http://ersan.us/src/bnetdocs/ or http://ersan.us/src/bnetdocs-112906.zip

[quote author=Crafty Craft Mc Pot link=topic=16476.msg166710#msg166710 date=1173818281]
Sounds to me that this kid wants to make a battle.net bot and also leach a source..,[/quote]
No, it doesn't...  stop being an asshole for no reason.

And I don't know what you mean by 'supported', but vb6 is supported by Microsoft until 2008.  I'm not particularly fond of the slow, bloated .NET framework, so I would prefer VB6 to VB.NET (not that I use either of them any more).

[quote author=Ersan link=topic=16476.msg166714#msg166714 date=1173820330]
I'm not particularly fond of the slow, bloated .NET framework
[/quote]

Die. Also the word bloat refers to something that takes up unnecessary space. What in the .NET Framework does this?

The whole framework and all the programs compiled to work with it. Write a program in VB.NET 2005, and make an equivalent program in PowerBasic. I guarantee you the PB one will be tiny. Anywhere from 1/3 to 1/50 the size. That's uncompressed. PB also uses no required frameworks or DLL's (aside from API's). The .NET framework is a huge bulk of a requirement itself, as well.

And I'm not talking about MS support, I'm talking about the industry. Try finding a programming job for VB6 other than menial freelance work.

Scrap using VB, PB, RB, whatever.  Learn C#.NET.  Last time I checked .NET developers are getting paid well.

If you want to be zealous about not using .NET because it's "Microsoft" or because it's slower compared to native code, then so be it.

If you care about what's bringing in the $$$ then .NET is the way to go... at least for now.

[img]http://i9.tinypic.com/4dgov1w.gif[/img]
For starters.

We're all entitled to our opinions.  I really did like .NET 1.0/1.1, 2.0 and 3.0 are just too slow, seems like its going downhill.

[quote author=Ersan link=topic=16476.msg166743#msg166743 date=1173842058]
[img]http://i9.tinypic.com/4dgov1w.gif[/img]
For starters.

We're all entitled to our opinions.  I really did like .NET 1.0/1.1, 2.0 and 3.0 are just too slow, seems like its going downhill.
[/quote]

You showed a few numbers, what does that mean? Is it the size? If so you still need to justify bloat. Being big in size does not mean its bloated, bloat means it's full of unecessary things.


.NET 2.0 is a huge improvement over .NET 1.1. You'll probably need to provide some sort of comparison of how much slower and some articles to back up your points.

Also .NET 3.0 is .NET 2.0 with "WinFX" which consists of the new Windows Vista developer platforms (Which were backported to XP)

@Reality: What's so different from downloading the C++ runtimes than downloading the .NET Framework?

Size isn't everything, in fact it has little or nothing to do with it. The bigger size is due to the .NET App being compiled into MSIL then JITed at runtime. This also contributes to the slight performance decreases.

I think it's a reasonable tradeoff for the amount of flexibility and security (codewise) you get from Managed applications.

Size is a very important issue. I was on dial up for my entire life until last Thursday. Downloading 60 megs for requirements would rule out using ANY software written in .NET languages. As I said, try using PowerBasic. It only uses Windows APIs, and has no other runtime requirements. It also compiles to nearly the same size as well written C code.

I don't care how many things are included in the framework, it's too damn big, and leaves no room for only having what you need. It has lots of things in it that many people will NEVER NEED TO USE. The fact that it's all in one big package makes it bloated. Separate DLL's allow you to select what you need and what you don't need, and a good programmer can make his program run off just standard API's, with no extra requirements.

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=16476.msg166791#msg166791 date=1173967468]
.NET 2.0 is a huge improvement over .NET 1.1. You'll probably need to provide some sort of comparison of how much slower and some articles to back up your points.[/quote]
Sure,
http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=146720
http://www.codeproject.com/useritems/CSharpBenchmark.asp (recently deleted)
http://blogs.smartz.com/index.php/archives/78 (reference to deleted benchmark)
These references are sketchy, obviously - I speak from experience not theoretical benchmarks.

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=16476.msg166791#msg166791 date=1173967468]Also .NET 3.0 is .NET 2.0 with "WinFX" which consists of the new Windows Vista developer platforms (Which were backported to XP)[/quote]
I'm aware...

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=16476.msg166791#msg166791 date=1173967468]@Reality: What's so different from downloading the C++ runtimes than downloading the .NET Framework? [/quote]
Don't use VC++ then...

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=16476.msg166791#msg166791 date=1173967468]Size isn't everything, in fact it has little or nothing to do with it. The bigger size is due to the .NET App being compiled into MSIL then JITed at runtime. This also contributes to the slight performance decreases.[/quote]
That's the main problem, the first time an app is run it has to compile the code (and I assume it cache's the opcode version of the program or similar) - This is also why Java sucks, which is what .NET is turning into, only it isn't even multiplatform.

