469,338 Members | 8,095 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,338 developers. It's quick & easy.

Is that a joke ?

That's what I keep asking myself whenever develop in .NET. Is this a joke a
farse or just a bad dream?

..NET is slow, actually slow is just a polite word I can use in a newsgroup.

..NET is just a VM and as one it works very slowly, before and after JIT. I
don't understand why some people insist that a VM can be compared with
native code. I really feel sick, whenever compare native C++ code against
the same code ported to C#. I don't know what is the performance loss with
databases or corporate solutions but my math/CAE functions run times slower
in .NET.

Managed code might be fast enough for enterprise apps, database front ends
or asp intranets. It probably looks fast to Java or VB developers but what
about real time applications?

What about CAD, CAE, CAM, scientific applications, utilities, math, imaging,
desktop publishing etc. What should developers who write such applications
must do ? Port them into UNIX ?

What happened to the rule i knew twenty years ago? "Next version of anything
should be at least faster and more stable than the previous one"

I have many questions for MS developers, although I'm sure nobody will ever
answer.

1. Is .NET just an approach to enterprise development?

2. Or another battle with Sun's Java

3. Or an MS conclusion that performance doesn't matter any more

4. If .NET was slow for WinFS, Office or Longhorn then why we have to
believe that is fast for our own applications?

5. If Microsoft want a new API why that must be based on VM technology?

6. Why MS call .NET a "safe" framework, safe from what? Safe from hackers, I
don't thin so, they can write anything they want in unmanaged code. Safe
from mem leaks, a garbage collector doesn't make good programmers or safe
applications. I still wonder what "safe" means.

7. Winforms1 will become obsolete because of WF2. WF2 will become obsolete
because of Avalon. Then why they introduced them? Just to have something
that hides Win32/GDI calls?

8. Longhorn drivers, kernel and anything "low-level" will be written in
native code. LH must run in 64bit processors too, so native code must be
natively compiled in 64bit API calls. That means Win32 will become Win64.
Why MS don't simply implement WinFX as an OO frontend to Win32/64 API,
leaving out the VM?

9. Mr Gates, why all that brain wash? You can fool some enterprise
programmers but not the rest of us who used to hand-optimise our code, just
to gain speed.

Finally, a single word question to all those bright scientists who work for
MS, Why ?

Please don't try to change my opinion, you cannot. By the way I'm not one of
those stupid guys who use to call Microsoft as M$. Me and all my colleagues
use Microsoft development tools since 1982 and we all know what exactly are
JIT, VM and native compiler.

I really like .NET/WinFX as a library and C# as a modern language, but I
feel sick with all that waste of processing power and lack of performance.

Regards

Ted Nicols
Jul 21 '05
68 3259

"Ross Presser" <rp******@NOSPAMgmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:1e*****************************@40tude.net...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:02:49 +0300, Ted Nicols wrote:
Hmm, I prefer well coded, optimized and debuged programs than a secure
environment that does those things.


How much more does it cost in programmer time -- including training time,
development time, debugging time -- to come up with "well coded, optimized
and debugged programs" that were written from the ground up?

You think the business world is going to wait around for a million Ted
Nicols to be educated and trained?

Enabling lesser programmers to build the apps that business wants, is a
SMART MOVE.


It sure was. Unfortunately, that was called Visual Basic 6.

Wonder why Microsoft took such a huge step backwards? (WARNING Wil
Robinson......this is a trap! Jump in it at your own risk.)

Jim Hubbard
Jul 22 '05 #51
..Net is just another tool. You use the right tool for the right job. If you
are using .Net for 3D graphics, real-time applications, scientific
engineering or any time-of-execution-critical applications, then you are
using the wrong tool. You should be using unmanaged C++ perhaps enhanced
with assembler.

If you are trying to use .Net to build parts of the OS, COM components, or
device drivers then you are using the wrong tool. You should be using
unmanaged C++ and Win32.

