"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



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