it was pointed out that there may be better programming
>> languages/IDEs to use for the purpose of creating standalone, single
>> executable apps.
>
> Delphi 7 (newer versions are not as stable) does that very well.
>
> --
> Michael
> ----
> http://michael.moreno.free.fr/
> http://port.cogolin.free.fr/
>
>

Re: If not .Net then what?

[F-Us set to c.p]

Kerem Gümrükcü said:

> Hi Jim,
>
>>for the purpose of creating standalone, single executable apps
>
> No application is standalone, every application has at least
> an reference to the kernel dll and maybe to advapi, gdi, netapi
> or user api.

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.

> The only standalone application you can say is a real
> standalone application would be a BIOS Code, Bootloader,
> oskernel and code working in that space,...

It depends how pickily you're using the term "standalone". 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.

> .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. :-)

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users:
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

Re: If not .Net then what?

Hi Ignacio,

>You can always use C++ and write unmanaged apps, if you only use win32 API
>you know for sure that it will run always.

as long as you use apis that are downward compatible and do not
depends on sh*** like mfc (anf if soyou need the rigth runtime) and
you target the right cpu (32/64), then you can run your code on any
windows,...if you target windows,..

But if you need indipendend runtimes then go write generic x86 asm and
store it in libs ond objectcode that you can compile into single exe image.
But i see only need for this if you need fast algo's and dont want to depend
on any runtime (c-runtime, mfc, msvb, et al,....)

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."

Re: If not .Net then what?

> 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.
>

The original post stated Windows XP or higher. The original post apparently
was written differently on the non-dotNet groups.

Re: If not .Net then what?

Jim,

On top of what has been said already you have very little to lose trying
..NET since the Express edition is free. There should be no concerning about
large required run times since they are most likely there already and if not
99% of users without the framework can install it quickly and easily.

To be honest (coming from a former long time Delphi developer) at this
moment in time .NET is an excellent, or should I say the best way to write
desktop applications. For someone just beginning you should have only a
short learning curve. As task become more complex you need look no farther
then these newsgroups for resources to questions which come either in the
form of expert responses or pointers to web sites which hold the key to your
issue at hand.

VB.NET or C#, that has already been hashed out high level. I like C# but my
agency settled on VB. Either one will get the common task done.

"jim" wrote in message
news:Oz6dj.31741$Mu4.12235@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and Xenocode,
> it was pointed out that there may be better programming languages/IDEs to
> use for the purpose of creating standalone, single executable apps.
>
> My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs that
> are distributed as single executables that do not require traditional
> install packages to run.
>
> I would like to use a drag and drop UI development tool like the .Net IDE
> (or the old VB6) to make development as easy as possible. I am a hobbyist
> programmer and would like to put out some useful apps, but I don't want to
> have to become an expert at a complex language like C++ to do so reliably.
>
> More than one person responding to the previous thread held the opinion
> that .Net was great for corporate environments where all PCs are strictly
> regulated, but may not be the best option to develop the type of apps that
> I would like to develop for the PC community at large.
>
> So what, in your opinion, would be a good alternative to use to develop
> the type of applications that I am trying to develop?
>
> jim
>

Re: If not .Net then what?

Ignacio Machin ( .NET/ C# MVP ) wrote:
> You can always use C++ and write unmanaged apps, if you only use win32 API
> you know for sure that it will run always.

Only if you do not use features only available in newer windows
versions.

But admitteded the Win32 API is rather mature in not much
is added these days.

Arne

@ Richard - Re: If not .Net then what?

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,...

>It depends how pickily you're using the term "standalone".

Oh yes, it really depends and the the transition from monolithic to
modular or in our case from standalone 2 library dependency is
also very vague,...

>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.

I asume you are a experienced developer so the term "standalone" is
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,...

> .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. :-)

Suum Cuique ;-)

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."

Re: If not .Net then what?

Hi Arne,

read my post above,...;-)

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."

Re: If not .Net then what?

"jim" wrote in message
news:eQ7dj.31776$Mu4.4081@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> Thanks!
>
> I've seen Delphi pop up a lot in these conversations, but I was kind of
> afraid that it may not be that reliable since Borland couldn't make a go
> of it.
>
> I'd hate to begin using a language/IDE and have the company supporting it
> go under. It would just waste a lot of time that I could have spent
> learning something else.
>
> jim

If by "Borland couldn't make a go of it" you mean "Borland has developed 10+
versions of it over the span of 10+ years" then I guess you're right. I
started using Delphi 2.0 in 1997.

People have been predicting the demise of Delphi for years. The reality is,
it's a niche product that performs admirably for it's intended purpose. And
I think it would be great for someone who wants to create "standalone" Win32
apps. I would gauge it as "far superior" to VS up until VS 2003. I agree
with the previous poster who recommended Delphi 7. It's very stable. D8 was
a complete nightmare - so much so that I haven't tried any version since.

Further, you can supposedly port your code to linux fairly easily using
Kylix (Delphi for Linux), though I've never tried it (and neither did anyone
else, from what I can gather).

Re: If not .Net then what?

Richard Heathfield wrote:
>[followups set to comp.programming, where I'm reading this thread]

Changed back to include the groups more relevant for the question.

> Terry Olsen said:
>> The only objection to the .NET framework I've heard is from people who
>> say they don't want some big runtime library installed on their pc's.
>
> Another objection is that it's slow. The first program I moved to .Net ran
> around 60 times slower than native - way too slow to be useful.

I think you should spend a bit more time studying .NET !

> A third objection is that it's non-portable.

Since the original poster stated:

#My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs

Then that should not be a problem.

>> I like that I can
>> whip out a windows form in a few seconds and use the various built-in
>> functions and classes to do the work that I want done. I've been known to
>> get a quick app done in 15 minutes when someone says "I need a utility to
>> do this...".
>
> What took you? My personal record for responding to such a request is 30
> seconds (including compilation) for the first version, and another 60
> seconds when the user suddenly decided to require some extra features.
> Builder rocks like that.

I am not particular impressed by either claim. If I had ever created
an app that fast I would try to keep it a secret - if you get my point.

Arne

Re: If not .Net then what?

Richard Heathfield wrote:
> [F-Us set to c.p]

Set back again.

> Kerem Gümrükcü said:
>>> for the purpose of creating standalone, single executable apps
>> No application is standalone, every application has at least
>> an reference to the kernel dll and maybe to advapi, gdi, netapi
>> or user api.
>
> 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.

The original post said:

#My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs

So the assumption about Windows is fine.

I just don't think the original poster should have included
a group as general as comp.programming for a Windows specific
question.

Arne

Re: If not .Net then what?

Kerem Gümrükcü wrote:
> read my post above,...;-)

The one whre you for reasons unknown to me start to talk about MFC in
a Win32 API discusssion and use the term "Sh***", which I have no
idea about what means (the word that comes to my mind only has
4 letters not 5) ?

Arne

Re: @ Richard - Re: If not .Net then what?

"Kerem Gümrükcü" wrote in message
news:%23c9VakWSIHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> 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,...

I've got to agree with Kerem. If you view .Net as a platform (as I do) then
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).

Re: If not .Net then what?

"Scott Roberts" wrote in
message news:%23XzX$kWSIHA.5164@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> "jim" wrote in message
> news:eQ7dj.31776$Mu4.4081@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>> Thanks!
>>
>> I've seen Delphi pop up a lot in these conversations, but I was kind of
>> afraid that it may not be that reliable since Borland couldn't make a go
>> of it.
>>
>> I'd hate to begin using a language/IDE and have the company supporting it
>> go under. It would just waste a lot of time that I could have spent
>> learning something else.
>>
>> jim
>
> If by "Borland couldn't make a go of it" you mean "Borland has developed
> 10+ versions of it over the span of 10+ years" then I guess you're right.
> I started using Delphi 2.0 in 1997.