If you using .Net to build web applications or enterprise reporting systems,
or client-server applications then you have chosen a worthy tool for the job,
because few of these applications require the critical real-time performance
that .Net can never give you. For these applications, written by the
majority of corporate enterprise programmers, then the development time and
money saved by .Net overcomes the performance burden almost every time.

You use the right tool for the right job. People who think Microsoft is
going to rewrite all their legacy OS and COM components in .Net are living in
a fantasy world. Sure, there are plenty of trivial samples and tutorials for
using .Net in DirectX gaming and 3D applications, but nobody in the real
world will ever use .Net for these applications because it cannot deliver
sufficient performance to compete in the marketplace with similar
applications written in native code.

If you have to write to the metal, then .Net is not for you. If you want to
serve up web pages showing the quarterly sales results, then .Net is terrific
becasuse it will save you loads of programming time, which translates
directly into money.

Swifter
--
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
-Albert Einstein
"Ted Nicols" wrote:
That's what I keep asking myself whenever develop in .NET. Is this a joke a
farse or just a bad dream?

..NET is slow, actually slow is just a polite word I can use in a newsgroup.

..NET is just a VM and as one it works very slowly, before and after JIT. I
don't understand why some people insist that a VM can be compared with
native code. I really feel sick, whenever compare native C++ code against
the same code ported to C#. I don't know what is the performance loss with
databases or corporate solutions but my math/CAE functions run times slower
in .NET.

Managed code might be fast enough for enterprise apps, database front ends
or asp intranets. It probably looks fast to Java or VB developers but what
about real time applications?

What about CAD, CAE, CAM, scientific applications, utilities, math, imaging,
desktop publishing etc. What should developers who write such applications
must do ? Port them into UNIX ?

What happened to the rule i knew twenty years ago? "Next version of anything
should be at least faster and more stable than the previous one"

I have many questions for MS developers, although I'm sure nobody will ever
answer.

1. Is .NET just an approach to enterprise development?

2. Or another battle with Sun's Java

3. Or an MS conclusion that performance doesn't matter any more

4. If .NET was slow for WinFS, Office or Longhorn then why we have to
believe that is fast for our own applications?

5. If Microsoft want a new API why that must be based on VM technology?

6. Why MS call .NET a "safe" framework, safe from what? Safe from hackers, I
don't thin so, they can write anything they want in unmanaged code. Safe
from mem leaks, a garbage collector doesn't make good programmers or safe
applications. I still wonder what "safe" means.

7. Winforms1 will become obsolete because of WF2. WF2 will become obsolete
because of Avalon. Then why they introduced them? Just to have something
that hides Win32/GDI calls?

8. Longhorn drivers, kernel and anything "low-level" will be written in
native code. LH must run in 64bit processors too, so native code must be
natively compiled in 64bit API calls. That means Win32 will become Win64.
Why MS don't simply implement WinFX as an OO frontend to Win32/64 API,
leaving out the VM?

9. Mr Gates, why all that brain wash? You can fool some enterprise
programmers but not the rest of us who used to hand-optimise our code, just
to gain speed.

Finally, a single word question to all those bright scientists who work for
MS, Why ?

Please don't try to change my opinion, you cannot. By the way I'm not one of
those stupid guys who use to call Microsoft as M$. Me and all my colleagues
use Microsoft development tools since 1982 and we all know what exactly are
JIT, VM and native compiler.

I really like .NET/WinFX as a library and C# as a modern language, but I
feel sick with all that waste of processing power and lack of performance.

Regards

Ted Nicols

Jul 22 '05 #52
"nobody" <no****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:er**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Some of dotNet MVPs and MS engineers are not honest here. My own
observations show that dotNet decreases non-web software quality a lot in
performance and consuming resources.
I believe that MS representers, including some MVPs, just follow company's
policy. We should not blame them for that. I've seen much worst behavior
from people representing much smaller companies.
On the surface, dotNet is super, but it is not so nice internally to use
except web development. At this point, dotNet is very good with web
development only.


