|
How about the platform itself... oh... and version 2.0... oh... and a decent development enviornment to go with it...
I had to do a double take when reading this.. I assume you were being sarcastic, correct? Because VS .NET 2k3 and VS2k5 are the best development tools available. The only other tool to rival it is Eclipse, but that is in the Java environment.
-
Drew
|
|
|
|
|
afinnell wrote:
I assume you were being sarcastic
No. I wasn't. But you have misunderstood what I was saying. The poster of the first message in this thread was stating that in the near future Microsoft will have nothing special to offer when compared to open source CLR/CLI projects like Mono and Portable.NET. I was basically saying that yes, Microsft do.. i.e., Microsoft have v2 coming out, a decent development enviornment to go with it (compared to the development enviornmants that Mono and Portable.NET supply)... That make it clearer?
afinnell wrote:
VS .NET 2k3
Is brilliant, I love it.
afinnell wrote:
The only other tool to rival it is Eclipse
I completely disagree with that. IMHO Eclipse doesn't come close... it's too slow, too disjointed, and generally just too cumbersome. I personally think that an IDE should integrate well with the technologies and enviornment that you are developing for (with the obvious exception of IDEs for cross-platform compilers)... eclipse doesn't do this.. partly because it is not an IDE (it's a plugin framework IMO) and partly because it is designed to be generic, so by nature it doesn't integrate well with the enviornments that are being developed as you need lots of plugins for it to integrate (with the noteable exception of custom IDEs built ontop of Ecipse like the WebSphere IDE).
Regards,
Brian Dela
Now Reading: Code Complete 2ed[^] by Steve McConnell
Bloging
|
|
|
|
|
Much clearer.
I completely disagree with that. IMHO Eclipse ...
I'm not sure I've found any other Java IDE that is as usable as Eclipse. I don't know what you mean by 'slow'. Most of the other IDE's use Swing (JBuilder and NetBeans for example) and they are unbearable as I am very quick while developing. I find JBuilder completely intollerable and NetBeans too confusing. Eclipse 3.0 has a clean interface with quite a bit of the refactoring tools that are needed including JUnit and Ant support. I suppose one of the double-edged swords about Eclipse is the amount of plug-ins you may need to accomplish what you need. I believe it to be a great benefit because I wouldn't want an IDE that throws the kitchen sink in, however I like the idea of integrating X-Doclet, Lexical anaylzer's, JUnit, and the like when I need them.
Just for my curiosity could you name an IDE for java that you deem better than Eclipse? Also if you could point out some differences between the IDE's that you believe make your choice better. I realize I there is quite a bit of subjectivity for my reasons of liking Eclipse. Hopefully we can discuss objective reasons for one over another.
-
Drew
|
|
|
|
|
afinnell wrote:
I don't know what you mean by 'slow'
When I said slow I was not comparing it to other Java IDEs. On my machine in work, Visual Studio, even with a good few plugins loads in a few seconds. Eclipse with the plugins that I need to develop Java or C# can take anywhere up to 45 seconds to load.
While I haven't used it, some of the guys here in work use "IntelliJ IDEA" and after using it they said they would never go back to using Eclipse... they cite the same reason that I have a problem with about Eclipse... lack of integration with the language and environment (by environment I mean the technologies, like J2ME, J2EE etc, not the platform).
Anyway, I don't do much Java development, although hat is about to change, so my views are only based on the short amount of time that I have spent programming with Java. Also, Eclipse is NOT an IDE. Eclipse with plugin framework and when you add a load of Java plugins (J2EE e.g. Lomboz, J2ME, etc) then becomes an IDE... and IMHO, it becomes a disjointed IDE.
As I said, I'll be doing more Java dev in the near future. I'm not sure if I will end up using Eclipse as the development environment will be decided by the project lead, but if it's Eclipse, then I will not have a problem with it.
Regards,
Brian Dela
Now Reading: Code Complete 2ed[^] by Steve McConnell
Bloging
|
|
|
|
|
Well, like the people at microsoft said: Mono is a real good platform for linux development. And it could lead to a greater marketshare for unix/linux operating systems.
Mono really makes development for linux easier. I stick with windows though, because that platform is used the most. And my customers don't use linux as their operating system.
I sure did investigate the possibilities of mono, and their big!
"Every rule in a world of bits and bytes can be bend or eventually be broken"
|
|
|
|
|
ad MS leads in UI features, documentation and easse of installation as of today:
god with us, _this_ is the worst fact - the best vs good
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I think the Mono project opens things up for .NET, which is good for everybody. As a Microsoft developer (not employee, just in the development sense), I can now write cross platform applications, and my client base has expanded because of it. A customer can go the cheaper route of using Linux, where I can write a .NET web or windows application.
|
|
|
|
|
Sure one might think as Linux being a cheaper route, but I had clients that had more problem with Linux distro's than any Windows and that resulted in them paying more in the longterm than similar Windows solutions. But hey, I can't wait for VS 2005 .NET and the new ASP.NET
+---------------------------+
| |
| YEAH RIGHT! |
| BLAME IT ON THE BUNNY! |
| |
+---------------------------+
|
|
|
|
|
I knew they were right with their TCO & ROI stuff
|
|
|
|
|
I have downloaded a program that decompiles any .NET program to C# or VB.NET source code. For this reason, I stop using .NET; Microsoft does not have any solution to solve the problem yet, and I don't they will.
