| Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
 Posted: Thu, 16th Jun 2011 15:02 Post subject: '.Net is dead' |
|
 |
I keep hearing this from various place. Now I'm not technical, I'm not a developer and I don't know how to code.
However I am an IT recruiter and focus on placing .Net candidates.
What are people on about when they say '.Net is dead'?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 16th Jun 2011 15:53 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garus
VIP Member
Posts: 34197
|
| Posted: Thu, 16th Jun 2011 15:57 Post subject: |
|
|
snip
Last edited by garus on Tue, 27th Aug 2024 21:57; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 16th Jun 2011 16:14 Post subject: |
|
|
You're an IT recruiter with focus on .Net, but you don't know shit about coding?
Sounds like a blind man running an art gallery...  Spoiler: | |
Seriously, .Net won't die until Windows dies. It might be replaced by some successor with a different name and the same paradigm, but it won't really die.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Thu, 16th Jun 2011 16:23 Post subject: |
|
|
It won't die. It's probably the quickest platform to RAD on (results in crappy apps, but that's a different story); all the savegame editors and such are the prime example of that.
It's not the most efficient, it's not the prettiest, but it is effective and will be until Windows dies like me7 says (although it will probably get a shit name like WPF).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 16th Jun 2011 16:26 Post subject: |
|
|
| me7 wrote: | | You're an IT recruiter with focus on .Net, but you don't know shit about coding? |
If I could code, I'd do it for a living.
I know enough to hold my own in a conversation about what a potential employer is looking for in a candidate. That's all I need to do.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24656
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Thu, 16th Jun 2011 16:27 Post subject: |
|
|
| Werelds wrote: | | It won't die. It's probably the quickest platform to RAD on (results in crappy apps, but that's a different story) |
That's hardly the fault of the framework. I like .net, it's managed, you don't need to mess around with stupid stuff like garbage collection and time consuming crap like that, and you can construct really solid applications and systems. However, since it's a fast way to create an app with it does attract lazy programmers who want to put something out as quickly as possible, but that's the fault of the programmer, not the framework.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Thu, 16th Jun 2011 16:57 Post subject: |
|
|
Oh don't get me wrong, it's a pretty good platform, and fuck knows I've used it. It's just that despite all the things it does for you, a lot of people STILL manage to fuck up exactly because they don't have to worry about most shit 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 16th Jun 2011 17:01 Post subject: |
|
|
Talking about .net fucking up and garbage collection. Where is tainted? 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garus
VIP Member
Posts: 34197
|
| Posted: Thu, 16th Jun 2011 17:15 Post subject: |
|
|
snip
Last edited by garus on Tue, 27th Aug 2024 21:57; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dsergei
Posts: 4062
Location: Moscow, Russia
|
| Posted: Thu, 16th Jun 2011 17:48 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 16th Jun 2011 18:17 Post subject: |
|
|
.NET having crappy apps is indeed programmers fault, or more precisely, university fault. Because in recent years most of them fill your head with things like reusability, maintainability, modularity and overall systematic and structured programming.
That's all nice and dandy but they hardly mention a thing about optimization. Students then take those things to heart a bit too much. Some examples are using LINQ for everything because it makes the code a line shorter, or avoiding to write methods longer than just a few lines. Or god forbid they use even more "advanced" technologies like workflow foundation.
Resulting code looks nice and it's easy to get around, but if you follow those principles for anything but a small application, you're bound to end up with some very slow piece of software.
I'm not saying reusability, modularity and maintainability aren't important, but you should always try to strike the balance between them and optimization. And that's what universities seem to forget to mention.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 16th Jun 2011 18:26 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73250
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Thu, 16th Jun 2011 19:23 Post subject: |
|
|
| Werelds wrote: | | it's not the prettiest |
What do you mean exactly? Unless you have a hard-on for logic programming languages (and I certain have for Prolog), C#, the most related language to .NET (incorrectly of course), is one of the "prettiest" to code in for people who are not total noobcakes (for that they have VB.NET ). There are logic programming languages compilers for .NET as well, of course. The framework itself is also "pretty" also.