I admit that .NET is very good for web development, but that's not the
point. As you said, desktop applications is a different case and .NET isn't
that fast especially for performance critical coding. I really hope that
will change in the future, although I'm not that optimistic.

Ted
Jul 22 '05 #53
If you're going to develop in .Net, do yourself a favor and read the book
".Net Gotchas" (O'Reilly).

It not only shows you where .Net is not mature yet, it shows you how to
avoid getting slapped around by .Net gotchas.

Jim

"Ted Nicols" <__****************@mail.com> wrote in message
news:e3**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
That's what I keep asking myself whenever develop in .NET. Is this a joke
a farse or just a bad dream?

.NET is slow, actually slow is just a polite word I can use in a
newsgroup.

.NET is just a VM and as one it works very slowly, before and after JIT. I
don't understand why some people insist that a VM can be compared with
native code. I really feel sick, whenever compare native C++ code against
the same code ported to C#. I don't know what is the performance loss with
databases or corporate solutions but my math/CAE functions run times
slower in .NET.

Managed code might be fast enough for enterprise apps, database front ends
or asp intranets. It probably looks fast to Java or VB developers but what
about real time applications?

What about CAD, CAE, CAM, scientific applications, utilities, math,
imaging, desktop publishing etc. What should developers who write such
applications must do ? Port them into UNIX ?

What happened to the rule i knew twenty years ago? "Next version of
anything should be at least faster and more stable than the previous one"

I have many questions for MS developers, although I'm sure nobody will
ever answer.

1. Is .NET just an approach to enterprise development?

2. Or another battle with Sun's Java

3. Or an MS conclusion that performance doesn't matter any more

4. If .NET was slow for WinFS, Office or Longhorn then why we have to
believe that is fast for our own applications?

5. If Microsoft want a new API why that must be based on VM technology?

6. Why MS call .NET a "safe" framework, safe from what? Safe from hackers,
I don't thin so, they can write anything they want in unmanaged code. Safe
from mem leaks, a garbage collector doesn't make good programmers or safe
applications. I still wonder what "safe" means.

7. Winforms1 will become obsolete because of WF2. WF2 will become obsolete
because of Avalon. Then why they introduced them? Just to have something
that hides Win32/GDI calls?

8. Longhorn drivers, kernel and anything "low-level" will be written in
native code. LH must run in 64bit processors too, so native code must be
natively compiled in 64bit API calls. That means Win32 will become Win64.
Why MS don't simply implement WinFX as an OO frontend to Win32/64 API,
leaving out the VM?

9. Mr Gates, why all that brain wash? You can fool some enterprise
programmers but not the rest of us who used to hand-optimise our code,
just to gain speed.

Finally, a single word question to all those bright scientists who work
for MS, Why ?

Please don't try to change my opinion, you cannot. By the way I'm not one
of those stupid guys who use to call Microsoft as M$. Me and all my
colleagues use Microsoft development tools since 1982 and we all know what
exactly are JIT, VM and native compiler.

I really like .NET/WinFX as a library and C# as a modern language, but I
feel sick with all that waste of processing power and lack of performance.

Regards

Ted Nicols

Jul 22 '05 #54
"nobody" <no****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:er**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Hi,
Some of dotNet MVPs and MS engineers are not honest here.
I wonder who you could be referring to? hmmmm.

