 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail wrote:
> Ever seen anything written in C#?
Nope.
> VB.NET?
Not knowingly.
> Ever seen any website with .aspx pages?
Ah. *That* I have seen.
(I thought ASP was some kind of scripting language. I didn't realise it
had anything to do with .NET.)
>> Maybe .NET code is just less "visible" somehow?
>
> .Net isn't a language.
Well true, but even so, you don't often hear somebody say "hey, I'm
working on this thing written in C#..."
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:48f0c180$1@news.povray.org...
> Gail wrote:
>
>> Ever seen anything written in C#?
>
> Nope.
The job market in the UK must be very different it both here and US.
Probably close to half of the programming jobs I see these days ask for C#.
Thing with .net is that if you're working on a machines that has the .net
framework installed (and I believe everything past XP does by default), you
won't know that you're running a .net app. It's not like Java where you can
see the VM running in task manager (or sometimes have a popup in the task
bar). That's how it's supposed to be. It's supposed to be seamless and to
not bother the end user with anything they don't need to know.
I know your machine has .net on because we've had conversations before on
free C# compilers and I recall you finding the framework folder.
>> Ever seen any website with .aspx pages?
>
> Ah. *That* I have seen.
>
> (I thought ASP was some kind of scripting language. I didn't realise it
> had anything to do with .NET.)
It's a server-side dynamic page setup like php. It uses the .net framework
on the server. .aspx pages are asp.net, pages with just the .asp extension
are the older-style asp (active server pages)
ASP.NET pages are written in one of the .net languages, most commonly C# or
VB)
> Well true, but even so, you don't often hear somebody say "hey, I'm
> working on this thing written in C#..."
>
Most of the developers I know personally work in C#. I'd put it up with
Java, php, perl and C++ for popularity and usage, and that's not just
hobbyist.
It's far more used than VB or delphi. (and most VB these days is VB.NET
anyway)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:48f0bcf5$1@news.povray.org...
> (I've also seen people talk about Java and various other languages, but
> nobody seems to ever talk about .NET. That, however, might just be a
> result of the people I happen to listen to...)
I often get the impression that you are indeed mixing with the wrong crowd.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> I often get the impression that you are indeed mixing with the wrong crowd.
I hang out here don't I? :-P
Only kidding guys! ;-)
...guys? Uh, no really, I was joking!... guys? o_O
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:25:31 +0200, "Gail" <gail (at) sql in the wild (dot) co
[dot] za> wrote:
>The job market in the UK must be very different it both here and US.
>Probably close to half of the programming jobs I see these days ask for C#.
Probably not I just ran a search on jobserve for "programming c# england" and
got 117 hits for the last 7 days. "programming c++ England" gave 59 and
"programming +haskell England" gave none.
Heigh! Ho!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> "Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:48f0bcf5$1@news.povray.org...
>
> > (I've also seen people talk about Java and various other languages, but
> > nobody seems to ever talk about .NET. That, however, might just be a
> > result of the people I happen to listen to...)
>
> I often get the impression that you are indeed mixing with the wrong crowd.
Yes. Join us... *voice from Evil Dead*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Attwood" <tim### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
> "Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
> news:48efacfa$1@news.povray.org...
> > Today somebody posted a message anouncing an alpha release of a Haskell to
> > .NET bridge. Somebody reponded with "wow, great work! This could be a real
> > game changer."
> >
> > I can't help but feel I've missed something important here...
> >
> > Since when is .NET actually important? AFAIK, absolutely nobody on Earth
> > actually uses it for any purpose whatsoever. So... why would having a
> > bridge to it be of any signifigance? What am I not seeing here??
>
> Hasn't Simon Peyton Jones has been working for MS?
> http://www.dotnetrocks.com/default.aspx?showNum=310
Hasn't everyone been working for MS?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail wrote:
> The job market in the UK must be very different it both here and US.
> Probably close to half of the programming jobs I see these days ask for C#.
Most of the jobs I've seen can be roughly classified thus:
- We program toasters (so we want C).
- We write "serious" applications (so we want C or maybe C++).
- We write "custom business applications" (so we want VB / VBA or maybe
Java).
- We write web applications, so we want JavaScript / Perl / PHP.