C++ is what I would call a very "ugly" language. It is tedious. And instead of going in the right direction with C++0x, they are stomping right on the other foot.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73250
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Thu, 16th Jun 2011 19:37 Post subject: |
|
|
I work with C++ all day, no need to troll me with that shit. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Thu, 16th Jun 2011 19:38 Post subject: |
|
|
| iNatan wrote: | What do you mean exactly? Unless you have a hard-on for logic programming languages (and I certain have for Prolog), C#, the most related language to .NET (incorrectly of course), is one of the "prettiest" to code in for people who are not total noobcakes (for that they have VB.NET ). There are logic programming languages compilers for .NET as well, of course. The framework itself is also "pretty" also.
C++ is what I would call a very "ugly" language. It is tedious. And instead of going in the right direction with C++0x, they are stomping right on the other foot. |
I meant the framework itself. It's incredibly messy, with a lot of stuff found in multiple places and there's an aweful lot of shit that is just incomplete but wouldn't cost much time to do properly. For example, dealing with printers is a fucking chore through .NET - even for something as simple as requesting a list of available media you have to resort to unmanaged functions (note, this is completely standardised, no reason this shouldn't be part of .NET itself).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garus
VIP Member
Posts: 34197
|
| Posted: Thu, 16th Jun 2011 19:54 Post subject: |
|
|
snip
Last edited by garus on Tue, 27th Aug 2024 21:57; edited 2 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73250
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Thu, 16th Jun 2011 20:01 Post subject: |
|
|
I don't like it, no, but I don't really hate it with a passion either.
| Werelds wrote: | | I meant the framework itself. It's incredibly messy, with a lot of stuff found in multiple places and there's an aweful lot of shit that is just incomplete but wouldn't cost much time to do properly. For example, dealing with printers is a fucking chore through .NET - even for something as simple as requesting a list of available media you have to resort to unmanaged functions (note, this is completely standardised, no reason this shouldn't be part of .NET itself). |
Standard where? In Windows? Despite what people think, .NET is not there to serve Windows, especially not with such low level stuff. (Despite what the Windows DLLs would have you think! ) Or would you rather have the restrictive and downright obnoxious shit ala Java so it could be compatible under all OSes? I rather write a thin wrapper any day than have to deal with retarded Java.
The .NET is in fact one of the most elegant frameworks of this sort out there, and the fact that it is growing so much with each iteration (including very low-level, CIL additions) speaks volumes.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garus
VIP Member
Posts: 34197
|
| Posted: Thu, 16th Jun 2011 20:13 Post subject: |
|
|
snip
Last edited by garus on Tue, 27th Aug 2024 21:57; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 16th Jun 2011 20:15 Post subject: |
|
|
Mono is nice, although its garbage collector is even worse than microsofts. Been using Mono for quite a while and I honestly can't tell the difference between MS .NET and Mono, it supports pretty much everything and haven't noticed any issues. I'm quite sure performance wise library methods are also pretty close.
Initially when I started using it I though it was going to be .NET with half of the stuff missing or not working properly, but turned out that's not the case.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Thu, 16th Jun 2011 20:19 Post subject: |
|
|
No please, I'm not a fan of Java. .NET does do a lot of Windows specific shit though, including most of the stuff with printers (from the top of my head, some of it is under Graphics, another part under Drawing).
With standard I mean really standard. Depending on the type of printer (more accurately: its connection to your machine), you can access the same way regardless of what OS you're on. The languages may differ per printer as well, but again, there are common factors (most notably that I don't think there's any printer from the last decade that doesn't support HP's PCL).
Oh, and I know the Win32 API isn't quite as "standard" as they make it seem 
Hell, all you have to do is work with sockets and you'll see enough!
Don't get me wrong, I quite like .NET, but it has become bloated over the years, and it just contradicts itself in so many places because of that. C# as a language however (because you're right, it is the de facto .NET language - VB obviously still wins though ) I am a fan of.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73250
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Thu, 16th Jun 2011 20:19 Post subject: |
|
|
| Werelds wrote: | | I meant the framework itself. It's incredibly messy, with a lot of stuff found in multiple places and there's an aweful lot of shit that is just incomplete but wouldn't cost much time to do properly. For example, dealing with printers is a fucking chore through .NET - even for something as simple as requesting a list of available media you have to resort to unmanaged functions (note, this is completely standardised, no reason this shouldn't be part of .NET itself). |
Yeah, but that project has not moved very much since last time I checked (some year ago), and it was in its infancy back then.
