Darren New wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Well, then you're just saying web browsers are being ported to lots of
>> platforms...
> 
> Right. And web browsers nowadays have javascript built in. You got it! So
> C and C++ aren't the only languages common on lots of platforms including
> the
> embedded ones. :-)  Altho on platforms with no UI at all, I'll grant you
> javascript is less likely to be there than C.

I know of at least one lynx-like web browser with Javascript support :)

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> I know of at least one lynx-like web browser with Javascript support :)

Lynx has a UI. :-) "Without UI" means things like anti-lock brake computers.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

>> hell you like, because it only needs to run on one PC. And if you're
>> writing end-user applications... yes, probably C or C++, realistically.
> 
> I'd say, probably more and more C# these days. Again due to better tools
> available for easy money.

Really? Even though this then requires your customers to download 250MB 
of data and install it before they can use your program?

>> (Although, say, Wings 3D is Erlang or something isn't it?)
> 
> Yep.

I get Wings, Blender and all those others confused quite frequently. 
Must have been a lucky guess. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Really? Even though this then requires your customers to download 250MB 
> of data and install it before they can use your program?

Most machines already have it by now. "Really? People use Linux? Even tho it 
requires downloading...?"  Yes, really. If it's a problem, you put it on a CD.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

>> Really? Even though this then requires your customers to download 
>> 250MB of data and install it before they can use your program?
> 
> Most machines already have it by now. "Really? People use Linux? Even 
> tho it requires downloading...?"  Yes, really. If it's a problem, you 
> put it on a CD.

All I know is that we used to use one bit of software that required the 
.NET 1.1 runtime, which basically meant you had to wait 25 to 30 minutes 
for the runtime to install before you could install the actual program 
itself (which took about 3 minutes to install). I always wondered why 
the hell anybody would develop software this way...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> All I know is that we used to use one bit of software that required the 
> .NET 1.1 runtime,

So the fact they're up to 3.5.x doesn't signal that maybe something 
different is going on nowadays?  Damn, if everyone using Linux or something 
said "Gee, when I tried it 5 years ago, it was a PITA to install, so I never 
looked at it again" it never would have gotten off the ground.

.NET comes with Windows nowadays. If you don't have it on there already, 
chances are you don't have an internet connection fast enough to download a 
program, either.

> which basically meant you had to wait 25 to 30 minutes 
> for the runtime to install 

Wouldn't it have made more sense to put it on a CD and install it?

> before you could install the actual program 
> itself (which took about 3 minutes to install). I always wondered why 
> the hell anybody would develop software this way...

Because you only have to do it once, and it's a pretty nice infrastructure.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

>> All I know is that we used to use one bit of software that required 
>> the .NET 1.1 runtime,
> 
> So the fact they're up to 3.5.x doesn't signal that maybe something 
> different is going on nowadays?  Damn, if everyone using Linux or 
> something said "Gee, when I tried it 5 years ago, it was a PITA to 
> install, so I never looked at it again" it never would have gotten off 
> the ground.
> 
> .NET comes with Windows nowadays. If you don't have it on there already, 
> chances are you don't have an internet connection fast enough to 
> download a program, either.

Really? That's interesting. So how do you explain the fact that I keep 
having to manually install it?

Oh, wait - you probably meant it comes with Vista.

>> which basically meant you had to wait 25 to 30 minutes for the runtime 
>> to install 
> 
> Wouldn't it have made more sense to put it on a CD and install it?

I *did*.

The 25 to 30 minutes was just thrashing the HD back and forth.

>> I always wondered why the hell anybody would 
>> develop software this way...
> 
> Because you only have to do it once, and it's a pretty nice infrastructure.

In other words, it makes things easier for the developers, not the end 
users.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>> .NET comes with Windows nowadays.

> Oh, wait - you probably meant it comes with Vista.

That's pretty much what "nowadays" means, yes. Sure, if you're running an OS 
version that was released before .NET was, it makes it hard to come with.

> The 25 to 30 minutes was just thrashing the HD back and forth.

You just like complaining, don't you? :-)

> In other words, it makes things easier for the developers, not the end 
> users.

For both, really. Indeed, that's what the whole "one click" fiasco is about. 
And you get less malware and unexplained lockups when the software you're 
running is written in .NET, because it's checking for buffer overruns and such.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

>>> .NET comes with Windows nowadays.
> 
>> Oh, wait - you probably meant it comes with Vista.
> 
> That's pretty much what "nowadays" means, yes.

Does *anybody* use Vista yet? Still seems pretty rare.

> Sure, if you're running 
> an OS version that was released before .NET was, it makes it hard to 
> come with.

I thought maybe you were claiming that it was added by one of the 
service packs or something. (The Windows Firewall didn't exist before 
SP2, for example.)

>> The 25 to 30 minutes was just thrashing the HD back and forth.
> 
> You just like complaining, don't you? :-)

The Java runtime takes, like 2 minutes _maximum_ to install. Only the 
.NET framework takes 25 minutes.

>> In other words, it makes things easier for the developers, not the end 
>> users.
> 
> For both, really. Indeed, that's what the whole "one click" fiasco is 
> about. And you get less malware and unexplained lockups when the 
> software you're running is written in .NET, because it's checking for 
> buffer overruns and such.

Assuming there's no buffer overruns in the runtime engine itself. (I 
notice how as soon as I install .NET, a whole bunch of extra hotfixes 
show up as needing to be applied...)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Does *anybody* use Vista yet? Still seems pretty rare.

  How many new PCs (desktop and laptops) are sold each year?

  In how many of those PCs is Vista installed by default? How many buyers
simply accept the fact (either because they want Vista or because they
don't know too much about computers) and go with the purchase?

  The vast majority of Vistas out there are not because people using XP
would go out and buy Vista to upgrade their system. The vast majority is
because Vista is installed by default on all new PCs (without even asking
the customer). It's not really a choice for most people (especially those
who know little about computers).

  (This is, btw, why Steve Ballmer bragging about how Vista is the second
most popular OS in the world is so irritating. Yes, it's the second most
widely installed OS, but not by customer choice! It's the salesman who
makes the choice for the customer. The popularity is not correlated to
any quality merit Vista might have.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message