I don't mean to run down Delphi (or Borland). I remember coding some pretty
cool apps with Turbo Pascal myself. I was simply commenting on the fact
that Borland spun off the developer tools section to a new company called
CodeGear. That makes me a little nervous as a developer.

> People have been predicting the demise of Delphi for years. The reality
> is, it's a niche product that performs admirably for it's intended
> purpose. And I think it would be great for someone who wants to create
> "standalone" Win32 apps. I would gauge it as "far superior" to VS up until
> VS 2003. I agree with the previous poster who recommended Delphi 7. It's
> very stable. D8 was a complete nightmare - so much so that I haven't tried
> any version since.

I'll look into D7.

> Further, you can supposedly port your code to linux fairly easily using
> Kylix (Delphi for Linux), though I've never tried it (and neither did
> anyone else, from what I can gather).

I called Borland about Kylix a year (maybe 2) ago, and the person that I
spoke to at Borland had never heard of Kylix. I had to show her the website
for it. At that point Kylix had not been upgraded in 3 years.

I really wish that companies that "retire" software (like Kylix and OS2)
would make it open source. It would be a real help to everyone.

Can you imagine what the world would be like if IBM open sourced OS2 instead
of letting it rot on the vine? It was better than Windows back then......

jim

Re: If not .Net then what?

Arne Vajhøj said:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Terry Olsen said:
>>> The only objection to the .NET framework I've heard is from people who
>>> say they don't want some big runtime library installed on their pc's.
>>
>> Another objection is that it's slow. The first program I moved to .Net
>> ran around 60 times slower than native - way too slow to be useful.
>
> I think you should spend a bit more time studying .NET !

Let me explain the background. We were developing an analysis product for a
UK bank, we already had working code, and we were asked to try our code
out under .Net - which we did. It ran sixty times slower. Our jaws
dropped, we laughed, and we didn't bother with .Net from then on. Ever.

If you're supposed to be hauling eight thousand tons of freight from London
to Newcastle, and the boss suggests you try using a bicycle instead of
your existing freight train, well, you might give it a go (because it's
the boss asking), but when it doesn't work it would be very silly to blame
yourself for not studying the bicycle enough. You just go back to your
freight train.

Same with .Net - we came, we saw, we laughed - and left.

>> A third objection is that it's non-portable.
>
> Since the original poster stated:
>
> #My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs
>
> Then that should not be a problem.

Agreed. But I wasn't answering the OP. Rather, I was answering the person
who said "The only objection to the .NET framework I've heard is..." - so
I was just giving him a couple more to chew on.

>>> I like that I can
>>> whip out a windows form in a few seconds and use the various built-in
>>> functions and classes to do the work that I want done. I've been known
>>> to get a quick app done in 15 minutes when someone says "I need a
>>> utility to do this...".
>>
>> What took you? My personal record for responding to such a request is 30
>> seconds (including compilation) for the first version, and another 60
>> seconds when the user suddenly decided to require some extra features.
>> Builder rocks like that.
>
> I am not particular impressed by either claim. If I had ever created
> an app that fast I would try to keep it a secret - if you get my point.

Yeah, I can understand that, although there is something to be said for the
rapid development of cheesy little toys. Sometimes, they turn into Real
Programs that can be a real benefit to lots of users (at which point it
becomes worth writing them more - um - carefully, shall we say?).

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users:
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

Re: If not .Net then what?

Arne Vajhøj said:

> I just don't think the original poster should have included
> a group as general as comp.programming for a Windows specific
> question.

Precisely. I agree entirely.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users:
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

Re: If not .Net then what?

jim wrote:
> Thanks!
>
> I've seen Delphi pop up a lot in these conversations, but I was kind of
> afraid that it may not be that reliable since Borland couldn't make a go of
> it.
>

Delphi, older versions, was a very very good development system, well
able to stand on its own against Microsofts tools. The main problem was
userbase and the decision to go for .NET which meant Borland would be
stuck in catch-up mode for a foreseeable future.

They lost the battle, however, mostly because they slipped on the
stability criteria and started shipping really buggy software. Couple
that with a low userbase and the future suddenly didn't look too bright.

If Borland had stuck to what it did best, produce a Win32 compiler, they
might've still had a competing product. These days Delphi is more like
roadkill.

(note, this is an opinion from a long-time Delphi and .NET user)

--
Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen
mailto:lasse@vkarlsen.no
http://presentationmode.blogspot.com/

Re: If not .Net then what?

Hi jim,

In your case Delphi would me my choice, too.
At least when your requirements are an OS that doesn't have .net installed
by default (XP).

--
Miha Markic [MVP C#, INETA Country Leader for Slovenia]
RightHand .NET consulting & development www.rthand.com
Blog: http://cs.rthand.com/blogs/blog_with_righthand/

"jim" wrote in message
news:Oz6dj.31741$Mu4.12235@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and Xenocode,
> it was pointed out that there may be better programming languages/IDEs to
> use for the purpose of creating standalone, single executable apps.
>
> My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs that
> are distributed as single executables that do not require traditional
> install packages to run.
>
> I would like to use a drag and drop UI development tool like the .Net IDE
> (or the old VB6) to make development as easy as possible. I am a hobbyist
> programmer and would like to put out some useful apps, but I don't want to
> have to become an expert at a complex language like C++ to do so reliably.
>
> More than one person responding to the previous thread held the opinion
> that .Net was great for corporate environments where all PCs are strictly
> regulated, but may not be the best option to develop the type of apps that
> I would like to develop for the PC community at large.
>
> So what, in your opinion, would be a good alternative to use to develop
> the type of applications that I am trying to develop?
>
> jim
>

Re: If not .Net then what?

On 28/12/2007 in message jim
wrote:

>I've seen Delphi pop up a lot in these conversations, but I was kind of
>afraid that it may not be that reliable since Borland couldn't make a go
>of it.
>
>I'd hate to begin using a language/IDE and have the company supporting it
>go under. It would just waste a lot of time that I could have spent
>learning something else.

Codegear is a subsidiary of Borland so they haven't given up yet :-)

I have been following your thoughts with interest. I don't like Delphi and
the IDE is not as good as VS. I've even started playing with C again, I
could never get on with C++.

There is definitely a need for an IDE to develop pure desktop
applications, VS is much too web-centric.

--
Jeff Gaines

Re: If not .Net then what?

> I don't mean to run down Delphi (or Borland). I remember coding some
> pretty cool apps with Turbo Pascal myself. I was simply commenting on the
> fact that Borland spun off the developer tools section to a new company
> called CodeGear. That makes me a little nervous as a developer.

While I did use Delphi in corporate environments, it was really adopted more
by hobbyists and freelancers. Borland decided to try to focus on enterprise
markets (you may recall them changing their name to "Inprise" for a bit) and
began to focus on non-Delphi tools. It was a bit perplexing to those of us
who loved Delphi because some version of Pascal had always been their
flagship product. I have no idea what they are doing now.

> I called Borland about Kylix a year (maybe 2) ago, and the person that I
> spoke to at Borland had never heard of Kylix. I had to show her the
> website for it. At that point Kylix had not been upgraded in 3 years.

Kylix was highly demanded and highly touted. I don't really know why it
failed so miserably. I recall it getting fairly good reviews, and people
chalked it up to "linux users don't want to pay for software".

Re: If not .Net then what?

Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Arne Vajhøj said:
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> Terry Olsen said:
>>>> The only objection to the .NET framework I've heard is from people who
>>>> say they don't want some big runtime library installed on their pc's.
>>> Another objection is that it's slow. The first program I moved to .Net
>>> ran around 60 times slower than native - way too slow to be useful.
>> I think you should spend a bit more time studying .NET !
>
> Let me explain the background. We were developing an analysis product for a
> UK bank, we already had working code, and we were asked to try our code
> out under .Net - which we did. It ran sixty times slower. Our jaws
> dropped, we laughed, and we didn't bother with .Net from then on. Ever.
>
> If you're supposed to be hauling eight thousand tons of freight from London
> to Newcastle, and the boss suggests you try using a bicycle instead of
> your existing freight train, well, you might give it a go (because it's
> the boss asking), but when it doesn't work it would be very silly to blame
> yourself for not studying the bicycle enough. You just go back to your
> freight train.