[quote author=Warrior link=topic=16476.msg166791#msg166791 date=1173967468]I think it's a reasonable tradeoff for the amount of flexibility and security (codewise) you get from Managed applications. [/quote]
Well, I don't.  I think it's a downhill trend of programming laziness that sacrifices performance for simplicity.

[quote author=Ersan link=topic=16476.msg166815#msg166815 date=1173998765]
[quote author=Warrior link=topic=16476.msg166791#msg166791 date=1173967468]
.NET 2.0 is a huge improvement over .NET 1.1. You'll probably need to provide some sort of comparison of how much slower and some articles to back up your points.[/quote]
Sure,
http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=146720
[/quote]

From that same article:
"All these versions of Linpack benchmark are not well optimized (ex. not blocked) and do not exploit potential performance of runtimes/platforms"

You're experience is irrelevant, since you cannot accurately benchmark them.

[quote author=Ersan link=topic=16476.msg166815#msg166815 date=1173998765]
Don't use VC++ then...
[/quote]

Why don't we all just revert back to assembly to get the small performance increase. The majority of us don't because it's a step backwards in productivity.

[quote author=Ersan link=topic=16476.msg166815#msg166815 date=1173998765]
That's the main problem, the first time an app is run it has to compile the code (and I assume it cache's the opcode version of the program or similar) - This is also why Java sucks, which is what .NET is turning into, only it isn't even multiplatform.
[/quote]

.NET is multiplatform. Not only do Mono and DotGnu exist, but Microsoft released the CLR under a shared source license.

[quote author=Ersan link=topic=16476.msg166815#msg166815 date=1173998765]
[quote author=Warrior link=topic=16476.msg166791#msg166791 date=1173967468]I think it's a reasonable tradeoff for the amount of flexibility and security (codewise) you get from Managed applications. [/quote]
Well, I don't.  I think it's a downhill trend of programming laziness that sacrifices performance for simplicity.
[/quote]

No, we're sacraficing performance(slightly I might add) for increased productivity and flexibility.
It's a reasonable tradeoff that many are able to do. If you don't like it that's your opinion.

Regardless, until you can provide a concrete example of where .NET2 is a significant performance decrease over .NET1/1.1 or unless you can provide that it impacts performance to the point where it stagnates productivity, then all your accusations are just your observations and speculation.

I think you'd be kidding yourself if you said .NET was multiplatform. Mono isn't there yet, and dotGNU is kind of a joke (I really don't like the FSF guys...)

[quote author=Banana fanna fo fanna link=topic=16476.msg166834#msg166834 date=1174092829]
I think you'd be kidding yourself if you said .NET was multiplatform. Mono isn't there yet, and dotGNU is kind of a joke (I really don't like the FSF guys...)
[/quote]

Hey, they released their CLR under a shared source license, if no one else wants to port it that's not their problem. You can't expect something like .NET which contains so many classes to do so many things to work out of the box with another OS. They released the key part that is needed, you just need to build around that.

[quote author=Banana fanna fo fanna link=topic=16476.msg166834#msg166834 date=1174092829]
I think you'd be kidding yourself if you said .NET was multiplatform. Mono isn't there yet, and dotGNU is kind of a joke (I really don't like the FSF guys...)
[/quote]

I'm not sure which version of mono you're talking about, but to say that the most recent release (1.2) or the SVN version "isn't there yet" doesn't make sense to me. 
Take a look at the .NET 2.0 Class status.  Almost all the assemblies are marked as >90% completed. 1.1 Support is even better, including a practically complete Windows.Forms implementation.

In my experience, mono has handled everything I've thrown at it.

[quote author=Sorc.Polgara link=topic=16476.msg166728#msg166728 date=1173832991]
Scrap using VB, PB, RB, whatever.  Learn C#.NET.  Last time I checked .NET developers are getting paid well.

If you want to be zealous about not using .NET because it's "Microsoft" or because it's slower compared to native code, then so be it.

If you care about what's bringing in the $$$ then .NET is the way to go... at least for now.
[/quote]

Yeah, C# 2 is far superior to any language I've ever used before.

that's a pretty poor reason to pursue learning something, if you're advising someone.