As my tag line professes, the opinions I type are my own, not that of my
employer. I have not written anything that I do not firmly believe. I am
also fallable and have been proven wrong on many occasions by my peers on
this newsgroup. I welcome the opportunity to do better. However, I have
been honest with you. To the best of my knowledge, the other responders
have been as well.
My own observations show that dotNet decreases non-web software quality a
lot in performance and consuming resources.
"a lot" huh? Interesting statistic. I have seen a decrease in performance,
usually where the initial load occurs. Personally, I have not seen that big
of a decrease of performance overall. The number of memory leaks is down
dramatically. If you use the system well, it is very fast. Perhaps your
observations are as unscientific as mine.
Particularly, dotNet remoting is bad, and should be ditched and re-written
with more careful consideration!
It is what it is. New mechanisms for communication have been announced for
future products. I'm sure that they will help resolve this.
The mechanisms that existed before Remoting still exist. You are free to
use them instead.
dotNet serialization is bad!!
Interesting. I've found it to be quite powerful when used properly.
Perhaps you are using it for some odd things? Note that Java Serialization
is no faster. If you compare apples to apples, and use the tool wisely, you
will find that it solves some very interesting problems.
dotNet is 5 years old now, but there is no outstanding (core) application
like IE6, MS Office, SQL server and IIS written from dotNet in this world
to prove it yet!!!
Nonsense. Biztalk 2004 is an expesive and very high performance server
product written in .Net. It takes time to move large code bases.
dotNet MVPs and MS engineers don't treat us like an idiot. It would be
better to both MS and us!
I assure you that I, for one, have not treated you or anyone else with
anything but the most honest desire to simply assist. If you feel that my
words are condescending, then I am sorry for anything that I have done to
make you feel that way. It was not intentional, I assure you.
On the surface, dotNet is super, but it is not so nice internally
to use except web development. At this point, dotNet is very good with web
development only.


We must respectfully disagree on this point.

--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--
Jul 22 '05 #55
Ted,

I admit that .NET is very good for web development, but that's not the
point. As you said, desktop applications is a different case and .NET
isn't that fast especially for performance critical coding. I really hope
that will change in the future, although I'm not that optimistic.


I respectful disagree with you.

The speed for desktop applications developed with dotNet is more than high
enough for most common business applications.

I know that there in countries as the USA are people who have two sitter
Ferrari's. However, because the driving laws in the USA is every avarage
modern car more than fast enough for most of the people.

I have understand that the average guy/girl in the USA is driving a car
with which he can take his whole family with him and feels very comfortable
with that car.

dotNet is not a Ferrari however in my opinion very much better than average.

Just my thought,

Cor
Jul 22 '05 #56
"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:uH**************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
I know that there in countries as the USA are people who have two sitter
Ferrari's. However, because the driving laws in the USA is every avarage
modern car more than fast enough for most of the people.
I would agree with you if I was a highway patrol officer. Unfortunately I'm
just a developer,
I have understand that the average guy/girl in the USA is driving a car
with which he can take his whole family with him and feels very
comfortable with that car.
dotNet is not a Ferrari however in my opinion very much better than
average.


The real problem is, that previously I was driving alone in a fast car, and
I liked that. Now, with .NET I have to take the whole family with me,
includimg my mother-in-law :)

Ted
Jul 22 '05 #57
Ted,
I know that there in countries as the USA are people who have two sitter
Ferrari's. However, because the driving laws in the USA is every avarage
modern car more than fast enough for most of the people.


I would agree with you if I was a highway patrol officer. Unfortunately
I'm just a developer,

I don't understand this, does that mean that everybody goes in the USA as
fast as on the oval in Indianapolis or only a few people?

I assume that a lot of people want to go at least once that fast, however
the majority wants a trustable reliable comfortable above average car like
the Net is in development?

In my opinion is that where we are talking about in this thread.

Cor
Jul 22 '05 #58
To Jim and Ted:

You're just another bunch of Anti-Microsoft fools. You're the kind of
fellows who start uproars in enterprise environments because you're so
concerned with performance that it blinds you from getting the job done. It's
a shamed that guys like you will always exist. I'm not doubting you guys as
being very smart people. However, from a business perspective....you're
F.U.C.KING STUPID.

Regards

"Jim Hubbard" wrote:
If you're going to develop in .Net, do yourself a favor and read the book
".Net Gotchas" (O'Reilly).