Hauling cargo is usually not done the fastest way, just to make a point
here. The cost of doing so far outweighs the actual benefits. There is
typically a sweet spot where you calculate the cost of fuel, increased
wear and tear, and thus maintenance, against the reduced cost of labor,
and time-to-market. I've seen examples of around 75% of the best speed.
Bicycle? no... Trucks? perhaps...

My point? The task of picking the "best tool for the job" should never
use only one measurement to determine the "bestness".

Now, I'm not saying that you could justify switching to a system that
ran your workload at 1/60th of the current speed, but there could be
other trade-offs that could lead you to accept some speed degradation to
get other benefits, perhaps by rewriting the engine using a more
..NET-based approach. Since you don't describe the workload, I'll assume
the best .NET-based approach for this workload ran at 1/60th of the
speed of your current solution. In this case, .NET is entirely the wrong
tool for this particular job.

In your case it might not be possible to get pure .NET managed code to
do what you wanted with the speed you required, but its all about
picking the best tool for the job. Perhaps building the GUI would be
better with .NET and C++ would be better for your analysis engine.

All I can say is that .NET apps does not by a long shot run generally at
1/60th of the speed of a non-.NET app. I've seen faster ones, and I've
seen slower ones. To be fair, many of the slower ones were *really* slow
compared to the non-.NET implementation, but in that case the wrong tool
was being used.

It all depends.

In the original posters case, there are loads of questions that would
have to be asked before a reliable answer could be given to the question
of what is the best tool. Here's just a few of them:

- what is the program supposed to do?
- what kind of programming languages/systems do you know already?
- why the criteria of single-exe, no installer?
- what is the target userbase? (linked to what the program is supposed
to do)

--
Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen
mailto:lasse@vkarlsen.no
http://presentationmode.blogspot.com/

Re: If not .Net then what?

Scott Roberts wrote:
> If by "Borland couldn't make a go of it" you mean "Borland has developed
> 10+ versions of it over the span of 10+ years" then I guess you're
> right. I started using Delphi 2.0 in 1997.
>
> People have been predicting the demise of Delphi for years. The reality
> is, it's a niche product that performs admirably for it's intended
> purpose. And I think it would be great for someone who wants to create
> "standalone" Win32 apps. I would gauge it as "far superior" to VS up
> until VS 2003. I agree with the previous poster who recommended Delphi
> 7. It's very stable. D8 was a complete nightmare - so much so that I
> haven't tried any version since.

Not to bring this entire discussion too far off-topic, but Borland was
good at making their niche products, but the latest versions have all
shipped (and been patched to) horribly buggy beasts.

Delphi had its time in the spotlight and could've pulled off a standing
ovation dance act, but it stumbled along the way. I wouldn't inflict
Delphi on my worst enemy these days.

--
Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen
mailto:lasse@vkarlsen.no
http://presentationmode.blogspot.com/

Re: If not .Net then what?

Thanks Miha!


"Miha Markic" wrote in message
news:OFCOs5WSIHA.5136@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi jim,
>
> In your case Delphi would me my choice, too.
> At least when your requirements are an OS that doesn't have .net installed
> by default (XP).
>
> --
> Miha Markic [MVP C#, INETA Country Leader for Slovenia]
> RightHand .NET consulting & development www.rthand.com
> Blog: http://cs.rthand.com/blogs/blog_with_righthand/
>
> "jim" wrote in message
> news:Oz6dj.31741$Mu4.12235@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>> In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and
>> Xenocode, it was pointed out that there may be better programming
>> languages/IDEs to use for the purpose of creating standalone, single
>> executable apps.
>>
>> My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs that
>> are distributed as single executables that do not require traditional
>> install packages to run.
>>
>> I would like to use a drag and drop UI development tool like the .Net IDE
>> (or the old VB6) to make development as easy as possible. I am a
>> hobbyist programmer and would like to put out some useful apps, but I
>> don't want to have to become an expert at a complex language like C++ to
>> do so reliably.
>>
>> More than one person responding to the previous thread held the opinion
>> that .Net was great for corporate environments where all PCs are strictly
>> regulated, but may not be the best option to develop the type of apps
>> that I would like to develop for the PC community at large.
>>
>> So what, in your opinion, would be a good alternative to use to develop
>> the type of applications that I am trying to develop?
>>
>> jim
>>
>

Re: If not .Net then what?

"Richard Heathfield" wrote in message
news:Ob6dnVPdnNdTgujanZ2dnUVZ8q2dnZ2d@bt.com...
> Arne Vajhøj said:
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> Terry Olsen said:
>>>> The only objection to the .NET framework I've heard is from people who
>>>> say they don't want some big runtime library installed on their pc's.
>>>
>>> Another objection is that it's slow. The first program I moved to .Net
>>> ran around 60 times slower than native - way too slow to be useful.
>>
>> I think you should spend a bit more time studying .NET !
>
> Let me explain the background. We were developing an analysis product for
> a
> UK bank, we already had working code, and we were asked to try our code
> out under .Net - which we did. It ran sixty times slower. Our jaws
> dropped, we laughed, and we didn't bother with .Net from then on. Ever.

I'm not sure that your inability to write efficient code with .Net is
necessarily and indictment against .Net.

> If you're supposed to be hauling eight thousand tons of freight from
> London
> to Newcastle, and the boss suggests you try using a bicycle instead of
> your existing freight train, well, you might give it a go (because it's
> the boss asking), but when it doesn't work it would be very silly to blame
> yourself for not studying the bicycle enough. You just go back to your
> freight train.

I think you may have been asked to use freight train with more dials and
switches, and you couldn't figure out the controls, so you gave up. :)

> Same with .Net - we came, we saw, we laughed - and left.

You came, you couldn't figure it out, you left.

..Net is (eventually) compiled into native code, so there is no reason for it
to be slower - other than lack of programmer skill, of course.

Re: If not .Net then what?

"Scott Roberts" wrote in
message news:OJG3eNXSIHA.5264@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> "Richard Heathfield" wrote in message
> news:Ob6dnVPdnNdTgujanZ2dnUVZ8q2dnZ2d@bt.com...
>> Arne Vajhøj said:
>>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> Terry Olsen said:
>>>>> The only objection to the .NET framework I've heard is from people who
>>>>> say they don't want some big runtime library installed on their pc's.
>>>>
>>>> Another objection is that it's slow. The first program I moved to .Net
>>>> ran around 60 times slower than native - way too slow to be useful.
>>>
>>> I think you should spend a bit more time studying .NET !
>>
>> Let me explain the background. We were developing an analysis product for
>> a
>> UK bank, we already had working code, and we were asked to try our code
>> out under .Net - which we did. It ran sixty times slower. Our jaws
>> dropped, we laughed, and we didn't bother with .Net from then on. Ever.
>
> I'm not sure that your inability to write efficient code with .Net is
> necessarily and indictment against .Net.
>
>> If you're supposed to be hauling eight thousand tons of freight from
>> London
>> to Newcastle, and the boss suggests you try using a bicycle instead of
>> your existing freight train, well, you might give it a go (because it's
>> the boss asking), but when it doesn't work it would be very silly to
>> blame
>> yourself for not studying the bicycle enough. You just go back to your
>> freight train.
>
> I think you may have been asked to use freight train with more dials and
> switches, and you couldn't figure out the controls, so you gave up. :)
>
>> Same with .Net - we came, we saw, we laughed - and left.
>
> You came, you couldn't figure it out, you left.
>
> .Net is (eventually) compiled into native code, so there is no reason for
> it to be slower - other than lack of programmer skill, of course.