Learn what you want, learn what you're comfortable with, just learn something that has a place in the real world.
I don't centralize myself to "MS" only either. "zomg .Net gets paid well LOL I rule my epeen will be bigger than yours" -- that's basically what you're saying.
Sure, there's a benefit to learning MS, but there's a benefit to learning anything that has a place in the real world.
I guarantee you you'll thank yourself later if you assess your education and career goals based on what you're passionate for, rather than what makes you more money.
It's just pretty standard thought "but if I make more money, my lifestyle will be the same as when I lived at home" or some similar thoughts.
What's more important? Waking up every morning wanting to be emo and slit your wrists, or wake up every morning and doing what you love, what you truly know you enjoy?
I'm learning everything I can.  Everything I can put on my resume for a job counts.  Everything I can use to further my position in my career in a company counts.
Also, flexibility and productivity on .NET vs others is arguable.  That's opinion, don't espouse it as fact.  Everything so far is highly situational and circumstantial.
Pft @ simplicity.

Its sad when this topic was started about someone trying to make a bot, not to make a career outta programming but to leech a source and make a bot and yet he was trying to use .net with vb6 source because he didn't know the differnce, even stated he also tried opening up greet bot which is a C++ in .net and some how this FULL topic got thrown over to what compilers better? what's a better language to use for carreer purposes. when this topic should have been trashed from the start because it has nothing to do with languages, when he doesn't even know what a language is. he probley downloaded the first thing he saw on microsoft.com which infact is what he has the 2005 edition.

even if he posted about somewhere else, how it making your first program a "bot" make you think hes even close to wanting to be using a language as a carreer specially when he doesn't know what a language is?

my opinion to go with your off-topic discussion would be, for carreer purposes,

all of C derivatives, including C#, C++, Object-C, and even plain old vanilla C
all of .NET derivatives including C#, VB.NET, ASP.NET, ADO.NET
Java/HTML/PHP/CSS/PERL/PYTHLON

Web Developing is a big thing.. That's what i should have got into before learning other languages. I'd perfer to know HTML/PHP ect.. over C++ nowa days with things i need to do. :P

What's stopping you?

Now that im older, I don't have the time to be hanging around learning new languages, I try slowly, but as you can see in "web development forum", I have a bussniess to run and i can't even get that site up :P well i probley could, but it would be the uglyiest thing anyones ever seen!

[quote author=cefx- link=topic=16476.msg166848#msg166848 date=1174163355]
that's a pretty poor reason to pursue learning something, if you're advising someone.
[/quote]Not really advising.  Just stating what the market is looking like right now, or was looking like (demand could have changed a bit, more or less since I last checked).

Really, I've seen so many declared CS majors go in it to the major for all the wrong reasons.  Money and jobs being one of the top reasons.  Of course they end up changing majors b/c they can't cut it math and programming wise.

[quote author=Joe[x86] link=topic=16476.msg166845#msg166845 date=1174161778]
Yeah, C# 2 is far superior to any language I've ever used before.
[/quote]

Either you're being sarcastic or you're a dumbass.  Probably both.

I guess the bottom line is if you're writing windowed applications for use on windows only, then the VS2005 IDE and one of the .NET languages is probably a good idea.  If you aren't, use a more efficient language.  I haven't written anything like that in awhile, or had the need to.  And in my personal opinion that target is way too specific.

And the performance benefits of pure ASM or C over C#.NET are not 'slight' - I would hope nobody's deluded enough to believe that.  Again if you're writing a windowed application for the windows platform performance probably isn't a major concern.  Not my line of work by any means.

[quote author=Ersan link=topic=16476.msg166876#msg166876 date=1174216072]
[quote author=Joe[x86] link=topic=16476.msg166845#msg166845 date=1174161778]
Yeah, C# 2 is far superior to any language I've ever used before.
[/quote]

Either you're being sarcastic or you're a dumbass.  Probably both.
[/quote]

Or maybe that's the opinion he's entitled to

[quote author=Ersan link=topic=16476.msg166876#msg166876 date=1174216072].
I guess the bottom line is if you're writing windowed applications for use on windows only, then the VS2005 IDE and one of the .NET languages is probably a good idea.  If you aren't, use a more efficient language.  I haven't written anything like that in awhile, or had the need to.  And in my personal opinion that target is way too specific.
[/quote]

I've written libraries, even 3D Libraries in .NET. It doesn't get more performance intensive than that. I havn't had any noticeable FPS loss when compared to a game written in a non managed language. Plus, it's benefits are largely noticeable in how fast I can develop something useful.

[quote author=Ersan link=topic=16476.msg166876#msg166876 date=1174216072]
And the performance benefits of pure ASM or C over C#.NET are not 'slight' - I would hope nobody's deluded enough to believe that.
[/quote]

Sure they are. When writing assembly, you're trying to beat a nonmanaged language compiler and all of it's optimizations. The same goes for the .NET CLR and the optimizations it takes into account while JITing MSIL. You can go ahead and take a step backwards in productivity for minimal speed improvements.

No.  Anyways this discussion is way off topic and pointless, I'm done.

Where'd the first half of this thread go, I certainly didn't start it...