> Thing with .net is that if you're working on a machines that has the
> .net framework installed (and I believe everything past XP does by
> default), you won't know that you're running a .net app. It's not like
> Java where you can see the VM running in task manager (or sometimes have
> a popup in the task bar). That's how it's supposed to be. It's supposed
> to be seamless and to not bother the end user with anything they don't
> need to know.
"Everything past XP" meaning "only the latest bleeding edge OS that
nobody is using yet"?
Anyway, I know that the .NET framework is an absolutely *huge* download
and it takes hours to install. I know this because we have _one_ obscure
application at work which demands .NET 1.1 be installed. This takes many
times longer than installing the application itself. (Roughly 45 minutes
or so of HD thrashing.)
> I know your machine has .net on because we've had conversations before
> on free C# compilers and I recall you finding the framework folder.
I don't recall that conversation, but anyway... my PC has never had it
until now. (It has it *now* because I just installed MS Visual Studio,
and the first thing it does is install this unwanted component.)
>> (I thought ASP was some kind of scripting language. I didn't realise
>> it had anything to do with .NET.)
>
> It's a server-side dynamic page setup like php. It uses the .net
> framework on the server. .aspx pages are asp.net, pages with just the
> .asp extension are the older-style asp (active server pages)
> ASP.NET pages are written in one of the .net languages, most commonly C#
> or VB)
Well aren't you a mine of information? :-D
> Most of the developers I know personally work in C#. I'd put it up with
> Java, php, perl and C++ for popularity and usage, and that's not just
> hobbyist.
> It's far more used than VB or delphi. (and most VB these days is VB.NET
> anyway)
Isn't Delphi also long since dead? I haven't even heard its name
mentioned in years...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Gail wrote:
> > It's far more used than VB or delphi. (and most VB these days is VB.NET
> > anyway)
>
> Isn't Delphi also long since dead? I haven't even heard its name
> mentioned in years...
Delphi is alive because old apps written in it still need support. But, yes,
ever since Microsoft grabbed *the* Delphi team to work on .NET, Borland the
company has been slowly dying a painful death, like most companies screwed by
Microsoft practices.
But hey, they are a great company with great products and consumers are just
happy, as long as all the dirt is underneath the carpet and out of view.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:48f0f92f@news.povray.org...
>
> Most of the jobs I've seen can be roughly classified thus:
>
> - We program toasters (so we want C).
> - We write "serious" applications (so we want C or maybe C++).
> - We write "custom business applications" (so we want VB / VBA or maybe
> Java).
Most of that that I see is C#/VB.Net/Java
> - We write web applications, so we want JavaScript / Perl / PHP.
Or ASP.Net
>
>> Thing with .net is that if you're working on a machines that has the .net
>> framework installed (and I believe everything past XP does by default),
>> you won't know that you're running a .net app. It's not like Java where
>> you can see the VM running in task manager (or sometimes have a popup in
>> the task bar). That's how it's supposed to be. It's supposed to be
>> seamless and to not bother the end user with anything they don't need to
>> know.
>
> "Everything past XP" meaning "only the latest bleeding edge OS that nobody
> is using yet"?
I think it was included in one of the XP service packs. XP RTM didn't, but
I'm sure SP1 or SP2 included .net framework
Oh, and from your second statement, I didn't realise my name had been
changed. Hi, I'm nobody.
> Anyway, I know that the .NET framework is an absolutely *huge* download
> and it takes hours to install. I know this because we have _one_ obscure
> application at work which demands .NET 1.1 be installed. This takes many
> times longer than installing the application itself. (Roughly 45 minutes
> or so of HD thrashing.)
It's not as huge as people often make it out to be.
see http://smallestdotnet.com
You'll have to use IE for that site, as firefox doesn't expose the .net
framework version. Dunno about other chrome, safari, opera and others
> I don't recall that conversation, but anyway... my PC has never had it
> until now. (It has it *now* because I just installed MS Visual Studio, and
> the first thing it does is install this unwanted component.)
I'm pretty sure it did. VS has to install the sdk, but I'm willing to bet
you had the runtime long before that.
>> It's a server-side dynamic page setup like php. It uses the .net
>> framework on the server. .aspx pages are asp.net, pages with just the
>> .asp extension are the older-style asp (active server pages)
>> ASP.NET pages are written in one of the .net languages, most commonly C#
>> or VB)
>
> Well aren't you a mine of information? :-D
I used to be a web developer.