It not only shows you where .Net is not mature yet, it shows you how to
avoid getting slapped around by .Net gotchas.

Jim

"Ted Nicols" <__****************@mail.com> wrote in message
news:e3**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
That's what I keep asking myself whenever develop in .NET. Is this a joke
a farse or just a bad dream?

.NET is slow, actually slow is just a polite word I can use in a
newsgroup.

.NET is just a VM and as one it works very slowly, before and after JIT. I
don't understand why some people insist that a VM can be compared with
native code. I really feel sick, whenever compare native C++ code against
the same code ported to C#. I don't know what is the performance loss with
databases or corporate solutions but my math/CAE functions run times
slower in .NET.

Managed code might be fast enough for enterprise apps, database front ends
or asp intranets. It probably looks fast to Java or VB developers but what
about real time applications?

What about CAD, CAE, CAM, scientific applications, utilities, math,
imaging, desktop publishing etc. What should developers who write such
applications must do ? Port them into UNIX ?

What happened to the rule i knew twenty years ago? "Next version of
anything should be at least faster and more stable than the previous one"

I have many questions for MS developers, although I'm sure nobody will
ever answer.

1. Is .NET just an approach to enterprise development?

2. Or another battle with Sun's Java

3. Or an MS conclusion that performance doesn't matter any more

4. If .NET was slow for WinFS, Office or Longhorn then why we have to
believe that is fast for our own applications?

5. If Microsoft want a new API why that must be based on VM technology?

6. Why MS call .NET a "safe" framework, safe from what? Safe from hackers,
I don't thin so, they can write anything they want in unmanaged code. Safe
from mem leaks, a garbage collector doesn't make good programmers or safe
applications. I still wonder what "safe" means.

7. Winforms1 will become obsolete because of WF2. WF2 will become obsolete
because of Avalon. Then why they introduced them? Just to have something
that hides Win32/GDI calls?

8. Longhorn drivers, kernel and anything "low-level" will be written in
native code. LH must run in 64bit processors too, so native code must be
natively compiled in 64bit API calls. That means Win32 will become Win64.
Why MS don't simply implement WinFX as an OO frontend to Win32/64 API,
leaving out the VM?

9. Mr Gates, why all that brain wash? You can fool some enterprise
programmers but not the rest of us who used to hand-optimise our code,
just to gain speed.

Finally, a single word question to all those bright scientists who work
for MS, Why ?

Please don't try to change my opinion, you cannot. By the way I'm not one
of those stupid guys who use to call Microsoft as M$. Me and all my
colleagues use Microsoft development tools since 1982 and we all know what
exactly are JIT, VM and native compiler.

I really like .NET/WinFX as a library and C# as a modern language, but I
feel sick with all that waste of processing power and lack of performance.

Regards

Ted Nicols


Jul 22 '05 #59
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 08:20:04 +0300, Ted Nicols wrote:
The real problem is, that previously I was driving alone in a fast car, and
I liked that. Now, with .NET I have to take the whole family with me,
includimg my mother-in-law :)


Nothing is preventing you from continuing to use VB6, or any other tools
you prefer to VS.NET. It seems to me that you enjoy bellyaching about .NET
more than you dislike .NET.
Jul 22 '05 #60
friggin troll

"Your nightmare" <Your ni*******@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:01**********************************@microsof t.com...
To Jim and Ted:

You're just another bunch of Anti-Microsoft fools. <<profanity clipped>>

Jul 22 '05 #61
Oh, no! Some child too afraid to post his real name is not happy with my
post.

Whatever shall I do?