I strongly disagree. Although I am no .Net expert, I am pretty adept at the
simple stuff. And, the simple .Net apps that I wrote had slower UIs and
presented data slower than their desktop counterparts.

The sad thing is that the desktop counterparts weren't even C++ - they were
VB6.

jim

Re: If not .Net then what?

>> .Net is (eventually) compiled into native code, so there is no reason for
>> it to be slower - other than lack of programmer skill, of course.
>
> I strongly disagree. Although I am no .Net expert, I am pretty adept at
> the simple stuff. And, the simple .Net apps that I wrote had slower UIs
> and presented data slower than their desktop counterparts.
>
> The sad thing is that the desktop counterparts weren't even C++ - they
> were VB6.

When you say "simple stuff" it makes me think that you probably used the
built-in, drag & drop, "RAD" features of the IDE. I would contend that those
features are not intended for use in enterprise applications.

Re: If not .Net then what?

"Arne Vajhøj" schrieb:
>> read my post above,...;-)
>
> The one whre you for reasons unknown to me start to talk about MFC in
> a Win32 API discusssion and use the term "Sh***", which I have no
> idea about what means (the word that comes to my mind only has
> 4 letters not 5) ?

I assume it should refer to the word variant which has an "e" as its last
letter.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P
V B

Re: If not .Net then what?

Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen said:


>
> Now, I'm not saying that you could justify switching to a system that
> ran your workload at 1/60th of the current speed,

Not only could we not, but we saw no reason why we would want to.

> but there could be
> other trade-offs that could lead you to accept some speed degradation to
> get other benefits, perhaps by rewriting the engine using a more
> .NET-based approach.

Excuse me? We already had working code - and you want us to *rewrite* it?
As in, write it *again*? I Don't Think So. We already had a solution that
worked well and worked fast. We tried it on .Net and suddenly it took ten
minutes instead of ten seconds. Now, we had two ways we could go - rewrite
the code to find two orders of decimal magnitude from somewhere (bearing
in mind that the original coding did not build in two orders of stupidity
for us to magically find later), or drop .Net - it was no contest, believe
me.

> Since you don't describe the workload, I'll assume
> the best .NET-based approach for this workload ran at 1/60th of the
> speed of your current solution. In this case, .NET is entirely the wrong
> tool for this particular job.

Right. That's what we thought, too.

> In your case it might not be possible to get pure .NET managed code to
> do what you wanted with the speed you required, but its all about
> picking the best tool for the job. Perhaps building the GUI would be
> better with .NET and C++ would be better for your analysis engine.

GUI? Why would we need a GUI? It was analysis software, not a video game.
Its job was to dig out dependency relationships from application source
files, so it was parsing SQL, HTML, C, C++, VB, VBS, and a bunch of other
stuff (as instructed over a socket), and writing dependency data back
through the same socket. No GUI requested, required, or desired.

> All I can say is that .NET apps does not by a long shot run generally at
> 1/60th of the speed of a non-.NET app.

I'm delighted to hear it, but in a fast-moving business like software
development you don't get two chances at a first impression.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users:
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

Re: If not .Net then what?

"Scott Roberts" wrote in
message news:%23daRfeXSIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>>> .Net is (eventually) compiled into native code, so there is no reason
>>> for
>>> it to be slower - other than lack of programmer skill, of course.
>>
>> I strongly disagree. Although I am no .Net expert, I am pretty adept at
>> the simple stuff. And, the simple .Net apps that I wrote had slower UIs
>> and presented data slower than their desktop counterparts.
>>
>> The sad thing is that the desktop counterparts weren't even C++ - they
>> were VB6.
>
> When you say "simple stuff" it makes me think that you probably used the
> built-in, drag & drop, "RAD" features of the IDE. I would contend that
> those features are not intended for use in enterprise applications.

You would be right. But, that's what we used to build the VB6 apps before
..Net - so why the disparity in speed?

And, why would RAD not be a thing needed in enterprise development? In all
of my enterprise development (back a few years) RAD was a big reason for
using VB. It saved us time in development and mocking up new apps.

jim

Re: If not .Net then what?

Scott Roberts said:



> I'm not sure that your inability to write efficient code with .Net is
> necessarily and indictment against .Net.

That's another way of looking at it, it's true. What you seem to be saying
is that it's really hard to write efficient code with .Net - which is just
another way of indicting it.

>> Same with .Net - we came, we saw, we laughed - and left.
>
> You came, you couldn't figure it out, you left.

What's to figure out? .Net was as slow as syrup, when we already had
something as fast as fireworks. So obviously we dropped it. You can say
it's down to a lack of programmer skill if you like, but your claim
translates to ".Net is so difficult that it can't be used efficiently by
two programmers with over 40 years C++ experience between them" - which
doesn't bode well for .Net, does it?

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users:
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

Re: If not .Net then what?

Herfried!

Nice to see you around!

jim

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" wrote in message
news:%23hywIkXSIHA.2376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> "Arne Vajhøj" schrieb:
>>> read my post above,...;-)
>>
>> The one whre you for reasons unknown to me start to talk about MFC in
>> a Win32 API discusssion and use the term "Sh***", which I have no
>> idea about what means (the word that comes to my mind only has
>> 4 letters not 5) ?
>
> I assume it should refer to the word variant which has an "e" as its last
> letter.
>
> --
> M S Herfried K. Wagner
> M V P
> V B

Re: If not .Net then what?

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:38:11 -0800, Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen
wrote:

> Not to bring this entire discussion too far off-topic [...]

It's already off-topic, due to the fact that "jim@home.net" does not
appear to be able to restrain himself from excessive, inappropriate
cross-posting. This is the second time in a day that the
m.p.dotnet.languages.csharp newsgroup has been dragged into a lengthy
off-topic thread because of his posting habits.

I can't speak for comp.programming, but for sure the
m.p.dotnet.languages.* groups are not appropriate forums for comparative
discussions of various programming platforms. Those are for
language-specific programming questions, and nominally also general .NET
programming questions. _Maybe_ m.p.dotnet.general is appropriate, but
even there I'm skeptical.

Of course, it doesn't help that there are a number of people willing to
perpetuate the problem. So we get these long drawn-out threads that have
nothing to do with the newsgroup they're in.

It would be very nice if others could show more restraint than the OP has.

Pete

Re: If not .Net then what?

"jim" wrote in message
news:uEadj.31857$Mu4.3163@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Scott Roberts" wrote in
> message news:%23daRfeXSIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>
>>>> .Net is (eventually) compiled into native code, so there is no reason
>>>> for
>>>> it to be slower - other than lack of programmer skill, of course.
>>>
>>> I strongly disagree. Although I am no .Net expert, I am pretty adept at
>>> the simple stuff. And, the simple .Net apps that I wrote had slower UIs
>>> and presented data slower than their desktop counterparts.
>>>
>>> The sad thing is that the desktop counterparts weren't even C++ - they
>>> were VB6.
>>
>> When you say "simple stuff" it makes me think that you probably used the
>> built-in, drag & drop, "RAD" features of the IDE. I would contend that
>> those features are not intended for use in enterprise applications.
>
> You would be right. But, that's what we used to build the VB6 apps before
> .Net - so why the disparity in speed?

I can't answer your question because I've never used the "RAD" (i.e. drag &
drop data-binding) features of any IDE.

> And, why would RAD not be a thing needed in enterprise development? In
> all of my enterprise development (back a few years) RAD was a big reason
> for using VB. It saved us time in development and mocking up new apps.

I said it wasn't suited for enterprise apps. It's fine for prototyping, but
you don't convert a prototype into a production app (by definition).

Also, it would be false for me to say I don't use *any* RAD features. I
obviously drag and drop controls onto forms and position them, set
properties related to appearance, etc. But since disk I/O has always been
the bottleneck for DB apps, I tend to roll my own data-binding so I know
*exactly* what is going on and why.

