.Net Blues

[Denaes]

Well... I still do vb.net programming, but I think I need to move away from .net as a focus. At least for my recreation.

 

Professionally, there isn't a match. I do lots of datamanipulation either through database, reading 1000's of text files for text and file management. C would be faster running I'm quite sure (as would assembler), but would not dare to come close to the time it takes to write this in VB.Net. C'mon, 2 screens of code to create and manage a minor xml database? What .Net does, it does well and with a short development time.

 

Personally... well, I get annoyed. How many people own mac's? like 2% of the whole worlds computer market? More mac's than Linux. Yet on the internet, amongst my collegues and friends, I'd say that number is up around 15%.

 

Anyone hears about a program and gets annoyed when its for the PC.

 

To make matters more annoying, of 10 people to download an application made using vb.net 2003, 2 people could run it. I'm sure some people got pissed that you have to download a 20mb file to run a 10k program. I had 3 people who did download .net framework 1.1 and still could not run the program.

 

My webserver laughed at me when I asked if they had any .Net capability, mostly because they're too professional for people who want performance and reliability. Thats what they say.

 

As sad as it sounds, I actually have a solution. I took a semister of HTML in college and spent most of that time programming in ActionScript for Macromedia Flash (I was the only one getting that in depth). In fact when our final web page was due, I did a Flash Webpage.

 

I'm still looking into how functional Actionscript is. I know theres not a snowballs chance in hell of it being functional enough to do what I need done at work (running speed, disc access, database or other features might be lacking or VERY SLOW), but I'm not doing anything terribly complicated at home. So long as it can create and read from a data (text file) I'll be happly. any XML support would make me excited.

 

As far as compatability, anyone with a web browser and the plugin can run the program, be it PC, Mac or Linux (probobly unix and other OS's as well).

 

Maybe .Net will actually become cross platform someday, I won't put the Java Runtimes on my computer, they always cause conflicts and try to take things over... So it looks like Flash (animation software) is the best looking programming tool I have personally.

 

I don't know if ANYONE in the world, besides me, thinks that Flash/Actionscript would be a viable alternative to a REAL programming language. I may change my mind when I get into more detail with its limitations.

 

But I'll still be using VB.Net and maybe someday they'll finish .Net and I can use it for real. I'm thinking when they come out with a .Net native OS, things will be a LOT better. I don't even know if Microsoft even cares about actually getting the .Net ported over to Linux or Mac.

 

Sorry, I just had to get that off my mind :)

 

>>Edit<<

 

Hmm, Just hit up the Macromedia website and found Flash MX 2004 Professional! Forms, datacontrols...

 

I always considered Flash like VB lite. I'm not so sure anymore... I'll have to check this out.

[Robby]

I can't believe I read the whole thing. :) It's hard to tell which way you're going but as far as .NET porting to Linux or Mac, well that day is soon to arrive.

 

If you�ve developed any web applications (not web pages) with ASP.NET you�ll no longer compare it to Flash. And I will strongly disagree that Flash is a VB lite, weather it's VB6 or any of the languages of .NET. Sorry. :)

 

I too am annoyed with the entire Mac thing.

[wyrd]

I don't program professionaly, but I do program as a student. Here's my opinions based off that;

 

.NET has spread like a brushfire. Almost any student and teacher who's in the loop about programming knows what it is and uses it, despite the fact that our school has only recently offered a class in it. I'd consider that nothing short of amazing, especially since .NET is still fairly young. Assuming MS doesn't drop support for it, it'll become an every day use within 5 years (my opinion).

 

There shouldn't be any reason why .NET would be significantly slower to C/C++ when it comes to database management. If you switch to C/C++ for such tasks, you're nothing but crazy.

 

As for the mac users, .NET isn't the only thing that they can't use. They're more limited then the Linux world. In fact, there's something called the mono project, which ports the .NET framework over to Linux (which I believe is up and running to some degree). If you're going to worry about cross platform, then worry about Linux, not Mac.