Jul 22 '05 #62
Hi, Jim and Ted:
I like your guys' comments about dotNet. I compared C++ with dotNet, and
can't clearly see any chance to develop high qualified desktop and middle
tier applications with dotNet. Overall, dotNet is indeed simple and fast to
develop, but its benefit is not really obvious to me. It is good to use
dotnet for non-professional or in-house applications development like old
VB6. However, in many cases, dotNet is not so good as VB6 in simplicity and
development speed for a small and trival project.
If you use dotNet to develop a professional application for sale on
market, you may feel that someone will follow your bussiness ideas and use
C++/WTL and native development to re-engineer it with much cheaper price,
and eventually beat you and your company. I have such a worry, don't you?
To write a professional software, we need collecting bussiness
requirements for its design, coding, extensively test and documentation.
According to my experience, coding may just cost us one third time and
effort roughly. You get 50% time and effort cut in coding with dotNet, but
software quality decrease considrerably and we lost peace in mind.
I firmly believe dotNet is created for non IT professionals, in-house
and web developments, and not for IT professionals, desktop, middle tiers
and low level development.


"Jim Hubbard" <re***@newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:FI********************@giganews.com...
Oh, no! Some child too afraid to post his real name is not happy with my
post.

Whatever shall I do?

Jul 22 '05 #63

"nobody" <no****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Oo**************@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Hi, Jim and Ted:
I like your guys' comments about dotNet. I compared C++ with dotNet,
and can't clearly see any chance to develop high qualified desktop and
middle tier applications with dotNet. Overall, dotNet is indeed simple and
fast to develop, but its benefit is not really obvious to me. It is good
to use dotnet for non-professional or in-house applications development
like old VB6. However, in many cases, dotNet is not so good as VB6 in
simplicity and development speed for a small and trival project.
If you use dotNet to develop a professional application for sale on
market, you may feel that someone will follow your bussiness ideas and use
C++/WTL and native development to re-engineer it with much cheaper price,
and eventually beat you and your company. I have such a worry, don't you?
To write a professional software, we need collecting bussiness
requirements for its design, coding, extensively test and documentation.
According to my experience, coding may just cost us one third time and
effort roughly. You get 50% time and effort cut in coding with dotNet, but
software quality decrease considrerably and we lost peace in mind.
I firmly believe dotNet is created for non IT professionals, in-house
and web developments, and not for IT professionals, desktop, middle tiers
and low level development.


IMHO, there are 3 key reasons that Microsoft developed .Net.

#3) Java. They freaked out far too soon in the Sun/Microsoft software
war and gave too much significance to the developers adopting Java. They
should've stayed the course with code optimized for Windows. Cross-platform
has never taken off....and it never will. Code optimized for the platform
will always run faster, do more and be in more demand than any virtual
machine code anyone can write.

#2) Make no mistake about it, Microsoft is run by shareholders. They are
what drives Microsoft decisions.....not developers. That "DEVELOPERS!
DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS!" mantra of Steve Ballmer is bullshit. He's just a
glorified a salesman. And, like any good salesman, he'll tell you what you
want to hear.

But, the second reason for developing .Net is to cut costs within
Microsoft. It is simply cheaper to support a single core (CLR) with a bunch
of GUIs (VB.Net, C++.Net, C#.Net, ad nauseam) than it is to write and
support separate and distinct languages like Visual C++, Visual Basic,
Visual Interdev and Microsoft's JVM. So what if the people didn't ask for
it? So what if they don't like it? What are they gonna do....go to another
OS?

#1) The number one reason Microsoft created .Net is to further their
internal goals of writing software-as-a-service. Microsoft has publicly
stated that their goal is to have all Microsoft products be sold as
services. No longer will you own Microsoft software, you will rent it from
them. This is another decision pushed by the shareholders.

Microsoft had $50 BILLION in CASH reserves last time I looked.
Microsoft isn't hurting for money. But, it does lose billions more in sales
to piracy and theft of its software. It hasn't occurred to the brilliant
minds at Microsoft that $500 for a $.10 cd of Microsoft Office Professional
is just too damned much, and people will take what they need when they can't
afford what they need.