Re: If not .Net then what?

>>> Same with .Net - we came, we saw, we laughed - and left.
>>
>> You came, you couldn't figure it out, you left.
>
> What's to figure out? .Net was as slow as syrup, when we already had
> something as fast as fireworks. So obviously we dropped it. You can say
> it's down to a lack of programmer skill if you like, but your claim
> translates to ".Net is so difficult that it can't be used efficiently by
> two programmers with over 40 years C++ experience between them" - which
> doesn't bode well for .Net, does it?

Did you bother to find out why it was so much slower? I'd be interested to
know, just for my own edification.

Re: If not .Net then what?

I wish you weren't a troll.

This is a great conversation to have, as there are a number of good options,
all with their own unique set of pros and cons.

.... but given, as evidenced from the other thread, that you're just
trolling, it doesn't seem worth the time. Ah well.

--
Chris Mullins

"jim" wrote in message
news:Oz6dj.31741$Mu4.12235@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and Xenocode,
> it was pointed out that there may be better programming languages/IDEs to
> use for the purpose of creating standalone, single executable apps.
>
> My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs that
> are distributed as single executables that do not require traditional
> install packages to run.
>
> I would like to use a drag and drop UI development tool like the .Net IDE
> (or the old VB6) to make development as easy as possible. I am a hobbyist
> programmer and would like to put out some useful apps, but I don't want to
> have to become an expert at a complex language like C++ to do so reliably.
>
> More than one person responding to the previous thread held the opinion
> that .Net was great for corporate environments where all PCs are strictly
> regulated, but may not be the best option to develop the type of apps that
> I would like to develop for the PC community at large.
>
> So what, in your opinion, would be a good alternative to use to develop
> the type of applications that I am trying to develop?
>
> jim
>

Re: If not .Net then what?

And, I wish you had answer.

Is this what you do....troll around for threads to call people trolls in?

If you have nothing to add to the discussion, then add nothing (i.e. don't
post).

jim

"Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]" wrote in message
news:%230yhbHYSIHA.5160@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I wish you weren't a troll.
>
> This is a great conversation to have, as there are a number of good
> options, all with their own unique set of pros and cons.
>
> ... but given, as evidenced from the other thread, that you're just
> trolling, it doesn't seem worth the time. Ah well.
>
> --
> Chris Mullins
>
> "jim" wrote in message
> news:Oz6dj.31741$Mu4.12235@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>> In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and
>> Xenocode, it was pointed out that there may be better programming
>> languages/IDEs to use for the purpose of creating standalone, single
>> executable apps.
>>
>> My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs that
>> are distributed as single executables that do not require traditional
>> install packages to run.
>>
>> I would like to use a drag and drop UI development tool like the .Net IDE
>> (or the old VB6) to make development as easy as possible. I am a
>> hobbyist programmer and would like to put out some useful apps, but I
>> don't want to have to become an expert at a complex language like C++ to
>> do so reliably.
>>
>> More than one person responding to the previous thread held the opinion
>> that .Net was great for corporate environments where all PCs are strictly
>> regulated, but may not be the best option to develop the type of apps
>> that I would like to develop for the PC community at large.
>>
>> So what, in your opinion, would be a good alternative to use to develop
>> the type of applications that I am trying to develop?
>>
>> jim
>>
>
>

Re: If not .Net then what?

"Scott Roberts" wrote in
news:#XzX$kWSIHA.5164@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:

> Further, you can supposedly port your code to linux fairly easily
> using Kylix (Delphi for Linux), though I've never tried it (and
> neither did anyone else, from what I can gather).

I thought Kylix didn't work too well? And Linux people prefer free
software?

--
spamhoneypot@rogers.com (Do not e-mail)

Re: If not .Net then what?

Troll or not, he has a point. copy & run is a weak point in .net right now.
That is until you are guaranteed that OS has a .net framework installed
which isn't to happen anytime soon.
--
Miha Markic [MVP C#, INETA Country Leader for Slovenia]
RightHand .NET consulting & development www.rthand.com
Blog: http://cs.rthand.com/blogs/blog_with_righthand/

"Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]" wrote in message
news:%230yhbHYSIHA.5160@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I wish you weren't a troll.
>
> This is a great conversation to have, as there are a number of good
> options, all with their own unique set of pros and cons.
>
> ... but given, as evidenced from the other thread, that you're just
> trolling, it doesn't seem worth the time. Ah well.
>
> --
> Chris Mullins

Re: If not .Net then what?

Scott Roberts wrote:
>
>>>> Same with .Net - we came, we saw, we laughed - and left.
> [...]
> Did you bother to find out why it was so much slower? I'd be interested
> to know, just for my own edification.

Also it would be interesting, how the code was ported to .NET ?
Was it simply C++ / C recompiled as IL code ? This would be not a good
idea, except if you have to ship safe code.


I assume the original code was C based and used C string concatenations.
Simply porting such code to .NET without using StringBuilder wouldn't be
a good idea, performance wise.
Strings in .NET are immutable, which is still a reasonable decision
regarding multi threaded programming and safety.

I can write dumb code in C, which is slower than .NET code. Also I can
tune .NET code by simply using extension libraries like the (beta)
Parallel extensions to .NET, which by changing a single line makes the
code to use multiple cores and outperforms the C/C++ one using only a
single core.

As many other posters wrote, use the right tool for a special task and
don't assume that one code optimized for one platform runs and performs
the same way on other platforms.


Andre

Re: If not .Net then what?

"Scott Roberts" schrieb:
>> I've seen Delphi pop up a lot in these conversations, but I was kind of
>> afraid that it may not be that reliable since Borland couldn't make a go
>> of it.
>>
>> I'd hate to begin using a language/IDE and have the company supporting it
>> go under. It would just waste a lot of time that I could have spent
>> learning something else.
>>
>> jim
>
> If by "Borland couldn't make a go of it" you mean "Borland has developed
> 10+ versions of it over the span of 10+ years" then I guess you're right.
> I started using Delphi 2.0 in 1997.
>
> People have been predicting the demise of Delphi for years.

Well, yes, but on the other hand Classic Visual Basic (Version 1.0 to 6.0)
was a flagship product and it has been "killed" too without providing an
acceptable upgrade path. If preservation of assets is important, make sure
there exists more than one implementation of the programming language and
the libraries used by applications developed using it. In addition, the
programming language should be widely adopted, so you are not alone if one
vendor suddenly decides to stop further development. Sure, there are many
other factors to be taken into account too for choosing the right
programming language.

> The reality is, it's a niche product that performs admirably for it's
> intended
> purpose. And I think it would be great for someone who wants to create
> "standalone" Win32 apps.

Delphi is now developed by another company than Borland. I am not sure
about support for older versions of Delphi like Delphi 7. Applications
developed using older versions may not be guaranteed to work properly on
future versions of Windows. That's what will finally kill VB6 too.

> Further, you can supposedly port your code to linux fairly easily using
> Kylix (Delphi for Linux), though I've never tried it (and neither did
> anyone else, from what I can gather).´

Is Kylix still supported and developed further?

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P
V B

Re: If not .Net then what?

Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Arne Vajhøj said:
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> Terry Olsen said:
>>>> The only objection to the .NET framework I've heard is from people who
>>>> say they don't want some big runtime library installed on their pc's.
>>> Another objection is that it's slow. The first program I moved to .Net
>>> ran around 60 times slower than native - way too slow to be useful.
>> I think you should spend a bit more time studying .NET !
>
> Let me explain the background. We were developing an analysis product for a
> UK bank, we already had working code, and we were asked to try our code
> out under .Net - which we did. It ran sixty times slower. Our jaws
> dropped, we laughed, and we didn't bother with .Net from then on. Ever.