And I don't see the point really. I doubt they will ever be able to reach anywhere the level of possibilities with the content pipelines model that is integrated so well with Visual Studio and XNA. Imagine that on ModoDevelop. There are very good OpenGL wrappers for C# which would do quite a good job if you were after a cross-platform indie game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24656
Location: Your Mom
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[mrt]
[Admin] Code Monkey
Posts: 1342
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73250
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Fri, 17th Jun 2011 23:20 Post subject: |
|
|
When I said C++ is archaic I didn't mean GUI. With GTK+, C++ is decent at GUI. MFC is batshit retarded, though.
I meant the language itself is very old and unnecessarily ambiguous. If you look through the various C++0x proposals and drafts, it was to introduce a lot of the modern concepts that are missing from C++. Almost none of these made it through.
A non-managed implementation and extension of the C# language for example would be perfect I think.
As for CLI/C++, it is considered even by Microsoft as a second-class. In Visual Studio 2010, Microsoft has dropped any Intellisense support for C++/CLI. It's sole purpose is to serve as middle-man glue between real C++ code and .NET assemblies. And on top of the outdated C++ language, C++/CLI introduces some really really bad extensions. Really not recommended.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 18th Jun 2011 04:23 Post subject: |
|
|
Visual Studio 2010 was pushed for its release which is why it dropped CLI/C++ intellisense. It's crap I agree but you can activate it via some workaround. I think I read on their blog the main reason they dropped it because they ran out of time. I didn't run any updates (nor worked with managed c++ since release) to see if they activated it now.
I agree with mrt. I don't think it's archaic as a language itself. It has its features and it presents them very well. Main problem for me was lack of good intellisense and tools for c++. C# isn't all that different when it comes to syntax but visual studio support overall is much better.
I've been using Visual Assist plugin for quite a while now, it's like a dream come true for C++ programming.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[mrt]
[Admin] Code Monkey
Posts: 1342
|
| Posted: Sat, 18th Jun 2011 13:49 Post subject: |
|
|
| iNatan wrote: | I meant the language itself is very old and unnecessarily ambiguous. If you look through the various C++0x proposals and drafts, it was to introduce a lot of the modern concepts that are missing from C++. Almost none of these made it through.
|
I find C++ code the easiest to read. It's very direct in what it does, there are no hidden meanings anywhere which cant be said for "heavy baggage" OOP languages like C# and Java. C++0x is taking the right steps in the proper direction. Lambda's, class enums, l-value refrences coupled with what it already offers in its ability to support pure non-OOP programming (C) and all its polymorphisms, inheritance and other goodies via C++, it is really getting a power-pill.
Also C++'s templates, its STL library and coupled with the boost library make it a real power house.
| iNatan wrote: |
As for CLI/C++, it is considered even by Microsoft as a second-class. In Visual Studio 2010, Microsoft has dropped any Intellisense support for C++/CLI. It's sole purpose is to serve as middle-man glue between real C++ code and .NET assemblies. And on top of the outdated C++ language, C++/CLI introduces some really really bad extensions. Really not recommended. |
MS really is dropping the ball here..constantly. And I agree with you here, not recommended at all and it is mostly a glue-up language sitting in the middle of managed and unmanaged code, but i have to shoot you in the foot here for saying C++ as being archaic
| BearishSun wrote: | | I've been using Visual Assist plugin for quite a while now, it's like a dream come true for C++ programming. |
Aye. Its all what the VS intellisense should be. MS is focusing way too much on C# and too little on C++ (also CLI)..people are really starting to get annoyed, considering you buy a compiler for a few grand and you find out half of it is even more broken than last years release. And pulling resources to F#? Wot the hell fell on their meatloafs..
teey
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