 

If you took a real program from .NET, and converted it to MFC, you'd probably be left with an executable that was near 20 megs. Regardless of that, what is 20 megs now-a-days? It takes a whole 5 minutes to download - big woop. This point is mute anyway, as future versions of Windows will ship with .NET pre-installed (isn't Win2003 already out?). It's only a matter of time, and when that time comes, people will beg you for those 10k .NET programs over 5 meg C++ programs.

 

As for the 3 people who couldn't run your program; There shouldn't be any reason for this.

 

Your web host must be one run by Linux dorks. Most of the hosts I look at now offer ASP.NET, and for cheap. http://www.jodohost.com and http://www.webhost4life.com are the two better ones that I know of. PHP & MySQL is a thing of the past - anyone using it over ASP.NET & SQL Server needs their head examined.

 

I'll let someone else comment on the Actionscript stuff. ;)

[John]

...PHP & MySQL is a thing of the past - anyone using it over ASP.NET & SQL Server needs their head examined...

Be carefull about what you say. Your view on things is a narrow one and unfortunately real life isn't always as clear cut and simple as you try to make it sound.

 

PHP, JSP, PSP etc. are all perfectly valid options. Sometimes people don't have a choice in what they can use, they need to be flexible and use whatever means they have at their disposal. I, for instance, am using PHP and MySQL on a Free BSD server because that is what I can afford at this time. I don't have allot of money, and this is all my web host offers. Do I need my head examined? Possibly, but not because I am using PHP that's for sure! Does the webmaster here need his head examined, he is using PHP for this site?

 

Just because ASP and ASP.NET are around doesn't mean that PHP, and others, are suddenly dead. People once thought that about the OS war, but the Mac is still hanging tough and there has even been a newcomer since then (Linux) that has fought it's way into the market.

[wyrd]

Orbity:

As I said, my opinions were based off being a student. I'm sure they aren't as cut and dry in the real world, as things hardly ever are.

 

True, PHP & MySQL are valid options, I never said they weren't. Come to think of it, I chose PHP over ASP back when I was doing backend programming. But given a choice right now at this day and age, there shouldn't be any reason that I can think of for using PHP over ASP.NET.

 

VB, ASP and PHP are dead to me, but that doesn't mean they're dead to everyone else. Given a choice, I will never program in any of those languages again. And thankfully, I have choices.

 

Everything I have said is just my opinion. I certainly didn't mean to sound like I was spouting facts (even though I did say "in fact" a few times).

[John]

True, PHP & MySQL are valid options, I never said they weren't...

It looks like it to me:

...PHP & MySQL is a thing of the past - anyone using it over ASP.NET & SQL Server needs their head examined...

 

...But given a choice right now at this day and age, there shouldn't be any reason that I can think of for using PHP over ASP.NET...

For you maybe, for the rest of the world, hardly. As I mentioned, money is just one of the reasons to opt for something other than ASP.NET or even ASP for that matter.

[wyrd]

For you maybe, for the rest of the world, hardly.

 

Do you mean for the business world? Because for people like me who like to make gaming sites (news scripts, etc) and program for fun, learning, hobby, etc. wouldn't need to be rich to afford $7/month for hosting (links provided above) and $8/year for a domain. I don't have any statistical analysis or anything, but I'd say that there are quite a few people in this world who are like me.

 

If you aren't refering to hosting, then I suppose we could debate the cost of a $1k IDE. But I don't think we have to, since Borland offers a very nice free IDE, and even so ASP.NET programming is easy enough to the point where all you'd need is a text editor (which most PHP programmers are used to anyway).

 

There are options.

 

I don't want to turn this guys thread into a huge debate (although I suppose it was doomed to turn out that way with the response I initially gave), so I'm just going to stop right here. Again, these are just my opinions, nothing more, nothing less.

[John]

Yes I'm talking about hosting. My host is much cheaper than that, and all they offer is PHP and MySQL. I can't really afford $84 a year, but $21 a year works well for me and I can do my site just fine with PHP.