> Same with .Net - we came, we saw, we laughed - and left.

You may benefit from looking again.

A factor x60 is not a typical difference.

I would expect a difference somewhere in the 0-60% range.

Something went wrong in that port.

Note that already having working code may actually be one
of the reasons. Porting design 1:1 from language A to B
can often result in poor design.

>>> A third objection is that it's non-portable.
>> Since the original poster stated:
>>
>> #My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs
>>
>> Then that should not be a problem.
>
> Agreed. But I wasn't answering the OP. Rather, I was answering the person
> who said "The only objection to the .NET framework I've heard is..." - so
> I was just giving him a couple more to chew on.

I agree on that one.

Mono is a very interesting project.

But I would not recommend .NET as a portable solution
based on Mono.

> Yeah, I can understand that, although there is something to be said for the
> rapid development of cheesy little toys. Sometimes, they turn into Real
> Programs that can be a real benefit to lots of users (at which point it
> becomes worth writing them more - um - carefully, shall we say?).

Yep - it has happened many times !

Arne

Re: If not .Net then what?

jim wrote:
> I strongly disagree. Although I am no .Net expert, I am pretty adept at the
> simple stuff. And, the simple .Net apps that I wrote had slower UIs and
> presented data slower than their desktop counterparts.

Hm. That text does not really make any sense. A win forms .NET app
is a desktop app as well. And comparing a web app with a desktop app
is at least when it comes to speed comparing apples with oranges.

Arne

Re: If not .Net then what?

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" wrote in message
news:u2R%23rhYSIHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "Scott Roberts" schrieb:
>>> I've seen Delphi pop up a lot in these conversations, but I was kind of
>>> afraid that it may not be that reliable since Borland couldn't make a go
>>> of it.
>>>
>>> I'd hate to begin using a language/IDE and have the company supporting
>>> it go under. It would just waste a lot of time that I could have spent
>>> learning something else.
>>>
>>> jim
>>
>> If by "Borland couldn't make a go of it" you mean "Borland has developed
>> 10+ versions of it over the span of 10+ years" then I guess you're right.
>> I started using Delphi 2.0 in 1997.
>>
>> People have been predicting the demise of Delphi for years.
>
> Well, yes, but on the other hand Classic Visual Basic (Version 1.0 to 6.0)
> was a flagship product and it has been "killed" too without providing an
> acceptable upgrade path. If preservation of assets is important, make
> sure there exists more than one implementation of the programming language
> and the libraries used by applications developed using it. In addition,
> the programming language should be widely adopted, so you are not alone if
> one vendor suddenly decides to stop further development. Sure, there are
> many other factors to be taken into account too for choosing the right
> programming language.
>
>> The reality is, it's a niche product that performs admirably for it's
>> intended
>> purpose. And I think it would be great for someone who wants to create
>> "standalone" Win32 apps.
>
> Delphi is now developed by another company than Borland. I am not sure
> about support for older versions of Delphi like Delphi 7. Applications
> developed using older versions may not be guaranteed to work properly on
> future versions of Windows. That's what will finally kill VB6 too.
>
>> Further, you can supposedly port your code to linux fairly easily using
>> Kylix (Delphi for Linux), though I've never tried it (and neither did
>> anyone else, from what I can gather).´
>
> Is Kylix still supported and developed further?

Not by Borland. The last time they posted a download for it was for a
debugger patch for Linux 2.4 kernel on 01/23/2002 (according to their site
at http://info.borland.com/devsupport/kylix/downloads/).

I had called the company (in 2005 I think) and inquired about Kylix. The
girl answering the phone had never heard of it and I had to lead her to her
company's Kylic pages on their site. She tried to find out something, but
was unable to find anyone that knew anything about it then.

CodeGear (the offshoot of Borland that took all of the developers tools)
doesn't mention it on their site, and any attempts to contact the usergroups
(listed on
http://newsgroups.borland.com/cgi-bin/dnewsweb?cmd=listall&g roup=borland.public.kylix.&utag= )
failed to bring back any posts.

It would have been nice if they donated it to open source instead of just
letting it rot.

jim

Re: If not .Net then what?

"Arne Vajhøj" wrote in message
news:477550ae$0$90267$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
> jim wrote:
>> I strongly disagree. Although I am no .Net expert, I am pretty adept at
>> the simple stuff. And, the simple .Net apps that I wrote had slower UIs
>> and presented data slower than their desktop counterparts.
>
> Hm. That text does not really make any sense. A win forms .NET app
> is a desktop app as well. And comparing a web app with a desktop app
> is at least when it comes to speed comparing apples with oranges.

The .Net apps I was refering to here were all desktop apps.

The one database access app that I wrote in VB.Net 1.0 as a webform that
queried an Oracle database perfomed even worse.

jim

Re: If not .Net then what?

"jim" wrote in message
news:vrcdj.31909$Mu4.11052@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" wrote in message
> news:u2R%23rhYSIHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> "Scott Roberts" schrieb:
>>>> I've seen Delphi pop up a lot in these conversations, but I was kind of
>>>> afraid that it may not be that reliable since Borland couldn't make a
>>>> go of it.
>>>>
>>>> I'd hate to begin using a language/IDE and have the company supporting
>>>> it go under. It would just waste a lot of time that I could have spent
>>>> learning something else.
>>>>
>>>> jim
>>>
>>> If by "Borland couldn't make a go of it" you mean "Borland has developed
>>> 10+ versions of it over the span of 10+ years" then I guess you're
>>> right. I started using Delphi 2.0 in 1997.
>>>
>>> People have been predicting the demise of Delphi for years.
>>
>> Well, yes, but on the other hand Classic Visual Basic (Version 1.0 to
>> 6.0) was a flagship product and it has been "killed" too without
>> providing an acceptable upgrade path. If preservation of assets is
>> important, make sure there exists more than one implementation of the
>> programming language and the libraries used by applications developed
>> using it. In addition, the programming language should be widely
>> adopted, so you are not alone if one vendor suddenly decides to stop
>> further development. Sure, there are many other factors to be taken into
>> account too for choosing the right programming language.
>>
>>> The reality is, it's a niche product that performs admirably for it's
>>> intended
>>> purpose. And I think it would be great for someone who wants to create
>>> "standalone" Win32 apps.
>>
>> Delphi is now developed by another company than Borland. I am not sure
>> about support for older versions of Delphi like Delphi 7. Applications
>> developed using older versions may not be guaranteed to work properly on
>> future versions of Windows. That's what will finally kill VB6 too.
>>
>>> Further, you can supposedly port your code to linux fairly easily using
>>> Kylix (Delphi for Linux), though I've never tried it (and neither did
>>> anyone else, from what I can gather).´
>>
>> Is Kylix still supported and developed further?
>
> Not by Borland. The last time they posted a download for it was for a
> debugger patch for Linux 2.4 kernel on 01/23/2002 (according to their site
> at http://info.borland.com/devsupport/kylix/downloads/).
>
> I had called the company (in 2005 I think) and inquired about Kylix. The
> girl answering the phone had never heard of it and I had to lead her to
> her company's Kylic pages on their site. She tried to find out something,
> but was unable to find anyone that knew anything about it then.
>
> CodeGear (the offshoot of Borland that took all of the developers tools)
> doesn't mention it on their site, and any attempts to contact the
> usergroups (listed on
> http://newsgroups.borland.com/cgi-bin/dnewsweb?cmd=listall&g roup=borland.public.kylix.&utag= )
> failed to bring back any posts.
>
> It would have been nice if they donated it to open source instead of just
> letting it rot.
>
> jim

Then again, it would have been nice to see OS2 and Visual Basic open
sourced.

jim

Re: If not .Net then what?

Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Scott Roberts said:
>
>
>
>> I'm not sure that your inability to write efficient code with .Net is
>> necessarily and indictment against .Net.
>
> That's another way of looking at it, it's true. What you seem to be saying
> is that it's really hard to write efficient code with .Net - which is just
> another way of indicting it.
>
>>> Same with .Net - we came, we saw, we laughed - and left.
>> You came, you couldn't figure it out, you left.
>
> What's to figure out? .Net was as slow as syrup, when we already had
> something as fast as fireworks. So obviously we dropped it. You can say
> it's down to a lack of programmer skill if you like, but your claim
> translates to ".Net is so difficult that it can't be used efficiently by
> two programmers with over 40 years C++ experience between them" - which
> doesn't bode well for .Net, does it?
>

I understand that you're focused entirely on the runtime speed of the
pure code, and in your situation that's fine, it's the only way to focus
because as you said in another post, your application reads data,
analyses it, and writes the result out again.

Your posts, however, goes along way to saying that .NET is slow,
generally. That's simply not true. It's slower than an alternate
solution in some parts, it's faster in others.

You also said you didn't rewrite it in .NET, you simply "tried it on
..NET". This leads me to believe you had C++ code that you just rebuilt
with managed extensions. Excusing me for pointing out that this hardly
constitutes as "writing a .NET application". That would be like me just
replacing a handful of keywords and classnames and voila, I got a java app.

Now, again, I'm going to assume you wrote the best .NET solution to your
problem so I'm assuming that the code you had would run at 1/60th of the
speed of your current solution.

This does not mean, generally, that all .NET code will run at that speed.

--
Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen
mailto:lasse@vkarlsen.no
http://presentationmode.blogspot.com/

Re: If not .Net then what?

I'm going to break my habit here and place a reply/post to the original
post you made.

jim wrote:
> In a thread about wrapping .Net applications using Thinstall and Xenocode,
> it was pointed out that there may be better programming languages/IDEs to
> use for the purpose of creating standalone, single executable apps.

There's plenty. As evident in other posts here, Delphi is one of them.
Be sure to evaluate carefully which version you *need* though, as the
latter versions have gotten steadily more buggy/unstable, at least that
has been my experience.

>
> My goal is to create desktop applications for use on Windows XP+ OSs that
> are distributed as single executables that do not require traditional
> install packages to run.

I would very much like to know why you have this criteria. While I can
understand the wish to not having to include, or force the download of,
a multi-megabyte runtime engine, everyone I've talked to (all levels of
users) seems to prefer an installation program to take care of things
like correct location on disk, start menu items, uninstallation, etc.

There's installer applications that doesn't add that much to the final
size as well so size should not be a big deal in that respect either.

>
> I would like to use a drag and drop UI development tool like the .Net IDE
> (or the old VB6) to make development as easy as possible. I am a hobbyist
> programmer and would like to put out some useful apps, but I don't want to
> have to become an expert at a complex language like C++ to do so reliably.

You'll pretty fast find out that any development engine worth its own
cost will be a complex endeavour. If you pick Delphi or C#, just to take
two examples, you'll find that most of your time will not be spent
learning the language, although C# with its latest 3.0 version is
rapidly building up speed in the complex arean. Instead, most of your
time will be spent either looking through the runtime classes to figure
out which ones to use and how to use them, or online googling for 3rd
party libraries or examples of what you need to do.

This holds true for VB, Delphi, C#, Java, and C++ and many other systems.

Your best option against this uphill battle is to pick one development
tool and get good at it. When you're good at one of them, switching
isn't going to be that tough since a lot of things are similar enough
for you to find them more easily once you've learned how to find them in
one system.

>
> More than one person responding to the previous thread held the opinion that
> .Net was great for corporate environments where all PCs are strictly
> regulated, but may not be the best option to develop the type of apps that I
> would like to develop for the PC community at large.

This still holds true, to a certain degree. I've found that the best
option to combat this is to do one of the following:

1. bundle the .NET runtime with your installer (making it bigger)
2. make the installer download and install the runtime, if necessary
3. add a link on your download page to the runtime downloads

To be honest, I prefer solution 1, with two installers, one with the
runtime and one without. This way the downloadee (?) can pick the right
one for his machine, and even install it offline.

>
> So what, in your opinion, would be a good alternative to use to develop the
> type of applications that I am trying to develop?

Personally I would go with C#, but I already know C#. I don't know if
this is a good enough answer for you though. If you absolutely cannot
use .NET, I would pick another system, but each system have its pros and
cons, you're going to have to pick the ones you care about.

--
Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen
mailto:lasse@vkarlsen.no
http://presentationmode.blogspot.com/

Re: If not .Net then what?

Servus Herfried,

>Is Kylix still supported and developed further?

no, Kylix is dead! There is something that is close to Kylix and
it is called Lazarus. It is a open-source FP(ascal)C IDE that can
be used to develop apps for windows and linux, but it is still under
development, though you can write code with it, that can be compiled
without change on windows and linux, as long as you dont use
platform dependend libraries and functions. Give it a try if you like, but
dont expect too much,...it is still under development and far away from
production,...thats what i found out,...

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."

Re: If not .Net then what?

Miha Markic wrote:
> Troll or not, he has a point. copy & run is a weak point in .net right now.
> That is until you are guaranteed that OS has a .net framework installed
> which isn't to happen anytime soon.

Copy&run problems like described in this thread holds true for many
languages. There's pros and cons with all these choices. Pick the ones
you can live with and care about.

--
Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen
mailto:lasse@vkarlsen.no
http://presentationmode.blogspot.com/

Re: If not .Net then what?

"Kerem Gümrükcü" schrieb:
>>Is Kylix still supported and developed further?
>
> no, Kylix is dead!

OK, so I didn't miss anything since I took a look at it for the last time.

--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P
V B

Re: If not .Net then what?

Scott Roberts said:

>
>>>> Same with .Net - we came, we saw, we laughed - and left.
>>>
>>> You came, you couldn't figure it out, you left.
>>
>> What's to figure out? .Net was as slow as syrup, when we already had
>> something as fast as fireworks. So obviously we dropped it. You can say
>> it's down to a lack of programmer skill if you like, but your claim
>> translates to ".Net is so difficult that it can't be used efficiently by
>> two programmers with over 40 years C++ experience between them" - which
>> doesn't bode well for .Net, does it?
>
> Did you bother to find out why it was so much slower? I'd be interested
> to know, just for my own edification.

Ah, I approve. :-)

Okay - *at the time*, no, we didn't bother. We simply showed the boss the
comparative figures, and he agreed that there was no point in continuing
with .Net. After all, everyone has deadlines, and we'd already beaten
ours. The last thing anyone wanted was to add another three months to the
project while we fiddled around trying to figure out how to get Yet
Another Microsoft Technology to do as it's told. It was that or deliver
fast code, early, within budget. We chose the latter. Wouldn't you?

Later on, however, one or other of us (I forget which) discovered (I'm not
sure how authoritatively) that, apparently, .Net is not good at heavily
recursive code, and since our code did little else *but* recurse (its
function was to extract dependency relationships from source code, and
much of this was achieved by parsing the source to look for stuff like
#include "foo.h", , etc etc - and parsing is
an inherently recursive process), this may go some way towards explaining
the huge performance disparity between .Net and native code.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users:
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

"Richard Heathfield" wrote in message
news:6ridnRGA467ixujanZ2dnUVZ8rOdnZ2d@bt.com...
> Scott Roberts said:
>
>>
>>>>> Same with .Net - we came, we saw, we laughed - and left.
>>>>
>>>> You came, you couldn't figure it out, you left.
>>>
>>> What's to figure out? .Net was as slow as syrup, when we already had
>>> something as fast as fireworks. So obviously we dropped it. You can say
>>> it's down to a lack of programmer skill if you like, but your claim
>>> translates to ".Net is so difficult that it can't be used efficiently by
>>> two programmers with over 40 years C++ experience between them" - which
>>> doesn't bode well for .Net, does it?
>>
>> Did you bother to find out why it was so much slower? I'd be interested
>> to know, just for my own edification.
>
> Ah, I approve. :-)
>
> Okay - *at the time*, no, we didn't bother. We simply showed the boss the
> comparative figures, and he agreed that there was no point in continuing
> with .Net. After all, everyone has deadlines, and we'd already beaten
> ours. The last thing anyone wanted was to add another three months to the
> project while we fiddled around trying to figure out how to get Yet
> Another Microsoft Technology to do as it's told. It was that or deliver
> fast code, early, within budget. We chose the latter. Wouldn't you?

