|
How in the world can it be considered as too bloated? It's practically a given that it's going to be pre-installed on any computer we want our software to run on and is easily installed on nearly any non windows platform and by today's standards it's tiny. We don't even have to distribute it. Bloat implies some kind of down side, there just isn't one. Does it have functionality I don't use and likely never will, sure but so what? It's like calling a bios too bloated, it's entirely irrelevant, it just doesn't factor in as an issue.
There can be no too bloated when us developers, (working developers who need to GET IT DONE quickly and reliably in the real world) get a boatload of time saving, tested, standardized functionality that replaces what, back in the day, was a seething byzantine morass of competing .dll files that were a nightmare to maintain or even worse home cooked code to reinvent the wheel doing boring but easily screwed up things like calculating time spans between two dates reliably.
The sheer fact that it's all but guaranteed to be there and so complete cuts down on overall bloat big time: you can install 20 different .net applications and the vast majority of the functionality is all courtesy of the clr so there is very little overlap.
"Creating your own blog is about as easy as creating your own urine, and you're about as likely to find someone else interested in it." -- Lore Sjöberg
|
|
|
|
|
The too bloated refers to installation pain.
For us developer we always play with the latest OSes and have big bandwidth to download all our latest stuff it's not so much of a problem.
But, believe it or not, for small ISV who target the general public, or even ISV who target the average company which has many 'many years old' computer. Getting the latest .NET framework installed on all client's machine can be a bit of a pain / challenge / hurdle...
The full .NET framework installer with 250MB size is a somewhat tough sale...
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.
modified on Monday, June 22, 2009 10:13 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: The too bloated refers to installation pain.
Maybe to you; not to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, oops, silly me, I just discovered and realized the potential of
.NET Framewok 3.5 Development guide & exe[^]
today!  
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: But, believe it or not, for small ISV who target the general public, or even ISV who target the average company which has many 'many years old' computer
Well believe it or not that describes our company and we've been doing .net apps for years and what you say *used* to be true but it's utterly rare these days to come across any system without the .net framework already installed and I know this to be true because we sell our software globally and quite regularly every day. A few years ago it was a slight pain in that it involved pointing people to windows update but these days it's about 1 in 200 computers that don't already have it installed.
Your point would have been great about 3 years ago, now it's just dated.
"Creating your own blog is about as easy as creating your own urine, and you're about as likely to find someone else interested in it." -- Lore Sjöberg
|
|
|
|
|
Haha, okay, I believe it! 
Hey, good to know!
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.
|
|
|
|
|
"Bloat" could also refer to having too many different options for accomplishing the same ultimate goal.
When you're wading through hundreds of namespaces and thousands of classes and constantly have to stop and think about which class to use, especially among ones that have very similar, but slightly differing functionality, that's when it becomes a detriment to me.
I'd rather choose between 2 or 3 flavors of something, than 100 of them. Then again, maybe that's just me....
- S
50 cups of coffee and you know it's on!
Code, follow, or get out of the way.
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Echols wrote: "Bloat" could also refer to having too many different options for accomplishing the same ultimate goal.
I agree Steve. Especially if you kind of get forced to a continuous change in paradigms, as usually happens with MS.
Here I'm referring specifically to WPF (and in less measure to WCF). You get this quite large set of classes pumped into the framework to support the new technology, and a high pressure from the manufacturer to switch to it NOW! Cause it's BETTER! For ANYTHING and EVERYTHING!
Now, any other company would publish WPF as a standalone add-on and its adoption would be suggested for the areas where it suits best.
But maybe it's just you and me...
2+2=5 for very large amounts of 2
(always loved that one hehe!)
|
|
|
|
|
No, its me too.
I think that the .NET framework is the best thing that has happened to software design EVER. But I still don't want to have to deal with WPF to get forms and controls to pop up. I went and relearned it all for WinForms, and WinForms works great. Just because WPF has some advantages, I can't go switching all my code over to the new paradigm.
The good thing is, I can just ignore .NET 3.5, be assured that everyone has 2.0, and keep writing against that. Or, if I want to use LINQ, I can target 3.5, but still use WinForms technology. And given the disk size/bandwidth available nowadays, I think the footprint is reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
Amen!
2+2=5 for very large amounts of 2
(always loved that one hehe!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
John C wrote: There can be no too bloated when us developers, (working developers who need to GET IT DONE quickly and reliably in the real world) get a boatload of time saving,
Users?
|
|
|
|
|
? My point was specifically about developers *and* users, perhaps you didn't read to the end. An end user will have far less "bloat" on their computer the more of their apps are .net based. That's just a fact. Beyond that they will also have far less bugs, far less conflicts, far less installation problems and far more consistency of use.
"Creating your own blog is about as easy as creating your own urine, and you're about as likely to find someone else interested in it." -- Lore Sjöberg
|
|
|
|
|
Bloated - yes. You can't presume latest will be installed on every computer, and you can't presume it can be downloaded easily to every computer. There is a real world out there!
Besides the nightmare of competing parts of .net, every new 'feature' is increasing the surface area of attack (both security and bugs) and makes it harder to choose the right technology. The words 'Foundation' or 'Presentation' should ring alarms bells -look at the History of these words in failed technology.
|
|
|
|
|
Again, that's a valid point if this was 2000. We sell a .net app and it's very popular and availability is so scarce as to be a non issue entirely these days.
Any computers that can't download the .net framework and or haven't installed the latest windows update aren't really a group of customers we have much interest in anyway due to the nightmare of trying to support them. Thankfully they are rare and all but irrelevant.
As for surface area of attack you've got it completely back to front, I don't know how long you've been involved in development, but to have *one* single framework to develop against that is thoroughly tested and consistent versus the old days of a zillion 3rd party .dll's and even within windows itself a zillion different versions of all their .dll's was a security can of worms that would have been a disaster in the modern connected age.
"Creating your own blog is about as easy as creating your own urine, and you're about as likely to find someone else interested in it." -- Lore Sjöberg
|
|
|
|
|
Bob1000 wrote: You can't presume latest will be installed on every computer, and you can't presume it can be downloaded easily to every computer.
That's the customer's problem; at least we can say "this application requires .net X.Y" and they can procede from there.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: That's the customer's problem;
Until they switch to the competition because they don't know or care what .NET is and then it becomes your problem
|
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Not at all.
Hey, you achieved Nirvana: "I don't care if the customers go to competition. The important thing is that I am happy while I am coding".
Maybe you should consider switching to Lisp? They have very similar point of view
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly; everyone needs a more relaxed attitude.
I have no pity for any who go through life stressed out about the most minor of concerns.
Leave the indigestion to the MBAs; they deserve what they get.
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm - don't think I would like to argue that with marketing
|
|
|
|
|
Marketing will say whatever they like regardless of the facts anyway; don't sweat it.
|
|
|
|
|
Amen ![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