Nonetheless, the greedy bastards at Microsoft continue to require
ridiculous sales prices for software that we only buy because we have to.
If they really wanted to stave off Linux, they could sell the Office
Standard for $50 a copy (they already sell Office Student/Teacher for $149
for 3 licenses). It's not like they need the money. It's all about
appeasing the shareholders.

To that end, Microsoft knows that they only way to stop piracy is to
make software an online service. That's the biggest reason for .Net. It's
also why they don't really give a damn about the security holes of
disassembling .Net code...because their code will reside on servers. .Net
wasn't written for writing applications that you sell and ship to your
customers. It is a language specifically for the software-as-a-service
model.

The fact that they pushed it as anything else should be illegal. What
Microsoft has actually done is recruited the largest beta test group in
history for software (.Net) that they will use to bleed those very people
for more and more revenues.

In essence, Microsoft has duped .Net developers into weaving their own
nooses. (Brilliant really.....)

Well, I've said it before, and I stand by it. The adoption of .Net and
abandonment of classic Visual Basic will eventually go down as two of the
biggest blunders in technological history.

Jim Hubbard
Jul 22 '05 #64
"Cor Ligthert" <no************@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:e7*************@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
I don't understand this, does that mean that everybody goes in the USA as
fast as on the oval in Indianapolis or only a few people?


I was kidding Cor, of course it is not always necessary to drive as fast as
you can. However a really fast car allows to drive fast when is necessary.

Ted
Jul 22 '05 #65
"Ross Presser" <rp******@NOSPAMgmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:3s****************************@40tude.net...
Nothing is preventing you from continuing to use VB6, or any other tools
you prefer to VS.NET. It seems to me that you enjoy bellyaching about .NET
more than you dislike .NET.


Ross, if you read my previous posts you'll know that I don't dislike .NET or
C#, which is an excellent OO language. It is .NET performance on
time-critical applications that bothers me.
BTW I'd be quite happy with .NET if I was a VB6 developer :)

Ted
Jul 22 '05 #66
"Your nightmare" <Your ni*******@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:01**********************************@microsof t.com...
You're just another bunch of Anti-Microsoft fools. You're the kind of
fellows who start uproars in enterprise environments because you're so
concerned with performance that it blinds you from getting the job done.
It's
a shamed that guys like you will always exist. I'm not doubting you guys
as
being very smart people.
Anti-Microsoft fools ? My dear anonymous "friend", I was seventeen years old
when first got my first MS C v1.0 compiler in a 360K disk.
All these years, I'm using MS tools to make money and develop applications
for MS operating systems.
In any case that doesn't mean that I have to be happy with everything
Microsoft builds. Do you really believe that even Microsoft people don't
know that .NET performance is a bit slow when compared with Win32 native
compiled code?
However, from a business perspective....you're
F.U.C.KING STUPID.


Maybe you're right. Sometimes I prefer been "stupid" than following
business. You know I'm just a tech guy, not marketing officer.

Ted
Jul 22 '05 #67
"Your nightmare" <Your ni*******@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:01**********************************@microsof t.com...
You're just another bunch of Anti-Microsoft fools. You're the kind of
fellows who start uproars in enterprise environments because you're so
concerned with performance that it blinds you from getting the job done.
It's
a shamed that guys like you will always exist. I'm not doubting you guys
as
being very smart people.
Anti-Microsoft fools ? My dear anonymous "friend", I was seventeen years old
when first got my first MS C v1.0 compiler in a 360K disk.
All these years, I'm using MS tools to make money and develop applications
for MS operating systems.
In any case that doesn't mean that I have to be happy with everything
Microsoft builds. Do you really believe that even Microsoft people don't
know that .NET performance is a bit slow when compared with Win32 native
compiled code?
However, from a business perspective....you're
F.U.C.KING STUPID.


Maybe you're right. Sometimes I prefer been "stupid" than following
business. You know I'm just a tech guy, not marketing officer.

