4 ms·
FWIW, the MS world has a lot of hard-core scary-smart coders. And GAC deployment does not have much to do with clicky stuff. GAC has to with with DLL hell, and
by gm 15y ago
FWIW, the MS world has a lot of hard-core scary-smart coders.
And GAC deployment does not have much to do with clicky stuff. GAC has to with with DLL hell, and you need to jump through some extra hoops to deploy there (ie, http://support.microsoft.com/kb/324168 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/324168). Or maybe you intended something else in your comment, but I missed it. Is the GAC inferior (since you put the word developers in quotes) because it allows the programmer to find references without searching through folders? Sorry, I just miss the point of the comment.
- radicalbyte 15y agoThe original article was complaining about the requirement to GAC deploy libraries and being hard to test: my reply was that it's often not required. Microsoft's own products being a prominent exception (think Entity Framework, Workflow and System.Globalization). The Microsoft World is split into two camps: a) The kind who like using the drag-and-drop tools and having all of their code generated for them. these are generally the less technical crowd. b) The engineer type, the type who know what SOLID means know when to use (and not to use) a range of patterns. They're often proficient in several languages. This crowd tends to be more technical, and more critical of the products Microsoft build on top of the CLR. I'm in the second camp (and I guess that the vast majority of MS HNers are too). The first camp are common referred to (and refer to themselves) as "Microsoft developers".. and they're by far the largest (but least vocal) group.