How do I make a Standalone Application

[Richard Arthur]

I want an application developed in C# to be used on any computer _without_
the client computer needing the .NET framework. I have build a sample
application that I want to be able to quickly show to people. I will plug
in a ThumbDrive with my app on it, and then execute my application. I don't
want to have to force people to install the Framework and reboot if they do
not have the .NET framework installed.

Is this possible? and how?

Thanks,

Richard Arthur

[Bill Priess]

This is not possible using C#. You will have to use C++ in order to build an
app that does not rely on the .NET Framework.

HTH,

Bill P.

"Richard Arthur" <rb***@cs.byu.edu> wrote in message
news:eZ**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

I want an application developed in C# to be used on any computer _without_
the client computer needing the .NET framework. I have build a sample
application that I want to be able to quickly show to people. I will plug
in a ThumbDrive with my app on it, and then execute my application. I don't want to have to force people to install the Framework and reboot if they do not have the .NET framework installed.

Is this possible? and how?

Thanks,

Richard Arthur

[Jon Skeet]

Richard Arthur <rb***@cs.byu.edu> wrote:

I want an application developed in C# to be used on any computer _without_
the client computer needing the .NET framework.

You're out of luck. It's not going to happen - at least, not at the
moment.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Jon Skeet]

Bill Priess <no*****@nospam.com> wrote:

This is not possible using C#. You will have to use C++ in order to build an
app that does not rely on the .NET Framework.

Or Java, or Delphi, or C, or Perl, or Python, etc - there are plenty of
languages other than C++ which don't require .NET :)

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Bill Priess]

heh.. Jon you are always on about the details... sheesh! ;)

"Jon Skeet" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@news.microsoft.com ...

Bill Priess <no*****@nospam.com> wrote:

This is not possible using C#. You will have to use C++ in order to build an app that does not rely on the .NET Framework.

Or Java, or Delphi, or C, or Perl, or Python, etc - there are plenty of
languages other than C++ which don't require .NET :)

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Richard Arthur]

Right. We used to do all our development in Java, but I did not know you
could bundle the J2EE with a deployed application. I always thought you had
to at least have the Java runtime installed on the destination computer.

Anyway, we shifted to C# for a lot of the COM interop possibility, and for a
myriad of other reasons. We like the way Properties work, our development
uses a lot of Reflecion, and Properties fit our object model very well.

I was afraid of this, and my boss won't be too happy. But I will try to set
something up that will ease the pain.

Thanks.
"Bill Priess" <no*****@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:en****************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

heh.. Jon you are always on about the details... sheesh! ;)

"Jon Skeet" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@news.microsoft.com ...

Bill Priess <no*****@nospam.com> wrote:

This is not possible using C#. You will have to use C++ in order to build an app that does not rely on the .NET Framework.

Or Java, or Delphi, or C, or Perl, or Python, etc - there are plenty of
languages other than C++ which don't require .NET :)

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Jon Skeet]

Richard Arthur <rb***@cs.byu.edu> wrote:

Right. We used to do all our development in Java, but I did not know you
could bundle the J2EE with a deployed application. I always thought you had
to at least have the Java runtime installed on the destination computer.
Nope - your installation can do all that. Sun's JRE is free to
redistribute. Now as for a free J2EE server... you'd have to go with
JBoss or something similar.
Anyway, we shifted to C# for a lot of the COM interop possibility, and for a
myriad of other reasons. We like the way Properties work, our development
uses a lot of Reflecion, and Properties fit our object model very well.

I was afraid of this, and my boss won't be too happy. But I will try to set
something up that will ease the pain.

You can redistribute the .NET framework too. It may be reasonably big,
but it's free to redistribute.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Richard Arthur]

comments below...

"Jon Skeet" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@news.microsoft.com ...

Richard Arthur <rb***@cs.byu.edu> wrote:

Right. We used to do all our development in Java, but I did not know you could bundle the J2EE with a deployed application. I always thought you had to at least have the Java runtime installed on the destination computer.
Nope - your installation can do all that. Sun's JRE is free to
redistribute. Now as for a free J2EE server... you'd have to go with
JBoss or something similar.

