About This Mac 10.3

Thanks ZERO!

#198502

Umm...

both the preview picture and both links seem to be broken...

:cry: :cry: :cry:

I really want this app too...

Everyone seems to love it, and it sounds so good...

#198988

The links ARE broken and don't work.

And tell me:

Why hell do you all devs like that heavy M$ monster called .NET for just those simple jobs like showing a couple of dialogs? Not intending to say something bad about your app, but...

#202762

Originally posted by RIMMER
Why hell do you all devs like that heavy M$ monster called .NET for just those simple jobs like showing a couple of dialogs? Not intending to say something bad about your app, but...

YEAH! He is right! Power to the Delphians! (pre Delphi.NET >.< ).

#202798

Originally posted by AndreasV@Aug 16 2004, 12:54 AM
YEAH! He is right! Power to the Delphians! (pre Delphi.NET >.< ).
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is no joke, dear friend. Little 200KB exe made in .NET takes 24 MB of my RAM. Seems like the whole framework loads just for displaying 2 pics and 3 text labels.

#203148

Originally posted by RIMMER@Aug 16 2004, 08:37 PM
This is no joke, dear friend. Little 200KB exe made in .NET takes 24 MB of my RAM. Seems like the whole framework loads just for displaying 2 pics and 3 text labels.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've said this hundreds of times before but here we go again...

The reason an app that's like 200KiB takes up 24Meg of RAM is because it's badly coded.

Like the vast majority of VB apps out there, the vast majority of one-man-band .Net apps that're about are badly coded and, basically, bloatware (but not in the classic sense of too many features).

There are, however, those of us (ThePowderRanger and myself, for example) who have spent so much time working with .Net for various reasons that we know the whys and wherefores of this bloat, and know how to eliminate it before it even exists.

Why, I've written functionally identical proof of concept apps in C#, Java, C++, and VB6 where the C# version performs almost as well in terms of speed and memory usage as the C++ version, both of which beat the Java version by a fair margin, and the VB version by a vast margin. That said, I'm not "Mister Java" or "Mister VB" (or "Mister C++", for that matter), and so my numbers can't be taken for gospel.

My point, however, still stands that, with a bit of understanding about .Net, it's nothing like the beast people make it out to be.

#205834

Originally posted by Stevie BM@Aug 23 2004, 01:44 AM
I've said this hundreds of times before but here we go again...
The reason an app that's like 200KiB takes up 24Meg of RAM is because it's badly coded.
Like the vast majority of VB apps out there, the vast majority of one-man-band .Net apps that're about are badly coded and, basically, bloatware (but not in the classic sense of too many features).
There are, however, those of us (ThePowderRanger and myself, for example) who have spent so much time working with .Net for various reasons that we know the whys and wherefores of this bloat, and know how to eliminate it before it even exists.
Why, I've written functionally identical proof of concept apps in C#, Java, C++, and VB6 where the C# version performs almost as well in terms of speed and memory usage as the C++ version, both of which beat the Java version by a fair margin, and the VB version by a vast margin. That said, I'm not "Mister Java" or "Mister VB" (or "Mister C++", for that matter), and so my numbers can't be taken for gospel.
My point, however, still stands that, with a bit of understanding about .Net, it's nothing like the beast people make it out to be.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you dear sir for this explanation. Seems like I was fortunelessly tried to use just badly coded apps. I'll try some of yours.

Of course, I'm not saying .Net is bad. It must be useful for some purposes, but every technology should be applied correctly.

Thank you one more time.

#206259

Originally posted by RIMMER+Aug 23 2004, 09:09 PM-->
QUOTE(RIMMER @ Aug 23 2004, 09:09 PM)
Thank you dear sir for this explanation. Seems like I was fortunelessly tried to use just badly coded apps.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
That's more than likely - unfortunately, most people either see .Net the way you did (and possibly still do; as a bloated framework for n00bs) or as not being "as good" as Java/C++ for one reason or other.
This, as any good coder knows, all depends on context, and how well you know the language at hand. For example, ask a pure C++ developer to write a web service for you - they'll likely have to do some hefty ground-work with listeners and so forth on ports, not to mention a lot of work implementing systems for managing SOAP transactions and WSDL... Ask a C# developer, however, and it's easy - create a web service application and code the methods you want as normal, with a [WebMethod] attribute applied.
The converse is true if you were to ask an (average) C++ developer to do memory management or work with pointers and the like - memory management is fairly fundamental to the way C++ works. Ask the same of the average C# developer, however, and they would likely have no clue where to start (although it is just as possible as in C++, in an almost identical fashion).
It is, as with most things in programming, a matter of trade-offs and knowing the pros and cons of what you're working with, and how features compare from language to language.
Originally posted by RIMMER@Aug 23 2004, 09:09 PM
I'll try some of yours.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Right now, I very much doubt that... The only piece of work I've released to the community is my iTunes 4 skin for Windows Media Player 9, which uses JScript for any coding.
Almost all of my .Net work (for the time being) is either done for my own purposes (just for fun, and under such specific circumstances I doubt anyone else would be interested), or for work (i.e. on internally facing projects I'm legally bound not to distribute, and that would be of very little use to you if you're outside of our company anyway).