I forgot to add one thing: executable code size.

I wrote a little app that uses C# and DirectX, just a simple physics-based 
"game" with a few connected bodies controlled by the keyboard and an RK4 
integrator.  The result is drawn on the screen in a window.  The generated 
.exe is 23KB - I couldn't believe it and had to copy it to my other PC to 
check it actually worked.  Nowadays I guess it doesn't matter if your file 
is 23KB or 2.3MB, but still I thought it was cool how small it was.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> The generated .exe is 23KB - I couldn't believe it and had to copy it to
> my other PC to check it actually worked.

Why wouldn't it work? Because it is a 23KB app but actually depending on a
huge library on your PC where most of the code would be?

Guess what, it is, and the other PC had it as well ;)

Post a reply to this message

>> The generated .exe is 23KB - I couldn't believe it and had to copy it to
>> my other PC to check it actually worked.
>
> Why wouldn't it work?

IME (from Borland and older MS C++ compilers) when a compiler generates a 
GUI-based .exe as small as that something is usually missing that nobody 
without the compiler would have installed.

> Because it is a 23KB app but actually depending on a
> huge library on your PC where most of the code would be?
>
> Guess what, it is, and the other PC had it as well ;)

I'm sure in the "old days" I was generating several MB .exe files to be 
redistributed, now it seems finally they are putting *just* the code you 
wrote in the .exe, and everything else is assumed to be installed already 
(ie the .net runtime).  It makes it much more efficient to distribute, 
especially when there are frequent updates.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>>> The generated .exe is 23KB - I couldn't believe it and had to copy it to
>>> my other PC to check it actually worked.
>>
>> Why wouldn't it work?
> 
> IME (from Borland and older MS C++ compilers) when a compiler generates a
> GUI-based .exe as small as that something is usually missing that nobody
> without the compiler would have installed.
> 
>> Because it is a 23KB app but actually depending on a
>> huge library on your PC where most of the code would be?
>>
>> Guess what, it is, and the other PC had it as well ;)
> 
> I'm sure in the "old days" I was generating several MB .exe files to be
> redistributed, now it seems finally they are putting *just* the code you
> wrote in the .exe, and everything else is assumed to be installed already
> (ie the .net runtime).  It makes it much more efficient to distribute,
> especially when there are frequent updates.

I don't see the difference. Before, you needed the Borland Runtime. Now you
need .NET.

Post a reply to this message

> I don't see the difference. Before, you needed the Borland Runtime. Now 
> you
> need .NET.

Most people have the .net runtime, whereas most people do not have the 
Borland runtime.

It's like the difference between sending someone an obscure document format 
(and telling them where to get the reader from) or just sending them a PDF. 
Technically you need a reader too for PDF, but almost everyone has it 
already, so it's much more convenient.

Post a reply to this message

>> I don't see the difference. Before, you needed the Borland Runtime. 
>> Now you need .NET.
> 
> Most people have the .net runtime, whereas most people do not have the 
> Borland runtime.
> 
> It's like the difference between sending someone an obscure document 
> format (and telling them where to get the reader from) or just sending 
> them a PDF. Technically you need a reader too for PDF, but almost 
> everyone has it already, so it's much more convenient.

Where does this "everybody has the .NET runtime" myth come from?

My PC didn't have the .NET runtime. (If I hadn't installed VisualStudio, 
it still wouldn't have it.) My brand new Vista laptop still doesn't have 
the .NET runtime. My mum's PC doesn't have the .NET runtime. My 
grandparents' PC doesn't have the .NET runtime. My dad's two Windows PCs 
don't have the .NET runtime. And the 35 PCs at work didn't have the .NET 
runtime either until we rolled out some app which actually needed it. 
(We deployed it via Windows Update Server.)

So who is this "everybody" who already has the .NET runtime then?

Post a reply to this message

> Where does this "everybody has the .NET runtime" myth come from?

The only people who don't have it are those that still have XP, have not 
installed all the Windows Upates, and have never installed a program that 
needed the .net runtime.  It can't be that many compared to the number of 
people without the Borland runtime :-)

> My brand new Vista laptop still doesn't have the .NET runtime.

Did you uninstall it somehow? Vista comes with .net 3.0.

Post a reply to this message

>> Where does this "everybody has the .NET runtime" myth come from?
> 
> The only people who don't have it are those that still have XP, have not 
> installed all the Windows Upates, and have never installed a program 
> that needed the .net runtime.  It can't be that many compared to the 
> number of people without the Borland runtime :-)

I would think the number of people with the .NET runtime *is* far, far 
larger than the Borland runtime. But still, I've yet to come across any 
PCs which have the .NET runtime "already". All the machines at work had 
to have it added, and my PC at home only has it because VS requires it 
for some reason.

I'm also pretty certain that the .NET runtime is *not* automatically 
installed by Windows Update. You can _request_ it from Windows Update, 
but it's listed as "optional software" rather than a required update. 
(Of course, updates to any version of the runtime you've already 
installed get added automatically. But not the runtime itself.)

And what do you mean "still have XP"? Last time I checked, virtually 
*everybody* is "still" using XP. (Except for the tiny few who bought a 
new PC recently.)

>> My brand new Vista laptop still doesn't have the .NET runtime.
> 
> Did you uninstall it somehow? Vista comes with .net 3.0.

I rephrase: The .NET runtime is not listed in add/remove programs. I 
presumed this to mean it isn't installed.

Post a reply to this message

> I'm also pretty certain that the .NET runtime is *not* automatically 
> installed by Windows Update. You can _request_ it from Windows Update, but 
> it's listed as "optional software" rather than a required update. (Of 
> course, updates to any version of the runtime you've already installed get 
> added automatically. But not the runtime itself.)

Oh ok I hadn't checked what category it came under, I just remember seeing 
it on my XP box a long time ago.

> And what do you mean "still have XP"? Last time I checked, virtually 
> *everybody* is "still" using XP. (Except for the tiny few who bought a new 
> PC recently.)

Recently I've seen a lot of people show up with Vista laptops, I guess most 
people get them replaced every few years so it's not surprising.  Anyway I 
kind of meant the original un-updated XP, the service pack updates include 
.net anyway.

BTW, according to Wikipedia 22% use Vista and 68% use XP, and you can guess 
which way both those numbers are heading...

> I rephrase: The .NET runtime is not listed in add/remove programs. I 
> presumed this to mean it isn't installed.

Ah ok, yes it *is* installed, but I assume you cannot uninstall it (because 
presumably some parts of Vista were written to make use of it).

Post a reply to this message

> Anyway I kind of meant the original un-updated XP, the service pack 
> updates include .net anyway.

I'm pretty sure this is incorrect too. The Windows Update server had to 
install SP3, reboot the PC and then install the .NET framework - which 
doesn't like a lot of sense if SP3 *includes* it.

> BTW, according to Wikipedia 22% use Vista and 68% use XP, and you can 
> guess which way both those numbers are heading...

Yes, I expect Vista usage to increase over time. (Or will it? Maybe 
everybody will just move to Windows 7?) My point is *today* few people 
use it.

>> I rephrase: The .NET runtime is not listed in add/remove programs. I 
>> presumed this to mean it isn't installed.
> 
> Ah ok, yes it *is* installed, but I assume you cannot uninstall it 
> (because presumably some parts of Vista were written to make use of it).

Interesting. So it's installed but just not listed? Is there a 
scientific way to confirm this?

I should have realised eventually I would have no choice in the matter...

Post a reply to this message