I'm curious why your boss even wanted to investigate .Net since the project
was already complete. Don't you generally choose a platform *before* you
begin such a project?

> Later on, however, one or other of us (I forget which) discovered (I'm not
> sure how authoritatively) that, apparently, .Net is not good at heavily
> recursive code, and since our code did little else *but* recurse (its
> function was to extract dependency relationships from source code, and
> much of this was achieved by parsing the source to look for stuff like
> #include "foo.h", , etc etc - and parsing is
> an inherently recursive process), this may go some way towards explaining
> the huge performance disparity between .Net and native code.

Yes it does. I learned something today too.

From http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms998574.aspx

"Common Performance Issues
During your code reviews, pay particular attention to the following areas:

Frequent code paths. Prioritize your code review process by identifying code
paths that are frequently executed and begin your review process in these
areas.
Frequent loops. Even the slightest inefficiency inside a loop is magnified
many times over depending on the number of iterations. Specifically watch
out for repetitive property access inside your loops, using foreach instead
of for, performing expensive operations within your loops, and using
recursion. Recursion incurs the overhead of having to repeatedly build new
stack frames. "


Of course we all know that any recursive routine can be rewritten as an
iterative routine. So I still contend that the "problem" was with your code
(specifically, it's lack of optimization for the new platform).

Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Scott Roberts said:
>
> [...]
> Later on, however, one or other of us (I forget which) discovered (I'm not
> sure how authoritatively) that, apparently, .Net is not good at heavily
> recursive code, and since our code did little else *but* recurse (its

Recursive code doesn't IMHO cause a performance problem in .NET. This is
rather a problem for unexperienced C++ programmers placing large objects
on the stack.

That remembers me of a famous article in a German computer magazine,
stating that Java is multiple times faster than C++.
But the author(s) used std::string objects in C++ like Java string
objects and passed them by value, instead as reference. So the C++
compiler copied always the strings to a temporary object on every
function call. And since the code was heavily recursive .....

Do you see the similarities ? In this case the author stated that the
same code did run several times faster in a managed language, than in
C++. I think you are stating currently the opposite ;-)
And if the author would have done the same as your team, he wouldn't
have touched C++ again, because it's so damn slow.

I think the function in your code, which is called recursively uses a
string parameter in it's arguments.


> function was to extract dependency relationships from source code, and
> much of this was achieved by parsing the source to look for stuff like
> #include "foo.h", , etc etc - and parsing is

There would have been several other possibilities in .NET:

a) Use regular expressions - provided in .NET directly. You have the
option to use on the fly compiled regular expressions in .NET

b) Use a full fledged parser like ANTLR

c) Compile a mixed mode application in .NET
The native part is still native and the other code, using .NET will
be compiled to IL code.
Has downsides, but sometimes still the fastest solution

d) Convert the Code to the .NET platform, not simply recompiling

E.g. replacing the text "oldtext" by "newtext" in a single text file
named "myfile.txt" could be done in a single line in .NET (C#)

File.WriteAllText(
File.ReadAllText(
"myfile.text".Replace("oldtext",
"newtext")), "myfile.text");

(Despited my newsreader wrapped to single line to 3 lines ;-) )

Perhaps good enough for small files, but not a good idea for large
files. So even in .NET there are multiple solutions, some are
faster to implement, but performance wise not always a good idea.


> an inherently recursive process), this may go some way towards explaining
> the huge performance disparity between .Net and native code.

What about profiling ? Takes only a few minutes.

All in all just the meaning of a "pointy-clicky" developer ;;;-)

By the way. The same way you've (as I assume) ported your code to .NET
Quake II (IIRC) has been ported - simply by recompiling and has reached
>90% of the original speed of the native compiled application.

Andre

On Dec 29, 4:27=A0am, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Scott Roberts said:
>
>
>
> >>>> Same with .Net - we came, we saw, we laughed - and left.
>
> >>> You came, you couldn't figure it out, you left.
>
> >> What's to figure out? .Net was as slow as syrup, when we already had
> >> something as fast as fireworks. So obviously we dropped it. You can say=

> >> it's down to a lack of programmer skill if you like, but your claim
> >> translates to ".Net is so difficult that it can't be used efficiently b=
y
> >> two programmers with over 40 years C++ experience between them" - which=

> >> doesn't bode well for .Net, does it?
>
> > Did you bother to find out why it was so much slower? I'd be interested
> > to know, just for my own edification.
>
> Ah, I approve. =A0:-)
>
> Okay - *at the time*, no, we didn't bother. We simply showed the boss the
> comparative figures, and he agreed that there was no point in continuing
> with .Net. After all, everyone has deadlines, and we'd already beaten
> ours. The last thing anyone wanted was to add another three months to the
> project while we fiddled around trying to figure out how to get Yet
> Another Microsoft Technology to do as it's told. It was that or deliver

And, of course, to Learn YAMT.

> fast code, early, within budget. We chose the latter. Wouldn't you?
>
> Later on, however, one or other of us (I forget which) discovered (I'm not=

> sure how authoritatively) that, apparently, .Net is not good at heavily

Dijkstra was precise: much of what passes for knowledge in computing
circles is a sort of oral folklore, whisperings of dark secrets around
campfires in a demon-haunted world.

How would .Net not be good at recursion? My parser in the compiler for
Build Your Own .Net Language and Compiler worked at constant time
applying a rather deeply recursive top-down descent algorithm.

Net has to set up a safe and rational procedure call for recursion
the first time, and reuse it depending on the depth of recursion. The
folk-lore isn't confirmed that it isn't "good" at recursion.

Recursion was hard when routines supplied "work areas" to their
callees and compilers blew their tops trying to compile a recursive
call. The rumor that .Net's technologists messed it up, when the
academy has long known what you have to do (think stacks, Richard) is
a blood libel.

> recursive code, and since our code did little else *but* recurse (its
> function was to extract dependency relationships from source code, and
> much of this was achieved by parsing the source to look for stuff like
> #include "foo.h", , etc etc - and parsing is=

> an inherently recursive process), this may go some way towards explaining
> the huge performance disparity between .Net and native code.

Whoa, a huge performance disparity emerges as it were from de jungle.
I'm no expert on relative performance disparities between .Net and
native. I do know, however, that historically, whenever a man wanted
to solve a problem with some sort of run-time language that had to be
interpreted in some way, your basic Computer Guys would mutter
aaaaargh burn me buttocks would ye slow things down, belike?

There is such a think as folkish wisdom. But there is also folly in
the folk.

With all due respect, this sounds to me belike one of those *ersatzen*
for due diligence, in which the actual coders are invited by
management to evaluate a new tech direction without being given any
slack on the deadlines, which they could use to sit back and do due
diligence.

I mean, did you write recursive code and run it on a .Net platform
side by side with a "native" platform?

It sounds to me that some guy passed along a rumor at some meeting.
One reason why programmers, and many other decent folk, abhor meetings
in tech venues where the main job is production. No time is given for
intellectual honesty, and Rumour, painted full of tongues, is the time-
saver of choice.

This is to me an economic tragedy as severe as that of the commons,
but nameless. The workers are asked to take control by management but
not given the time to do the work of self-management, and for this
reason, revert to folk-lore.
>
> --
> Richard Heathfield
> Email: -http://www. +rjh@
> Google users:
> "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999