What do you think?
eric feng
|
|
|
|
|
What program is it? sounds cool.
wWw.KruncherInc.cOm
|
|
|
|
|
Have you ever heard about strong keys and obfuscating? Probably you should learn about .NET itself first, how high-level the IL code is in those assemblies and why it is possible to convert an IL source to C# source.
Obfuscating is easy and nobody will ever be able to disassemble the result.
RGab
|
|
|
|
|
I created one support instance with Microsoft support to discuss about this. they also recommand Dotfuscator. but did you ever try it? can you solve the following problem:
class MyClass
{
public string name
{ get { return "abcd"; } }
}
listbox.DisplayMember = "name";
MyClass a = new MyClass();
listbox.Items.Add(a);
after Dotfuscator scrambles the code, you won't get "abcd" in your list box.
you might need to buy a full version dotfuscator, then what about the stack trace?
eric feng
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it seems then reflection does not work as they should after obfuscating, although it should but it makes a lot of sense the reflection won't work on a class that has all of its properties and members' names scrambled.
I haven't tried myself, but I tried to disassemble a .NET assembly after obfuscated and the result was pretty impressive (I had no chance).
RGab
|
|
|
|
|
Strong keys don't prevent reverse engineering.
Obfuscating is the way to go but does not mean someone won't be able to reverse engineer the code. Obfuscating is supposed to just make it unbelievablly difficuly to understand, hopefully to the point where it looks like the equivalent of assembly code from a decompiled C++ program. And also people that want to truely decompile a program will find a way. It happens in natively compiled apps written in C and C++. All of the hacking/cracking tools can atest to that. Invest in a semi-decent Obfuscator and you should be safe from wondering kiddie eyes.
If there is a specific formula or business logic that absolutely has to be protected to the best of your abilities you could always write a COM object and utilize that object in your .NET application.
Keep in mind Java has the same afflicition and it hasn't stopped that environment.
I suppose you could also look at it from a different perspective. If someone does blatantly copy your code you will be able to tell by reverse engineering their code also.
I hope I never have to go back to C++ again. Environments like .NET and Java have allowed me to focus more on Architecture and design instead of worring about using strncpy instead of strcpy (Yes STL takes care of this, but the statement hopefully serves it's purpose. I can't wait until I'm switching out crystals to boost warp engines.. oh yeah!
-
Drew
|
|
|
|
|
i think they should include obfuscation as part of .net (at least at a basic level!). Although i don't really see what the big problem is with.. is the source code itself valuable or is it the developer's knowledge of that code?
|
|
|
|
|
A basic version of Dotfuscator is included with VS.Net 2003, and I had heard (although I don't know for certain) that MS was including their own obfuscator in VS 2005 instead of using a 3rd-party tool.
Also, you may want to go to www.aspose.com and have a look at their obfuscator. It's free (unsupported except through their forums), but supposedly has more features than the free version of Dotfuscator. (I just recently ran across this, and haven't had a chance to evaluate its obfuscation yet. But it's supposed to include features that you have to pay for with Dotfuscator.)
Grim (aka Toby) MCDBA, MCSD, MCP+SB
SELECT * FROM user WHERE clue IS NOT NULL
GO
(0 row(s) affected)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, I'll take a look.
|
|
|
|
|
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
is the source code itself valuable or is it the developer's knowledge of that code?
If your software is not a commercial product, if your software does not have any encryption, if your software does not connect to a server that require authority. Yes, you can open your source code.
eric feng
www.infospec.com
|
|
|
|
|
Let me disagree with you. The most valuable part of
software is no it's source code, may be, it is less valuable part. The most important is support, quick bug fixes, small reaction time to changing market requirements. Lots of large financial and baknking systems are build on client-server architecture? where server side is implemented as stored procedures - source code is effectively open. All business logic is open source! I can't remember any time when it is more easy to adapt a piece of code from large and unknown product than write my own. In industrial systems the ability of decompiling and obtaining source code is not problem at all.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree software itself is not a secret, but how do you hide the secrets (etc: checking serial #, encrypting sensititive data) in the software?
what about one day your client show you a piece of your source code to challenge you?
Can you name 1 or 2 commercial software written by managed code? I am very interested.
eric feng
|
|
|
|
|
eric feng wrote:
Can you name 1 or 2 commercial software written by managed code? I am very interested.
Eric, I too have been waiting for large companies to release .NET windows apps. Well just yesterday i found that ATI[^] seem to have done so with their Catalyst application. It's a pretty major app by the looks of it.
However in line with this thread, i would imagine that they do obfuscate their assemblies.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Ashley, I will look into it.
eric feng
|
|
|
|
|
eric feng wrote:
encrypting sensititive data
Encryption which depends on the attacker not knowing the algorithm is also known as "security by obscurity". All the more reasons to open the code, so that someone may point out that it is totally useless.
--
Weiter, weiter, ins verderben.
Wir müssen leben bis wir sterben.
I blog too now[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Wow someone that knows security (This is not sarcastic.) It's amazing how many people think security by obscurity is good enough. For example all the algorithms for AES, DES3, RC4 are known yet it is very difficult to crack cipher text.
-
Drew
|
|
|
|