Re: What can .Net do for me?


"Pete Goodwin" <pgoodwin.nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:42a86f95@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Scott Roberts wrote:
> > "Pete Goodwin" <pgoodwin.nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> > message news:42a5b853@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >>>The same app takes less code. That's less to write; less to read.
> >>
> >>You mean the 20MByte runtime is "less code"? This is a new definition of
> >>the term "less is more" I take it?
> >
> > The "run time" will eventually be "the OS". .NET is the new Windows
API - an
> > object-oriented API. You are more than welcome to code for Win32 well
into
> > the next decade. If you're not writing OOP apps then you'll probably
never
> > see a benefit to .NET. If you don't use the Windows API directly then
you'll
> > probably never see a benefit to .NET. If you never have to make two
> > applications half a world away from each other talk to each other in
near
> > real-time, then you'll probably never see a benefit to .NET.
>
> The OS is not available as yet. WIN32 is here *now*.

True enough.

>
> "If you're not writing OOP apps"... huh? Everything I write is OOP
> *right now*, I don't need .NET to do that.

No, you don't need .NET to write OOP apps. That's obvious. But the .NET
framework is designed as an OOP framework instead of a collection of methods
(a la the Win32 API).

> "If you don't use the Windows API directly then you'll probably never
> see a benefit to .NET" - I think you may have got yourself muddled here
> (you certainly have confused me!) - your statement makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. The Win32 API is a collection of methods &
structures. .NET is a collection of objects. Compare copying a file under
Win32 and .NET.

Now, many languages (including Delphi) have hidden much of the complexity of
the Windows API from you. Good for them. However, under .NET much of the
complexity is simply removed (or hidden within the OS) instead of hidden by
specific development languages (or not).

> "If you never have to make two applications half a world away from each
> other talk to each other in near real-time, then you'll probably never
> see a benefit to .NET".
>
> <s***>
>
> Are you kidding? DECnet could do the above, long before Windows even
> appeared! Long before the Internet appeared. I was talking to developers
> in the USA, Australia etc. all through the power of DECnet with VAXmail
> and VAXnotes (a rather nicer form of USENET type access). Digital
> Equipment Corporation had 50,000 nodes worldwide long before TCP/IP
> appeared. Task to task communication was dead easy.
>
> In case you hadn't noticed, Banks still use OpenVMS. Instead of Windows.
>
> ROFLAO!
>
> And you think .NET brings a benefit to something that was going on LONG
> before .NET even was thought of???

I didn't say it wasn't possible in the past, I implied that it is now
easier. And it is.

> >>>The collection classes are a lot better. There's a great Regex class.
> >>
> >>An application is generally a lot more than collection classes.
> >
> > The use of vendor supplied classes significantly reduces the time
required
> > to code a complex application. Since 3rd party components written "for
..NET"
> > can be used by *any* .NET language, imagine the plethora of 3rd party
> > components that will be available in a few short years.
>
> But they are not available *now*, and Delphi's WIN32 component's ARE
> here too, (and some are already .NET as well).

Actually, they are available *now*. And more to come. And component vendors
can create one component and sell it to all developers. You don't see a
benefit here? Seriously?

Look, you are more than welcome to use Win32, OpenVMS, or whatever you want.
I'm not saying any of those are bad. I'm simply saying that .NET provides
productivity enhancements at what will eventually be at the OS level. It's a
major rework of how applications interact with the OS that emphasizes OOP
and language independance. Try to look 5 years into the future, if you can.


.