Sorry...I meant the JRE instead of J2EE. So the JRE has to be installed on
a machine before any Java apps can be run. but it is freely distributable.
I thought you meant that I could just bind the Java App with the JRE, and
run the Java App without having to install the JRE first.

Anyway, we shifted to C# for a lot of the COM interop possibility, and for a myriad of other reasons. We like the way Properties work, our development uses a lot of Reflecion, and Properties fit our object model very well.

I was afraid of this, and my boss won't be too happy. But I will try to set something up that will ease the pain.

You can redistribute the .NET framework too. It may be reasonably big,
but it's free to redistribute.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Jon Skeet]

Richard Arthur <rb***@cs.byu.edu> wrote:

Nope - your installation can do all that. Sun's JRE is free to
redistribute. Now as for a free J2EE server... you'd have to go with
JBoss or something similar.
Sorry...I meant the JRE instead of J2EE. So the JRE has to be installed on
a machine before any Java apps can be run. but it is freely distributable.

Well, it has to be present. It doesn't have to be installed as such -
you can run the JRE just by having the right files in the right places.
I thought you meant that I could just bind the Java App with the JRE, and
run the Java App without having to install the JRE first.

Yes - see above. On the other hand, if every app does that, you end up
with a lot of JREs! One thing some installers allow is to ask the user
to select an existing JRE, or install one for them to be used by that
app and others, or place one in the app's directory just for its own
use.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[John]

Can I ask that how to redistribute .NetFramework ? reinstall the whole
..netframework or ..?
Thanks
John

"Richard Arthur" <rb***@cs.byu.edu> comments below...

"Jon Skeet" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@news.microsoft.com ...

Richard Arthur <rb***@cs.byu.edu> wrote:

Right. We used to do all our development in Java, but I did not know you could bundle the J2EE with a deployed application. I always thought you had to at least have the Java runtime installed on the destination computer.
Nope - your installation can do all that. Sun's JRE is free to
redistribute. Now as for a free J2EE server... you'd have to go with
JBoss or something similar.

Sorry...I meant the JRE instead of J2EE. So the JRE has to be installed on
a machine before any Java apps can be run. but it is freely distributable.
I thought you meant that I could just bind the Java App with the JRE, and
run the Java App without having to install the JRE first.

Anyway, we shifted to C# for a lot of the COM interop possibility, and for a myriad of other reasons. We like the way Properties work, our development uses a lot of Reflecion, and Properties fit our object model very well.

I was afraid of this, and my boss won't be too happy. But I will try to set something up that will ease the pain.

You can redistribute the .NET framework too. It may be reasonably big,
but it's free to redistribute.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Bill Priess]

You can include the dotnetfx.exe when you create an installer in .NET. If
you are using something like InstallShield or something like that, you can
also include the redistributable.

Bill P.
"John" <jo******@froggy.com.au> wrote in message
news:ew**************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

Can I ask that how to redistribute .NetFramework ? reinstall the whole
.netframework or ..?
Thanks
John

"Richard Arthur" <rb***@cs.byu.edu> comments below...

"Jon Skeet" <sk***@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MP************************@news.microsoft.com ...

Richard Arthur <rb***@cs.byu.edu> wrote:

Right. We used to do all our development in Java, but I did not know you could bundle the J2EE with a deployed application. I always thought you

had

to at least have the Java runtime installed on the destination

computer.

Nope - your installation can do all that. Sun's JRE is free to
redistribute. Now as for a free J2EE server... you'd have to go with
JBoss or something similar.
Sorry...I meant the JRE instead of J2EE. So the JRE has to be installed

on a machine before any Java apps can be run. but it is freely distributable. I thought you meant that I could just bind the Java App with the JRE, and
run the Java App without having to install the JRE first.

Anyway, we shifted to C# for a lot of the COM interop possibility, and

for a myriad of other reasons. We like the way Properties work, our development uses a lot of Reflecion, and Properties fit our object model very

well.
I was afraid of this, and my boss won't be too happy. But I will try

to set something up that will ease the pain.

You can redistribute the .NET framework too. It may be reasonably big,
but it's free to redistribute.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too