[Volte]

SQL Server is extremely expensive for even one client license. MySQL is free. For a large site with lots of traffic, sure SQL Server and ASP.NET will win every time, but PHP is sufficient for most sites.

 

Besides, there are many more PHP programmers out there than there are ASP.NET programmers, and I doubt that will change too quickly.

[Robby]

This has little to do with the on going debate, but here's some fuel for thought :) :) :) ...http://www.exia.net/html/app/sitecontent/CGI%20Dot%20Net%20vs%20J2EE.pdf

[wyrd]

Call me biased.. but his pros and cons list on page 3 is, well, a little iffy.

 

Examples:

 

Java Pro: "Single language solutions are more managable"

Java Pro: "You need learn only one language to code anywhere, and write-once run anywhere"

Java Pro: Can port cross-platform or cross application server"

 

First of all I don't see how a single language is a Pro, and the portability is listed twice. It looks like he's reaching a bit to come up with Java Pros.

 

.NET Con: "C#'s remarkable similarity to Java only validates Java"

.NET Con: "Anti-Microsoft prejudices: MS Monopol is predatory, is anti-competition, anti-open"

 

Don't make me roll my eyes.

 

.NET Con: "Using multiple languages complicates development and maintenance and produces less elegant solutions"

 

Personally I think multi-language is a Pro (which it has listed as a Pro in fact!). No one is forced to use multiple languages in a project. Sheesh.

 

In his closing comments he mentions that "J2EE and .NET can and must coexist." He's right, they must, and it's called Java.NET. :)

[Denaes]

Randomly, someone is doing a Java version of the .Net Framework for Mac. How does that fit in the Java vs .Net war?

 

It seems good for .Net, you can finally use it on mac, but through java which would slow it down. Unfortunately it costs money.

 

If you�ve developed any web applications (not web pages) with ASP.NET you�ll no longer compare it to Flash. And I will strongly disagree that Flash is a VB lite, weather it's VB6 or any of the languages of .NET. Sorry.

 

I'm not even using flash for web applications. You can use Flash applications on any computer with Flash Player (I think that requires a browser).

 

It seems, from what I've seen, Flash 2004 is object oriented, now has database connectivity, XML support... The main thing I can think of that it doesn't have is Overloading.

 

Its all about the right tool for the job. In most cases I figure .Net is going to be more robust, but also more complicated and take longer to code. AS 2.0 is suprisingly quick to code. If you want cross platform, you have a choice between Flash and Java. I've made my choice there.

[divil]

VolteFace: Last time I checked, there were five times as many jobs for ASP.NET than PHP already.

 

...all they offer is PHP and MySQL.

 

I'm sorry.

[Robby]

The guy that wrote this article is a from a java shop not an NT shop, and you do get a sense of this as you read along, what interests me most are the benchmarks and stats.

[wyrd]

.Net is going to be more robust, but also more complicated and take longer to code.

 

:confused:

[Volte]

VolteFace: Last time I checked, there were five times as many jobs for ASP.NET than PHP already.

That may be true, but if anything it indicates that more people know PHP than ASP.NET (less PHP jobs would show that more people are making their own PHP sites). ASP.NET takes skill - a one armed blind monkey can throw together a PHP site in a few days.

 

Still, if you have a choice between PHP and ASP.NET, and the ASP.NET package won't hit you up for too much extra cash, I would definately go with that one. PHP still has its uses though.

[wyrd]

Er.. wait. What?! ASP.NET takes skill? *blinks* I think it's quite obvious that I have no skill in programming what-so-ever, and even I am able to program stuff in ASP.NET.

[Denaes]

The right tool for the right job/audience

 

:confused:

 

Confused?

 

.Net is much more robust than ActionScript is. It has many more features, its more customizable, etc.

 

Its also more complex. What takes one line of code in ActionScript, may have 5 different ways in .Net, better for different solutions, each requiring multiple parameters.

 

I wrote a program in ActionScript that was like a page of code in 4 lines in .Net.