Ted

Jul 22 '05 #68
Hello,
I am new to the C++ world, and I got my start at what many, and i am sure
you, do not consider real programming with the html world. I have been
plugging around for the last 3-4 years with several of the vb, c#, java,
coldfusion, etc. Unfortunately, I think you are right on many points, and it
is only sad for it took me this long to realize.

I have many complaints with vm not handling the load I need, and I know a
lot of it is for I have not learned how to correctly optimize a machine.
Anyways, that will come with time, but I am not sure where to begin with the
c++ world. I know there are quick starts, demo's, etc. However, for a
language with a much longer history has too have some
lessons/walkthroughs/demos/etc that someone with experience feels are must
do's. Was curios of a couple. I am much more interested in apps that play
on different os' (interoperibility), and I have more use for ones that use
the web. Would love any ideas on directions.
thanks
ian

--
_____________________________
ian laurin
"Ted Nicols" wrote:
That's what I keep asking myself whenever develop in .NET. Is this a joke a
farse or just a bad dream?

..NET is slow, actually slow is just a polite word I can use in a newsgroup.

..NET is just a VM and as one it works very slowly, before and after JIT. I
don't understand why some people insist that a VM can be compared with
native code. I really feel sick, whenever compare native C++ code against
the same code ported to C#. I don't know what is the performance loss with
databases or corporate solutions but my math/CAE functions run times slower
in .NET.

Managed code might be fast enough for enterprise apps, database front ends
or asp intranets. It probably looks fast to Java or VB developers but what
about real time applications?

What about CAD, CAE, CAM, scientific applications, utilities, math, imaging,
desktop publishing etc. What should developers who write such applications
must do ? Port them into UNIX ?

What happened to the rule i knew twenty years ago? "Next version of anything
should be at least faster and more stable than the previous one"

I have many questions for MS developers, although I'm sure nobody will ever
answer.

1. Is .NET just an approach to enterprise development?

2. Or another battle with Sun's Java

3. Or an MS conclusion that performance doesn't matter any more

4. If .NET was slow for WinFS, Office or Longhorn then why we have to
believe that is fast for our own applications?

5. If Microsoft want a new API why that must be based on VM technology?

6. Why MS call .NET a "safe" framework, safe from what? Safe from hackers, I
don't thin so, they can write anything they want in unmanaged code. Safe
from mem leaks, a garbage collector doesn't make good programmers or safe
applications. I still wonder what "safe" means.

7. Winforms1 will become obsolete because of WF2. WF2 will become obsolete
because of Avalon. Then why they introduced them? Just to have something
that hides Win32/GDI calls?

8. Longhorn drivers, kernel and anything "low-level" will be written in
native code. LH must run in 64bit processors too, so native code must be
natively compiled in 64bit API calls. That means Win32 will become Win64.
Why MS don't simply implement WinFX as an OO frontend to Win32/64 API,
leaving out the VM?

9. Mr Gates, why all that brain wash? You can fool some enterprise
programmers but not the rest of us who used to hand-optimise our code, just
to gain speed.

Finally, a single word question to all those bright scientists who work for
MS, Why ?

Please don't try to change my opinion, you cannot. By the way I'm not one of
those stupid guys who use to call Microsoft as M$. Me and all my colleagues
use Microsoft development tools since 1982 and we all know what exactly are
JIT, VM and native compiler.

I really like .NET/WinFX as a library and C# as a modern language, but I
feel sick with all that waste of processing power and lack of performance.

Regards

Ted Nicols

Jul 22 '05 #69

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

1 post views Thread by Alexander Ross | last post: by
4 posts views Thread by Matt Horsey | last post: by
68 posts views Thread by Ted Nicols | last post: by
23 posts views Thread by Skybuck Flying | last post: by
reply views Thread by suresh191 | last post: by
reply views Thread by Marylou17 | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.