[C#] My browser :)

[Tomm]

First, it requires the end user to install the .Net framework. You code is never actually compiled, it uses run-time compiling (The application is compiled when you run it by the .Net framework). It uses loads more memory as it has to load all this crap just to get the .net framework to work.

[-::Mr.Dave::-]

Vista seems to say nono to your browser

[Dentafrice,]

Jah, vista doesn't like .NET ;P

[Lambda]

You just used a web browser control... not "making your own browser"

Plus don't bother with the .Net framework.. it sucks.

It's better technology than the Win32 API.

First, it requires the end user to install the .Net framework. You code is never actually compiled, it uses run-time compiling (The application is compiled when you run it by the .Net framework). It uses loads more memory as it has to load all this crap just to get the .net framework to work.

Most end users should have the framework installed. It's always available on Windows updates if you haven't downloaded it before.

C# is compiled, just not traditionally. It can be compiled traditionally but instead all the implementations choose to compile and target the CLI. Why? Because your memory footprint reason is a bunch of crap even if it is an hyperbole. There are disadvantages to the arrangement and many advantages that make it completely worthwhile. Hence why C# is a very popular language that is far better than VB6, and the .NET framework is the future of Windows development.

Jah, vista doesn't like .NET ;P

Ironic, really. Vista ships with 2.0 and 3.0 of the framework.

[Tomm]

It's better technology than the Win32 API.

I would disagree, what advantages do I get?

Most end users should have the framework installed. It's always available on Windows updates if you haven't downloaded it before.

C# is compiled, just not traditionally. It can be compiled traditionally but instead all the implementations choose to compile and target the CLI. Why? Because your memory footprint reason is a bunch of crap even if it is an hyperbole. There are disadvantages to the arrangement and many advantages that make it completely worthwhile. Hence why C# is a very popular language that is far better than VB6, and the .NET framework is the future of Windows development.

I am fully aware that that VB6 is nothing in comparison but lets take a standard C++ application (Not .Net) and compare it to a .Net C# application. Not only do you get a OS independent application you get a much more powerful coding language with much more control over your application. If I pick a .Net coding language, I am stuck to Windows, require the user to download the .Net framework (Tis big for dialup users - and face it, there are still some of them out there).

Ironic, really. Vista ships with 2.0 and 3.0 of the framework.

/\ See above, plus who are you?

[Lambda]

I would disagree, what advantages do I get?

I can only assume you haven't written any large scalable applications with the Win32 API. It's bloated even without having to leave legacy interfaces for older systems. .NET is far easier.

I am fully aware that that VB6 is nothing in comparison but lets take a standard C++ application (Not .Net) and compare it to a .Net C# application. Not only do you get a OS independent application you get a much more powerful coding language with much more control over your application. If I pick a .Net coding language, I am stuck to Windows, require the user to download the .Net framework (Tis big for dialup users - and face it, there are still some of them out there).

Thank you for listing C++'s advantages, but I know about them all already. In many cases they don't play a part. Systems are fast enough not to need lower-level code for application software; this isn't system software that requires C and hand-optimized inner loops. Scripting languages are used for a lot more than just ~100 line scripts.

C#, providing it's Mono-compatible, will run on Unix-like operating systems. Lots of Linux software is written in C# for example.

Absolute control isn't everything in application software. You obviously haven't had the hard experience of doing your own memory management. Garbage collection saves a hell of a lot of time. Which is another point: time. Businesses have deadlines, and time costs money. Development time of high-level languages such as C# and Java greatly reduce the lines of code and the time it takes to write them. more broadband users than dial-upAn application can be finished quicker and with less effort than in languages like C and C++. Sure, this isn't a business, but he doesn't need the pure speed, power and portability that C and C++ give you--He's learning to program, and is much better off starting with C# than C++. At this stage he doesn't need to worry about portability (which is harder than you seem to assume).

Programmers learn (or try to) at least 5 languages. You choose the best tool for the job, which isn't always (indeed, very little nowadays) C++. I personally encourage Dentafrice to continue with C# and learn as much as he can about the language and programming. When he's ready he can move on and widen his range.

[Dentafrice,]

I can only assume you haven't written any large scalable applications with the Win32 API. It's bloated even without having to leave legacy interfaces for older systems. .NET is far easier.



Thank you for listing C++'s advantages, but I know about them all already. In many cases they don't play a part. Systems are fast enough not to need lower-level code for application software; this isn't system software that requires C and hand-optimized inner loops. Scripting languages are used for a lot more than just ~100 line scripts.

C#, providing it's Mono-compatible, will run on Unix-like operating systems. Lots of Linux software is written in C# for example.

Absolute control isn't everything in application software. You obviously haven't had the hard experience of doing your own memory management. Garbage collection saves a hell of a lot of time. Which is another point: time. Businesses have deadlines, and time costs money. Development time of high-level languages such as C# and Java greatly reduce the lines of code and the time it takes to write them. more broadband users than dial-upAn application can be finished quicker and with less effort than in languages like C and C++. Sure, this isn't a business, but he doesn't need the pure speed, power and portability that C and C++ give you--He's learning to program, and is much better off starting with C# than C++. At this stage he doesn't need to worry about portability (which is harder than you seem to assume).

Programmers learn (or try to) at least 5 languages. You choose the best tool for the job, which isn't always (indeed, very little nowadays) C++. I personally encourage Dentafrice to continue with C# and learn as much as he can about the language and programming. When he's ready he can move on and widen his range.

thank you for that quite long post Even though I read all of it.

I started with PHP a few years ago, then moved on to a little JS, now I am going to be working in desktop programming for a little while, see which one I like better... desktop vs web.

C# seemed like a good start, and I think I will stick with it.. then maybe as you said I will widen my range.