 

I love VB, I love .Net. But its not the best tool for every job, and some jobs it'll do very quickly, others it won't.

 

ActionScript isn't a full featured programming language. It kind of gives you the broad scope of programming, but with like 1/10th the detail of VB. Then again VB has like 1/10th the detail of C and C has like 1/100th the detail of assembler.

 

The lower the level of programming, the more complex it gets and the longer it takes. It took me like some insane coding to get my Assembly program to take input text and evaluate it.

 

I havn't done C, but I can compare VB.Net and VB6. VB6 is just so easy to do some things, but .Net made others infinately easier. .Net also gave vb more functionality, but also added to the complexity.

 

My college doesn't even know what to do. VB was the introductary programming language and Java the OOP, advanced language.

 

Honestly I don't see the poing in teaching basics with an OO language, then teach advanced features with a less feature rich language (Java can do a LOT, but only with addon classes. You'd have to program your own classes for string input. Thats not nearly the out-of-the-box features that .Net has).

 

Then again, the third chapter in the .Net book deals with text files. in vb6, it was easy. In .Net, its sure more enhanced and optimised, but takes a few more lines of code.

 

"Ok, this is a variable, this is a string, this is an integer, ok, now this is the instance of a class method"

 

Even though vb6 is out of date, technologically speaking, the professors still want to teach the basics on it, because its basic.

 

The point? Don't assume that .Net is going to always be the easiest, fastest and best way of doing something. I'm sure it'll get the job done 99.9% of the time, it may take some work and effort, but it works.

 

There will be other scripting languages out there that can take 10 steps and roll them into one, for the sake of simplicity and ease of use, but at the sacrafice of finer detail.

 

Sometimes, even in this case, the best tool may even be .Net, but thats if you can afford a microsoft only solution (this may change in the near future from what I'm seeing on the Mac and Linux front).

 

I'm honestly not 'up to snuff' on .Net internet programming (web forms or asp.Net) mostly because I don't have any access. My server doesn't supply .Net compatability. I have vb.net, not studio.net. I'm not sure how interchangable something written in vb for the web is, or ASP.Net is for that matter either.

 

What I do know, is that I can make a form with any sorts of graphics in like 1/10th the time I could think of doing so in VB. Its honestly as easy as using photoshop to make any type, color or style of button you want, background or whatever.

 

I also know that whatever I do in ActionScript can be put up on the web, on any server, and can run off of virtually any machine, be it Unix, Linux, Windows or Mac. This will work fine. It won't approach .Net's speed, and I'm not sure about Java's speed.

 

For all of the projects dealing with a Microsoft Solution to a Microsoft World populated with Microsoft Minions (ie, any project where I work), the best tool is most definately .Net.

 

But those are the digs. You use the best tool for the job. If you don't have that tool, you have to klunk with another tool and hope it comes out decent (like a high quality video game using vb.net instead of C) or you may have to sit it out and say "Well I don't have a tool to fix this solution".

 

Like I said, .Net is great, but I'm not going to stick all my eggs in this one basket.

[Denaes]

Er.. wait. What?! ASP.NET takes skill? *blinks* I think it's quite obvious that I have no skill in programming what-so-ever, and even I am able to program stuff in ASP.NET.

 

Is ASP.Net a fully seperate language like vb.net or c#.net?

 

I only have VB.Net standard. If its just a part of the framework, then I could probobly use it.

 

Also, can you test it on your machine without a server? Or do you have to install a server on your machine?

 

Sorry, I'm not all that knowledgeable about ASP.Net and it sounds pretty neat

[wyrd]

ASP.NET is different enough that you can speak of it as though it were a different language. But technically speaking, you build a web app using VB.NET, C#, or any other .NET language.

 

You can build and view ASP.NET applications on your machine so long as you have IIS installed (which you can install using your Windows installation CD). There are a couple of free IDEs which you can choose from;

 

Web Matrix: http://www.asp.net/webmatrix/

C#Builder: http://www.borland.com/products/downloads/download_csharpbuilder.html

[divil]

It's also worth pointing out that asp.net costs the same as php - nothing. It's a part of the .net framework and if you use the Web Matrix IDE to develop sites with it, you don't even need a computer with IIS to test them on. The IDE has its own webserver written in .net.

