3 ms·
I fear I wasn't clear. The main problem of the .NET is its distribution. I had to write million lines of C++ win32 code, because no one wants to distribute a 2
by shimi 18y ago
I fear I wasn't clear.
The main problem of the .NET is its distribution. I had to write million lines of C++ win32 code, because no one wants to distribute a 22MB .NET installer.
As goes to ASP.NET that only works with IIS.
F# could be a great thing, but I wish MS would have solved this prime issue before adding all kind of funky languages to the .NET Framework
- MrRage 18y agoI don't think this is an "issue" to Microsoft. I doubt that they want to officially support .NET on more than their own platforms. .NET is becoming more and more tied to Windows anyway, e.g. WPF.
- wayne 18y agoEh, the problem will get fixed eventually when in 5-10 years everyone upgrades to Vista and later OSes which come with .NET. It's similar to the IE6 problem. People aren't willing to upgrade their old machines and Microsoft can't force a Windows Update without incurring the wrath of antitrust prosecutors. Segmenting the download into smaller chunks isn't a panacea either. As a case point, take a look at the Tablet SDK. To redistribute that to non-Tablet, developers have to choose between 6 distinct components and check whether each one is on the system (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms819420.aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms819420.aspx)... no user's gonna know whether they have the "Ink Divider object" installed. Having big versioned checkpoints is definitely the clearest from a user and development perspective (e.g. "make sure you have .NET 3.5"). So in the meantime, all Microsoft can do is keep working to make .NET better.
- Elepsis 18y agoHow is this different from the JVM, though, aside in that Java pretty much never caught on for desktop apps?
- MoeDrippins 18y agoIt's not, but java never caught on for desktop apps because Swing is a steaming pile.