|
|
If you architect the application correctly with plugin modules, or MEF, it can be used to deploy the modules.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
|
|
|
|
|
|
This should be posted in the Lounge as it's not a C# question.
DaveIf this helped, please vote & accept answer!
Binging is like googling, it just feels dirtier.
Please take your VB.NET out of our nice case sensitive forum.(Pete O'Hanlon)
BTW, in software, hope and pray is not a viable strategy. (Luc Pattyn)
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you ,
My thought ( Would Lounge know what is the IL code ? )
I know nothing , I know nothing ...
|
|
|
|
|
Most would, but I get your point.
It was more of a statement/comment than a question IMO, if meant as a question then the .NET Framework forum would have been the correct place.
I didn't mean it personally hence not downvoting your post 
[Edit: unlike others I see  )
DaveIf this helped, please vote & accept answer!
Binging is like googling, it just feels dirtier.
Please take your VB.NET out of our nice case sensitive forum.(Pete O'Hanlon)
BTW, in software, hope and pray is not a viable strategy. (Luc Pattyn)
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't downvote, but there is a certain "lives-under-a-bridge waiting for goats" smell around the OP....
ragnaroknrol The Internet is For Porn[^]
Pete o'Hanlon: If it wasn't insulting tools, I'd say you were dumber than a bag of spanners.
|
|
|
|
|
Stark DaFixzer wrote: Man , the .NET Exe file can be easily disassemble
OK I'm gonna bite, which .net exe file?
ragnaroknrol The Internet is For Porn[^]
Pete o'Hanlon: If it wasn't insulting tools, I'd say you were dumber than a bag of spanners.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe they were thinking "this would be a nice way to get more support for 64bit" or maybe "this would make it easier to support new instruction sets in old programs without recompiling them" but if they were thinking that they should think again, it's true of course but they are still using the FP stack instead of SSE registers.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks , I hate 64 bit things
![Rose | [Rose]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
I know nothing , I know nothing ...
|
|
|
|
|
People that worry about their code being recompiled are worrying about the wrong things. I seriously doubt Apple would care if you managed to completely reverse engineer and steal there iStore for iTunes or whatever it is called because you would not be able to steal their market share or business model. And that, is what is important.
Most software that can be thought of as needing real protection from decompiling can actually be protected by patents, trademarks, and DMCA suits.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you ( Very convincing replay )
I know nothing , I know nothing ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it really that different than disassembling a native executable? No matter what language it's in, or how it's compiled, it can be broken down and analyzed.
My thoughts are, put a bit of money/effort in to disuade 'casual' disassemblers, and that's probably enough. Anyone who cares enough can crack any application.
|
|
|
|
|
Sir Dot Net wrote: Is it really that different than disassembling a native executable?
Yes it is, you can't just Reflect a compiled C++ program and reproduce the source code the way you can with .NET IL.
Sir Dot Net wrote: No matter what language it's in, or how it's compiled, it can be broken down and analyzed.
Indeed, but MS have made it particularly easy with .NET IL.
|
|
|
|
|
It's about as easy as for Java
|
|
|
|
|
Java's not a native executable, it's also intermediate code.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. Exactly. Are you trying to disagree? 
|
|
|
|
|
Are you here for the five minute argument or the full half hour?
|
|
|
|
|
Shorter. You said this:
viaducting wrote: Indeed, but MS have made it particularly easy with .NET IL.
I said it's about as easy as Java, as if to say that it's neither special nor new, which doesn't even actually disagree with the point you're making, it's just the kind of useless remark that people here would expect from me. 
See? All done. No disagreement in sight. I'll go do something useful now.. for 5 minutes or so, then TF2 again 
|
|
|
|
|
More likely they were thinking that they should provide a unifying environment where you can write programs in a language of your choice, and get access to common features in the same way regardless of the language. This environment should be independent of the operating system and should provide a modern object oriented development experience. Obfuscation has never really been part of this roadmap, and is not really relevant to most corporate developments which value speed of development.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
|
|
|
|
|
Mushrooms! 
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
_________________________________________________________
My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
|
|
|
|
|
Badger badger badger badger badger badger badger
|
|
|
|
|
I am new to TDD and i am trying to find some application which i can try.
i tried with calculator and bowling application but i need a some real application which i can try and later use as reference for my team members.
is there any application which i can use.
|
|
|
|
|
nitin_ion wrote: I am new to TDD and i am trying to find some application which i can try
What exactly do you mean by TDD?
If you mean test driven development, then if you are looking for a sample application (which is already implemented) to use it in, then IMO, you are definitely on the wrong track.
TDD is supposed to be used when you are building your own application - write your test code and then your actual code.
The funniest thing about this particular signature is that by the time you realise it doesn't say anything it's too late to stop reading it.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