[Robby]

Denaes, do you realize that you're comparing a scripting language with a programming language, I'm sorry but it cannot be done.

 

Also, let me quote my first post in this thread....

If you�ve developed any web applications (not web pages) with ASP.NET you�ll no longer compare it to Flash. And I will strongly disagree that Flash is a VB lite, weather it's VB6 or any of the languages of .NET. Sorry.

[Denaes]

Denaes, do you realize that you're comparing a scripting language with a programming language, I'm sorry but it cannot be done.

 

It was done :p

 

I can and did compare them.

 

You can compare any simularities and differences, so long as you explain them.

 

You can't just say "Flash is better than .Net" because thats Apple and Oranges. Why is it better, for what jobs?

 

You can explain what sort of functions one can perform and if it can be performed by the other, and if so, how easy, how many features, how optimised, etc.

 

I can say that both Flash/ActionScript and .Net can be run off of web pages. Then I can compare that feature:

 

Flash requires no special serverside software

.Net requires .net compatable software

 

I've heard .Net is much quicker and can be used for high traffic programming.

Flash is fairly good at this, but I wouldn't even say its in .Net's league.

 

Flash is more portable, probobly because there isn't a requirement for a server, just a flashplayer and webbrowser.

.Net is portable to handheld devices (flash just began this about a month ago I believe), though currently is only Microsoft compatable. Can you just run a .Net web app on any computer without recoding or compiling? (i'm not sure about this)

 

There I compared something about the two.

 

This is what you do when you figure out which tool you want to use for a job. You look at what features you need to use, compare the two and figure the trade-offs.

 

Is the extra speed needed? Do you need the nitty gritty detail of .Net? Do you have access to a .Net compatable server?

 

Now, I'm pretty sure if you compare features, .Net is going to have many more ways to get something done and in better speed with specialized customizations (just streamreader has like 100 variations of streaming)

 

Also, let me quote my first post in this thread....

If you�ve developed any web applications (not web pages) with ASP.NET you�ll no longer compare it to Flash. And I will strongly disagree that Flash is a VB lite, weather it's VB6 or any of the languages of .NET. Sorry.

[/b]

 

Best tool for the best job.

 

My server isn't .Net compatable, so its a moot point.

 

Fire is the greatest way to keep warm, but it won't help you underwater. You'll need a heater or those underwater flames.

 

I don't even want to deal with playing with it on my own PC, you have to install some server software? Thats just extra complexity right now.

 

Oh, I'll get to it sooner or later. I'm interested in ASP.Net, but right now I have to focus on the tools that I can use to get the job done, not what i'm missing out because they're not the proper tools.

[Denaes]

It's also worth pointing out that asp.net costs the same as php - nothing. It's a part of the .net framework and if you use the Web Matrix IDE to develop sites with it, you don't even need a computer with IIS to test them on. The IDE has its own webserver written in .net.

 

This sounds interesting. I'll have to check out this Web Matrix IDE :D

[wyrd]

Why are you comparing portability of Flash and ASP.NET? Once you build a web page in either, anyone from anywhere, at any time and any place, can view the web page. Except when I view an ASP.NET I won't get those lame "upgrade now" messages. :P

 

Speed is important, speed is very important. Ever had thousands of people hammering your site per day? By all means, use flash and force them thousands of users to look blankly at a loading screen.

 

It sounds like you're trying to compare things which you have no experience with. My advice is to actually try ASP.NET before you comment again.

 

It was done

 

I can and did compare them.

 

:rolleyes:

 

It's also worth pointing out that asp.net costs the same as php - nothing. It's a part of the .net framework and if you use the Web Matrix IDE to develop sites with it, you don't even need a computer with IIS to test them on. The IDE has its own webserver written in .net.

 

Ahhh that's right. Forgot about that.