> Isn't Delphi also long since dead? I haven't even heard its name mentioned
> in years...
>
One of my best friends has a job coding in it, so no. It's not as popular as
it used to be though.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:48f0f92f@news.povray.org...
> Isn't Delphi also long since dead? I haven't even heard its name
> mentioned in years...
No computer language ever dies a dignified death. Very few serious projects
are being started in Delphi, but people still use it (or are stuck using it)
and CodeGear just released a new version. Oh, and Delphi does .NET.
Ironically, while very few people use it, Delphi is arguably the most
suitable/supported platform remaining right now for native W32 application
development.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> - We write "custom business applications" (so we want VB / VBA or
>> maybe Java).
>
> Most of that that I see is C#/VB.Net/Java
Heh. I've just been looking at some people who are willing to pay "£20k
- £30k per year" for an "Excel specialist". Basically somebody who knows
how to use VBA to make Excel "analyse complex sales bonus structures".
Whatever the hell that means...
I guess some of the guys who want "VB" actually mean VB.NET...
>> - We write web applications, so we want JavaScript / Perl / PHP.
>
> Or ASP.Net
Yeah, quite possibly.
>> "Everything past XP" meaning "only the latest bleeding edge OS that
>> nobody is using yet"?
>
> I think it was included in one of the XP service packs. XP RTM didn't,
> but I'm sure SP1 or SP2 included .net framework
I'm fairly sure SP1 predates the existence of .NET; but it might have
been in SP2. (There's an SP3 now isn't there?)
> Oh, and from your second statement, I didn't realise my name had been
> changed. Hi, I'm nobody.
*sigh* Already, _almost_ nobody. Happy now? :-P
>> I don't recall that conversation, but anyway... my PC has never had it
>> until now. (It has it *now* because I just installed MS Visual Studio,
>> and the first thing it does is install this unwanted component.)
>
> I'm pretty sure it did. VS has to install the sdk, but I'm willing to
> bet you had the runtime long before that.
Then why did Windows Update keep offering to install it?
>> Isn't Delphi also long since dead? I haven't even heard its name
>> mentioned in years...
>
> One of my best friends has a job coding in it, so no. It's not as
> popular as it used to be though.
Sort of like the way there's still a small market for COBOL?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> I think you misspelled: It's spelled Haskell, not .NET.
Nice burn! :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Now there's an interesting question. Is Haskell rarer than .NET?
Just so you know, every web page you see that ends in .aspx is .NET. In
case you didn't realize that.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Maybe .NET code is just less "visible" somehow?
Yes, because (on Windows at least) it works so seamlessly that you can
install and use .NET programs and not even know they're written using
.NET. The Java folks like to crow about how great their Java stuff is,
because it's so hard to get it installed and working you give them extra
brownie points for the pain of it. </troll> ;-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>
> Yes, because (on Windows at least) it works so seamlessly that you can
> install and use .NET programs and not even know they're written using
> .NET.
...assuming you already have the correct .NET framework version
installed. If you'll need to install one first, you really should
realize that the program is using .NET ;).
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Yes, because (on Windows at least) it works so seamlessly that you can
>> install and use .NET programs and not even know they're written using
>> .NET.
>
> ...assuming you already have the correct .NET framework version
> installed. If you'll need to install one first, you really should
> realize that the program is using .NET ;).
Exactly. I have only ever had to install the .NET framework for two
applications. There's an obscure program at work that uses it, and when
I recently installed Visual Studio it demanded it. Other than that, I've
never come across any program that requires is.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:48f122b4$1@news.povray.org...
>> I'm pretty sure it did. VS has to install the sdk, but I'm willing to bet
>> you had the runtime long before that.
>
> Then why did Windows Update keep offering to install it?
>
Because you didn't have the latest version? (which is 3.5 SP1)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> never come across any program that requires is.
Many programs will install it automatically without really asking, if
you're installing off a CD or so. There are bunches of cheapish
commercial programs (in the $10-$20 range) that make use of it. So you
may have installed it and not even known it.
Of course, the real beneficial area is web stuff. They did a pretty nice
job there.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
